Posted on 10/14/2004 5:06:45 AM PDT by GrandEagle
KERRY: Thank you very much
Well, again, the president didn't answer the question.
I'll answer it straight to America. I'm not going to appoint a judge to the Court who's going to undo a constitutional right, whether it's the First Amendment, or the Fifth Amendment, or some other right that's given under our courts today — under the Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Notice that he was very careful here not to mention the Second Amendment...
Not taking up for sKerry, but as far as the "courts granting rights" comment goes, it was none other than our illustrious Director of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, who said when he gave his acceptance speech to that post that "our rights are the best thing our government gives its citizens". This comment was echoed almost verbatim several days later by Laura Bush.
This same body (USSC) ruled it was constitutional to allow "Separate but equal" laws on blacks in the South. Using Kerry's logic one must assume he would support this since it was "constitutional".
Funny thing is when I read the Constitution I see no authority that gives the Federal Government the power to kill babies in the womb. Where is the abortion Amendment?
To compare a decision like Roe v Wade to the first Amendment borders on insanity. Did 2/3 Congress vote to allow abortion on demand? Did 2/3 of the State Leg. vote to allow abortion on demand?
Too bad there are a lot of insane people who support killing human beings on demand.
"First tenat of totalitarianism, get the people to think that the "state" grants them their rights.
American Revolution part two on the horizon folks."
'we are gods'
B U M P
Yup, George Bush probably sounded, to some, like a bit of a religious nut when he said "I think Freedom comes from God", but that was the opinion of the signers of the Declaration of Indpenendence, as you clearly point out.
I also caught Kerry's reference to "the courts". What happened to Kerry was he caught himself. He wanted to say he was for ALL rights, so he started naming the Bill of Rights amendments. Only then he probably realized that the right to an abortion does not come from any amendment. It comes from "emanations from penumbras" of bits and pieces of a few different amendments, which the Supreme Court could see and gather up and package as a "right to privacy".
The court, BTW, did not find a "right to choose". It found a "right to privacy", of which it determined the right to abortion to be a part.
Have to hop out for a while and try and get some work done today. Just wanted to know if anyone else caught this one.
American Revolution part two on the horizon folks."
Yeh I heard it too, but passed over it thinking, oh well, its just the way things are. I am afraid that the "revolution" is being done against us. We are so so far from what we were as a country and it won't be undone until we all get our kids out of the govt. schools that do not teach the principles that made/make (which?) our country great......
You obviously have not read Roe v Wade.
The Supreme Court recognized the inalienable right of "privacy," citing incorrectly Amendment XIV as the constitutional basis for the right of privacy when it should have been Amendment IX.
Then the Supreme Court, in a lenghty incorrect analysis, said that there was no way to confer the right of privacy and citizenship to fetus that could not survive outside a woman's body.
Thus during the first three months of pregnancy, government could not regulate the action of an abortion because medical procedures in 1972 were now safe enough for a woman to make the decision on her own whether to have an abortion.
After the third month of pregnancy, the state then could regulate the action of an abortion by requiring, for instance, that a woman have the abortion at a "licensed" facility only, in order to "protect" her health.
At some point, near the end of a preganancy, the state could then prohibit an abortion because the fetus is now "viable," and is conferred all of the "privileges and immunities" of any other human being and/or citizen.
So, the bottomline is the Supreme Court has declared a fetus a non-human being, nothing more than tissue inside a woman's body, similar to a gall bladder, that can be removed at her discretion, without government interference.
What has to change to end the brutality and horror of abortion is to confer the "rights" of a human being to a fetus at conception.
Then a woman could not make the unilateral decision to kill another human being that resides temporarily in her body, that she could not create on her own or came with her body upon her birth, similar to her arm.
only be ammended by legislative process, not a rogue judge"
Ths is not an accurate statement. Again, I don't think you have read the U.S. Constitution.
ARTICLE V
Amendments
The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided,
I'd really like to agree with you on this point, but the reality is that "rogue judges" have been altering our Constitution incrementally for years, and our Congress has done nothing about it. A partial result of their "tinkering" has resulted in millions of the unborn being murdered.
The fact that someone running for the highest office in our country has a view of our Constitution as nothing more than a document that the Judiciary can add or subtract from is frightening.
The fact that a good portion of Americans think he's right shows what liberal academics have done to the students in our school system.
That leaves us with the question of what do we do to Justices who have unconstitutionally changed our Constitution?
It is already here...the shouting has been going on since 2000, the shoving has started with demonratic thugs invading Republican HQs, and the shooting part will begin when the demonrats realize that they lost the WH again!
PS - I would consider it part 3
But a couple of generations have now gone through public schools without being taught about our Declaration or our Constitution. Even many members of "the greatest generation" seem to have bought into Kerry's secularist totalitarian philosophy. God save us.
Appealing to the yoga practitioners??
"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, or on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided,"
Thank you for making my point. This is a legislative process not a judicial.
Mrs. B-cubed caught that one right away. The guy just ain't American.
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.