Posted on 10/28/2007 3:07:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
The purpose of Free Republic is to fight for our freedom, for the constitution, for conservatism and for our traditional American heritage. We recognize that the domestic enemy of freedom is liberalism and big government socialism.
We recognize that our unalienable rights come from God not man or government and, no, they are NOT open to debate or subject to negotiation or compromise.
Sorry, RINOS, but the right to Life is our first unalienable right. This is not just a conservative political "principle" that stubborn right wing fringe nuts refuse to give up. It's an UNALIENABLE right granted to all men by GOD and no man or government can deprive us of same! Not without one hell of a fight!! Compromisers be damned!!
Keep your eyes open for the National Right to Life endorsement, which will be coming shortly. And then we all have to stick together on their choice. That will prevent the pro-life vote from being split several ways.
What a heartbreaking poem. Thanks for posting it.
Absolutely fantastic. My warmest congratulations to your Godfather.
I’m sorry you haven’t noticed that NRTL has been compromised for some time.
I’ll look at whoever and whatever they endorse and judge for myself, thanks.
This is what this election is about.
Well said Mr. Robinson.
Another great thread from Jim Robinson!
From the bottom of my heart... THANK YOU and PRAISE GOD!
LLS
You mean if they don’t endorse Keyes?
Tell us, in advance, which candidates would you be okay with NRTL endorsing?
Right to life BUMP
Don’t give up. Keep fighting and keep getting the word out to defeat the Rudy RINOs.
They may think we are going to give up, but I won’t until the fat lady sings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
Some around here seem to think that the Founding Fathers did not intend for ANY PART of the Bill of Rights to be binding to the state governments.
The ridiculous thing is that if the Rights were not protected at the state government, they were effectively meaningless.
Without an understanding of and agreement with that principle in the DoI the Constitution itself doesn't mean much. In the U.S. the individual is the sovereign by virtue of his or her unalienble rights. Rights that can't be rightfully taken or given away.
If you can provide statements from the Framers that the case is otherwise and that the Bill of Rights were applied to the separate and sovereign states before the 20th century, I'll be more than happy to recant. Since you can't, don't ping me again.
I am unaware of any of the Founding Fathers ever saying that slavery was unconstitutional (though many commented on its immorality), nor am I aware of any Supreme Court ruling that declares slavery to be unconstitutional. By your logic, this makes slavery legitimate.
Our Republic operated for nearly a century under the guise that "separate but equal" facilities for minorities were constitutional. Under your theories, this meant that discrimination was right until the Court ruled otherwise.
Like most other non-conservatives, you view right and wrong, constitutional and unconstitutional based upon a court ruling.
Incorporation extends to StatesAgain I will state irrevocably the Bill of Rights did not apply to the separate and sovereign states in any fashion until the 20th century. And to date not all of the BOR apply to the states.
Main article: Incorporation (Bill of Rights)Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government and not to the several state governments. Parts of the amendments initially proposed by Madison that would have limited state governments ("No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.") were not approved by Congress, and therefore the Bill of Rights did not appear to apply to the powers of state governments.[22]
Thus, states had established state churches up until the 1820s, and Southern states, beginning in the 1830s, could ban abolitionist literature. In the 1833 case Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the Bill of Rights provided "security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government—not against those of local governments." However, in the 1925 judgment on Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment, which had been adopted in 1868, made certain applications of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. The Supreme Court then cited the Gitlow case as precedent for a series of decisions that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation.
Here you go.
Article. VI.This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Unless you can find anything the Founders wrote that says the BoRs is not part of the Constitution don't bother pinging me.
BUMP! NO abortion. NO euthanasia. NO contraception.
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.