Posted on 05/01/2007 3:08:56 PM PDT by Politicalmom
I understand where you are coming from and it is a great argument, especially if you inject the slavery point. I do think that this is a slippery slope though. Anything people believe is a life or death issue can then be inserted where you inserted slavery to justify the expansion of federal power, and it has in fact much to often. Marijuanna, guns, regional foods, education, any cause that inflames emotions will be used the same way you have and the tapeworms in DC are more than happy to accomodate your desire to enhance the power and scope of the federal government.
It’s time to stop deferring our local governmental responsibility to the fed and it’s time for us to stop using the fed to impose our local views on the rest of the country. The confederate view involves actually leaving the republic and becoming a local sovreignty not accountable to the rest of the republic or the federal head. I doubt FT is espousing this idea. Like I said before, if CA or MA or NY want to murder thier babies, fine, they are despicible for it and monsters and I will not visit nor will I live in such a place, I’ll live in a state that respects human life and also respects my individual liberty and responsibility, as long as my money isn’t confiscated to support abortion.
Wanting to hear someone answer questions from both side is jumping to conclusions? Nah, not so much.
You hit the nail on the head, at least as far as I am concerned. I keep waiting for something to come along that tarnishes him in my eyes, but not so far. Course, I just started reading this thread so who knows! lol
It doesn't go that far. My argument is simply to remind states of their duty under the U.S. Constitution. The federal government has its restrictions, but so do the states. The states agreed to this union, for the purpose of establishing justice and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
States cannot sanction the destruction of posterity, or the Preamble has no meaning. The U.S. Constitution requires protection of fundamental rights, such as life.
....Marijuanna, guns, regional foods, education, any cause that inflames emotions will be used the same way you have and the tapeworms in DC are more than happy to accomodate your desire to enhance the power and scope of the federal government.
The antidote to federal violation is the same as state violation: follow the U.S. Constitution. We'd have little room for complaint if both the states and the federal government adhered to it.
It’s time to stop deferring our local governmental responsibility to the fed and it’s time for us to stop using the fed to impose our local views on the rest of the country.
Somehow the nation turned upside-down. The federal government has grown far more powerful than the Constitution allows (particularly in the judicial branch), while at the same time, we see folks calling for the legitimate purposes of the national government to be left to state chaos, such as border security, abortion, and marriage.
The confederate view involves actually leaving the republic and becoming a local sovereignty not accountable to the rest of the republic or the federal head. I doubt FT is espousing this idea.
Yet, if states are not required to respect the Constitution, then in effect we have a confederacy. Is this what Fred wants? Intentionally, no. More likely he doesn't consider life in the womb as qualifying under the Constitution for protection. Unless someone has a better guess as to his position.
Like I said before, if CA or MA or NY want to murder thier babies, fine, they are despicible for it and monsters and I will not visit nor will I live in such a place, I’ll live in a state that respects human life and also respects my individual liberty and responsibility, as long as my money isn’t confiscated to support abortion.
Or we could just force them to up to Canada, and leave our national identity and conscience intact.
And you’re a disagreeable little Pet Yorkie. How ‘key’ could the lag time be for a 40k file with Geocities? Not significant at all.
Your autobiography is brilliant.
Dueling zingers isn’t your forte, is it?
Or we could just force them to up to Canada, and leave our national identity and conscience intact.
That would be ideal but I don’t see it happening in my lifetime unless some theocracy emerges, then of course we’re screwed on all counts. The best and quickest solution would be to overturn RVW on the constitutionality basis and then work on the states to outlaw the practice. Unfotunately some states will not because the majority of the people there are Acolytes of Molech. We could adopt the same tactics the anti smoking crowd did and have an almost abortion free country with a few extreme liberal holdouts. Besides CA most of those states would be a few hours or less from the Canadian border anyway.
Romney will get the nomination, unless it’s Rudy , or McCain, or Fred......no actually, Romney WILL get the nomination, with Giuliani finally gladly accepting the VEEP spot with the assurance he can be American Government’s first really “proactive” Vice President.
You okay?
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.