Posted on 03/06/2009 9:15:49 AM PST by EternalVigilance
Some here don't want that little thing called THE LAW to interfere with their opportunity to bash Palin.
It’s an unjust law, because it is unconstitutional. The Governor, and every officer of governement, have sworn an oath to defend innocent human life.
Laws passed by the Legislature which are unconstitutional are null and void, and we have three co-equal branches of governement to stand as a check and balance against unconstitutional breaches of the people’s rights. The Governor has an equal duty to follow that constitution, no matter the cost to themselves personally.
The problem with this is none of these laws define when life begins, that’s why we need both State and Federal fights to define life as beginning at conception, until we get those, the courts don’t recognize a baby as a protected life until it is born. Spending your energy fighting against those who promote the federalist approach is adding to the delay and difficulty of getting a law that defines an unborn baby as protected life.. Your phrasitical, holier than thou way ensures more and more delays until we get the ‘perfect’ solution that may never come.. How many babies will die while you hope for your prefect way?
All you are is ensuring there is a division in the pro-life movement where instead of the federalists and constitutional approach camps both view each other as the enemy instead of fighting the real enemy, the abortion providers.
Both sides need to work together to win- you are doing everything in your power to ensure abortion ends.
How many more babies are you willing to sacrifice for your quest for “only the perfect” law?
Or is the perfect law your goal or are you actually more interested in tearing down the “R” to promote your own third party, unborn babies be damned- they are just a pawn to you?
Here's the 5th Amendment. Read it. You might learn something.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Positive law cannot overrule constitutions.
I don’t support any law or politician who ends their sentences with “and then you can kill the baby.”
IF, this is the EV we knew for all these years? Anyone stop to think that maybe someone is playing us? Would someone like EV, who was a very strong, logical Conservative on this thread really use the lives of unborn babies as a pawn? Would he really be using this much energy to divide our side?
You have become what you claim to hate. Your reasoning is more specious than the most whacked-out Stevens opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court.
You have decided that since there is an unproven allegation that a potential court nominee might not be pro-life, that the Governor has the authority to interpret the state constitution on her own to allow her to completely abrogate another part of that constitution.
Seriously, what drugs are you on?
I am afraid things have changed. The thread has the evidence, my 276 above has my opinion.
As a side note, the nominee will come up for a retention election so the voters can vote them out if they so choose:
The appointed justice must be approved by the voters on a nonpartisan ballot at the first statewide general election held more than three years after appointment; thereafter, each justice must participate in another retention election every ten years.
Then I guess it would be the old pressure system then. There ain't no way I'd be signing that in, law or no law. I'd go to the mat before I made such an awful choice.
That’s not what I said, nor implied and you know it, that is a diversionary tactic to try to back the debating opponent in a corner he can’t get out of. What is your real game here? Your actions here are nothing like the EV many of us have known for years. The real EV would never play with the lives of babies like this. The real EV would fight the battle on all sides. The real EV would not be focusing all energy on splitting the fight against abortion.... hmmmm...
That’s consistently been my argument.
It is not EV who is splitting the fight on abortion. The official position of the Pro-Life movement IS EV's position. It is the states-righter's that are splitting things up
I suppose that is a theoretical possibility, but after more than 45 years as a political activist, I have seen some startling about faces by people I thought I understood. Sometimes it was because of Drugs (see Karl Hess), sometimes it was because of sex (see Garry Wills), sometimes there is no explanation (see Douglas Kmiec).
That's why principled people need a new strategy, and new leaders. That's what the personhood movement is all about.
Even the author of Roe, in the decision itself, admitted that if the personhood of the unborn is acknowlegded than THEY ARE PROTECT EVERYWHERE IN THE TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATE BY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT.
I still haven’t seen any convincing proof the nominee is pro-choice. EV’s meme “Fagan says so” is not legitimate. Fagan is merely a radio host (who I had never heard of before)...but then so are Art Bell and Alex Jones. I don’t believe them either.
State’s righter’s like me want this battle fought on all fronts, we don’t make either side the enemy. We want the national people to fight while we fight on the State battle. We don’t go around saying that the national-only people are really pro-abortion because they don’t agree with us, we just see it as a tactic difference.
I am a State’s righter because I believe it brings the fastest change to start saving babies and it will also give us a guidepost when we know when to pull the trigger on a national Constitutional amendment. I don’t for an instant, believe the national folks are pro-death.
It is like the Air Force and the Marines both involved in a battle.. they are both battling the same enemy, just from different logistical viewpoints. When do you ever see someone from the Air Force saying that a Marine fighting on the ground is actually working for the enemy because he isn’t flying also?
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.