Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cva66snipe
See, what you're saying is that if Bubba had vetoed a law prohibiting partial birth abortion because he thought it was unconstitutional, you would say the bill was constitutional and therefore he should have signed it.

And by not signing it, would not he be keeping all of us from finding out for a fact whether or not the law was constitutional?

And by not signing it because he thought it was unconstitutional, would he not be taking upon himself the authority that only the judicial branch has?

And by not signing it because he thought it was unconstitutional, would he not be thwarting the will of the people, expressed by their legislators, insofar as he denied them their day in court to argue that the law was constitutional?

445 posted on 03/29/2002 9:10:50 PM PST by fightinJAG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies ]


To: fightinJAG
See, what you're saying is that if Bubba had vetoed a law prohibiting partial birth abortion because he thought it was unconstitutional, you would say the bill was constitutional and therefore he should have signed it.

Yes because right to life is the premises or foundation of our nation

And by not signing it, would not he be keeping all of us from finding out for a fact whether or not the law was constitutional?

DUH the USSC is rather lacking in virtue on that matter is it not? How sad a day in the United States of America when the preservation of innocent life is just another piece of Leglislation to be debated. There should be no question it's common sense and Biblical principle on which both were part of this nations founding documents.

And by not signing it because he thought it was unconstitutional, would he not be taking upon himself the authority that only the judicial branch has?

Again nothing in the Constitution sanctions the taking of innocent life and our laws are established to actually preserve such.

And by not signing it because he thought it was unconstitutional, would he not be thwarting the will of the people, expressed by their legislators, insofar as he denied them their day in court to argue that the law was constitutional?

Let's see a few gents in the late 1700's thwarted the will of the majority to seek a better future for themselves and us to follow. Actually most Leglislators are very far removed these days from the will of the people and the Constitution they swore to protect and defend. That's why we're in the mess we're in now. They count on several things. Loyal party line voters who will support them no matter how big a tyrannt they really are, short memories of the Sheeple, and apathy of voters to their wrongs to remain in office.

486 posted on 03/29/2002 9:27:07 PM PST by cva66snipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson