Posted on 06/08/2012 1:21:30 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd
ROSEMONT, Ill.Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have never gotten along, and while the primaries are effectively over, their intraparty rivalry could stretch on through the summer.
With 267 delegates pledged to him so far, Santorum is planning to flex his muscle at the Republican National Convention in August, where he predicted Friday there could be a showdown over the party platform between the social conservative delegates who pledged support for him and Ron Paul's libertarian supporters. Paul's campaign predicts that about 200 delegates will attend the convention on his behalf.
Both want a piece of the party platform, but the candidates agree on very little politically. Speaking to reporters here Friday at a conservative conference, Santorum said his supporters are ready for a "fight" in Tampa.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You said:
You speak of the Constitution, and following it, but consistently ignore its stated purposes, all of which abortion violates, and continue to do EXACTLY what the Ninth Amendment expressly forbids.
That is a direct accusation of being in violation of the amendment, for having done nothing more than present an argument.
By the way, how active have you been in your support for the various state-level and national amendments and legislation to ban abortion?
Because I’ve actively supported virtually all of them, as long as they meet the necessary standard of equal protection.
You’re doing it in argumentation on a website. Again, I fail to see how this could possibly be a crime.
What, you're going to personally go around to their offices and beat them up if they don't get in line?
What are you going to do to pass this amendment of which you speak, and what will its wording be?
Convince them. Wording is subject to consensus.
What a ridiculous thing to say.
-- Margaret ThatcherConsensus: The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: I stand for consensus?'
Talk is cheap, and the promises of politicians can be had at a discount. What's the plan?
And of course everybody agreeing to sign you pledge doesn’t amount to “consensus”, right?
You fail to see how it can be a crime, but you explicitly told me I was in violation of the Ninth Amendment.
Do you think there might be any consequences if President of the United States started making that kind of mistakes?
You’re really off on a strange tangent with that one.
So if you get elected, when you get caught making that kind of mistake, you’ll address it by pretending to not understand what they’re talking about. That’ll make us all look good.
What kind of mistake? You haven’t explained how posting your opinion about the Constitution on a website could possibly constitute a crime.
It appears my mistake was feeding a troll.
No. Your mistake is in thinking you can be an originalist while ignoring the original principles and all of the original stated purposes of the Constitution and the republic.
I understood them to create a republic, with a national government of limited and enumerated powers and all unenumerated powers reserved to the States, having decided that this was the best way to attain their stated objectives.
Do you submit that the did something different?
You ignore the most important moral natural law principles that comprise the cornerstone of our republic and our claim to liberty.
And you choose to consistently ignore the sacred duties that of necessity go along with all powers and rights.
They stated their objectives, and then they divided the powers of government explicitly among the national and state governments, according to their determination of which level of government was appropriate to exercise the power necessary to accomplish those objectives.
They stated their objectives, and then they divided the powers of government explicitly among the national and state governments, according to their determination of which level of government was appropriate to exercise the power necessary to accomplish those objectives.
No. You don't get it. All officers of government in this country must swear a binding oath to fully support those purposes, within their legitimate jurisdictions, without exception.
-- Article VI, the United States ConstitutionThe Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
What enumerated power gives jurisdiction to the national government?
That's like asking what jurisdiction an apple tree has to bear apples.
It's why it exists.
It is its raison d'etre, or reason for being.
In the same way, according to America's founders, our national government, and all governments, exist to equally protect the unalienable rights of the people, starting with their right to live.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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..."
Why is this so hard to grasp?
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.