Skip to comments.
Breaking: Pro-Life Rand Paul Wins by Landslide in Republican Primary in Kentucky
Catholic Online ^
| 5/19/10
| Deacon Keith Fournier
Posted on 05/18/2010 5:57:46 PM PDT by tcg
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-150 next last
To: EternalVigilance
Last I heard, Martin Luther didn't write any laws. Nor did he have anything to do with penning the Constitution.
You are slipping off on a tangent again.
121
posted on
05/20/2010 12:56:44 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: Dead Corpse
His main point is still valid, though. The same point made by St. Augustine, that “an unjust law is no law at all.” And this point is certainly applicable to this debate.
The Left, abetted by unprincipled politicians on the Right, are destroying the very basis for our laws, for our republic, and for our liberty: the assertion of the self-evident truth that: “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
122
posted on
05/20/2010 1:10:14 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: Dead Corpse
What is the basis of your political philosophy? On what is it founded? To what do you make reference to help determine the rightness of your public policy positions?
123
posted on
05/20/2010 1:12:01 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: EternalVigilance
But the law is the law and in order to have a sane society, those laws must apply.
You'd change a definition to change a law rather than patch the hole in the law.
124
posted on
05/20/2010 2:27:38 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: EternalVigilance
Self ownership.
And I do not pretend to make public policy.
You are the one attempting to run a political party whose members will make policy.
125
posted on
05/20/2010 2:28:36 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: Dead Corpse
Self ownership. That reveals more than you know.
The Founders of this free republic certainly didn't believe in "self-ownership." They believed in the sovereignty of the people, under the true sovereign, the One Who created them. {Hence their use of the word "unalienable" in regard to God-given rights. It was an explicit reference to European property law, in which ultimate ownership resided in, and remained with, the sovereign. While the property might be lent to you, you could not rightfully sell it, and no one could rightfully take it away from you.)
That's one of the reasons the battle cry of the American Revolution was "NO KING BUT JESUS!"
And I do not pretend to make public policy.
You're here advocating public policy, whether you will admit it or not, or whether you recognize it or not. And this exchange has received more than 1500 page views.
126
posted on
05/20/2010 2:49:46 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: Dead Corpse
You are the one attempting to run a political party whose members will make policy. The rights to advocate for my beliefs and to organize to implement them in public policy are part of my inheritance as a free American. I don't understand why you might have any problem with that.
127
posted on
05/20/2010 2:52:26 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: Dead Corpse
You'd change a definition to change a law rather than patch the hole in the law. I'm not the one changing definitions. As that great philospher Dr. Suess said:
Some things are simply self-evident.
128
posted on
05/20/2010 2:55:39 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: EternalVigilance
I'm not a Christian, so maybe your calls of Holy Mandate ring a bit hollow to me.
Another slogan popular during the time was "live free, or die". Not a very "Christian" sentiment. But then again, you digress the argument with yet another red herring.
129
posted on
05/20/2010 4:40:44 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: EternalVigilance
Why do you insist on spitting on the Constitution to get your way? Seems pretty self evident. Use the process, don’t corrupt it.
130
posted on
05/20/2010 4:41:35 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: EternalVigilance
Dr. Seuss had even less to do with the language in the USC than your Party does.
131
posted on
05/20/2010 4:42:25 PM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: Dead Corpse
Why do you insist on spitting on the Constitution to get your way? What are you talking about? You're the one who continues to pretend that the clear requirements of the Constitution, first and foremost the Fourteenth Amendment, do not exist. Just like your idols the Pauls.
132
posted on
05/20/2010 5:14:44 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: Dead Corpse
And still, a person is a person. And the Constitution of the United States still demands that each and every person be protected.
133
posted on
05/20/2010 5:15:34 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: EternalVigilance
Again, Title 1, Chapt 1, Subd 8 says you are an idiot with no clue how this stuff works.
Pass an Amendment. Respect the rule of law.
134
posted on
05/21/2010 5:23:26 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: Dead Corpse
Just change the unconstitutional law. Duh.
135
posted on
05/21/2010 5:25:20 AM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: EternalVigilance
Pass an Amendment. The definition is in place for a reason. The Amendment is also much harder to repeal than a simple law change would be.
Protecting the unborn is worth it isn't it?
136
posted on
05/21/2010 6:22:44 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: Dead Corpse
Pass an Amendment if you want. But don’t pretend that the Constitution doesn’t already provide protection for every individual person’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property.
137
posted on
05/21/2010 6:53:49 AM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: Dead Corpse
But make sure it’s an Amendment that protects all persons, and doesn’t create some lawless “right” for States to alienate what the Founders rightfully called unalienable.
138
posted on
05/21/2010 6:55:25 AM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
To: EternalVigilance
Keywords. "Every Individual". Until that umbilical cord is cut, the law does not recognize a fetus as an "individual".
An Amendment gives specific protection where changing a definition doesn't and can't.
139
posted on
05/21/2010 7:49:27 AM PDT
by
Dead Corpse
(III, Alarm and Muster)
To: Dead Corpse
It’s self-evident that the child in the womb is an individual human person. And so the law protects them. Lawless officers of government ignoring what is as plain as the nose on your face doesn’t change that fact.
140
posted on
05/21/2010 11:23:45 AM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(There is no right to do wrong. Those who claim there is destroy the foundations of true liberty.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100, 101-120, 121-140, 141-150 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson