Thanks Bob

[PatriotBeliever]

Why leave the 25%? Do like cigarette buyers and drive across the state line for lower rates.



Limbaugh has talked about this problem also. You have to change people's hearts. Yes, the law is the great teacher, and you need to start there, but many people are just rotten.

Ah Limbaugh agrees with Ron Paul on this issue:

Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

and...

Roe v. Wade is bad law; let states decide

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Oh gosh, I should have posted more of his diatribe. I don't even like him anymore, but he's right here:

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism. Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. ... it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat.

 

[elected4ever]

Ah Limbaugh agrees with Ron Paul on this issue:


and...

I am not saying that Row v Wade is not bad law but when the justices were presented with the question for there consideration a weakness in the law was discovered. The right of the born mother took president over the unborn who was not protected. How hard is that to understand. I don't like it but me screaming and legislative law will not change what is. We must change the foundation law to effect change in this case. Are you suggesting that we now allow the states to pass unconstitutional law and that without review. Me thinks you are thinking with your heart and not your head.

 

[elected4ever]

Oh gosh, I should have posted more of his diatribe. I don't even like him anymore, but he's right here:

That is the same rot I have been hearing for 40 years. It has not worked yet. All it has done is divide us. I am sick of it. That is why I think we listen to to much hag wash and no one, are very few of us, have bothered to tell the truth.

 

[GuySmiley]

If we dont support any law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby", then why support a strategy that ends with "you can kill the baby over there, but not here". Murdering babies should be a federal issue, or bigger than that if it were possible. Its just unfathomable to me that as Christians, we should support a strategy that outlaws abortion by geographic location.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

If we dont support any law that ends with "and then you can kill the baby", then why support a strategy that ends with "you can kill the baby over there, but not here". Murdering babies should be a federal issue, or bigger than that if it were possible. Its just unfathomable to me that as Christians, we should support a strategy that outlaws abortion by geographic location.

It has nothing to do with geographic location. Abortion is murder. The right to life was guaranteed by our Constitution, the federal courts took it out of Texas' jurisdiction by fiat thus setting the precept for the entire nation and no court or congress has had the will to change it like they could. Period. It can and should be done through legislation as the Constitution affords this ability to Congress (no the judiciary was not intended to be a totally separate and equal branch). For those here who want to pretend that the ability does not exist to accomplish this legislatively, believe what you want. An amendment to the constitution would be great but is not likely do to the immense process built in to make it difficult intentionally. This is also why there have been those in government that have stepped out of the bounds of the constitution to get around these limitations. For those here who want to pretend like the "flawed" system we live under is not the best attempt at human government in history, show me another (fictional or hypothetical utopias where everyone agrees with you, or theocracies do not count) We live in the best republic to ever be developed through the graces of God. Yes, when Godly men are in positions within this government great good is done, but unfortunately the opposite true as well. Fortunately for us all the men who established it built in enough measures to correct it that there is still hope. But hope placed in failed policy and unconstitutional principles further erodes what made America great.

 

[Delmar]

There is no argument to conduct. The constitution does not grant a right to abortion. If it does, post it here. You won't and you can't, and the 14th Amendment has as much to do with this topic as does the man on the moon.

E4E would have been more correct to say that the SCOTUS decided in 1973 that the constitution grants a right to abortion. Whether you and I agree with this makes no difference, since every US President, and every US Congress, and every SCOTUS justice since 1973 agrees that they had they authority to do what they did, nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can change who is holding the power right now!

 

[PatriotBeliever]

That is the same rot I have been hearing for 40 years. It has not worked yet. All it has done is divide us. I am sick of it. That is why I think we listen to to much hag wash and no one, are very few of us, have bothered to tell the truth.

What has not worked is trusting presidents to put judges in place to reverse Roe v. Wade. What has not happened is that we have ignored the original intent of our Constitution. What has not worked is the church voting the lesser of two evils or worse, avoiding involving themselves from the process completely. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Since we live under a constitutional republic, it would be a good thing to elect a constitutionalist as president.

 

[Delmar]

What has not worked is trusting presidents to put judges in place to reverse Roe v. Wade. What has not happened is that we have ignored the original intent of our Constitution. What has not worked is the church voting the lesser of two evils or worse, avoiding involving themselves from the process completely. Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. Since we live under a constitutional republic, it would be a good thing to elect a constitutionalist as president.

Then he knows if the courts abuse their power the constitution can be amended to put them in there place, but he will not call for that. Not ever!

 

[PatriotBeliever]

E4E would have been more correct to say that the SCOTUS decided in 1973 that the constitution grants a right to abortion. Whether you and I agree with this makes no difference, since every US President, and every US Congress, and every SCOTUS justice since 1973 agrees that they had they authority to do what they did, nothing short of a Constitutional amendment can change who is holding the power right now!

A constitutional amendment would work, but as I posted earlier up on this thread in detail, it is very difficult and very unlikely, plus it requires the approval from the very states that the Sanctity of Life Act gives the authority to outlaw abortion now anyway.

 

[Delmar]

A constitutional amendment would work, but as I posted earlier up on this thread in detail, it is very difficult and very unlikely, plus it requires the approval from the very states that the Sanctity of Life Act gives the authority to outlaw abortion now anyway.

Do you agree with the statment that...

... every US President, and every US Congress, and every SCOTUS justice since 1973 agrees that they had they authority to do what they did

...If you agree how can you believe that the current SCOTUS would not declare such a law unconstitutional , if passed?


edit: I do agree by the way that an amendment would be very difficult and very unlikely, but we still need to push for what is right!

 

[S†ephen]

hey all,

I'm a newb to this very interesting forum so... hello.

I'm curious to know why so many here are desiring to use the Federal Government as a hammer to outlaw abortion?

I'm just finishing a two month study on the Constitution and its origins and it seems pretty apparent (to me) that using the Feds to accomplish this goal is against everything those who created the Constitution stood for.

Stephen

 

[GuySmiley]

hey all,

I'm a newb to this very interesting forum so... hello.

I'm curious to know why so many here are desiring to use the Federal Government as a hammer to outlaw abortion?

I'm just finishing a two month study on the Constitution and its origins and it seems pretty apparent (to me) that using the Feds to accomplish this goal is against everything those who created the Constitution stood for.

Stephen

If North Carolina decided it was legal to kill Jews, should the feds stay out of it?

 

[elected4ever]

hey all,

I'm a newb to this very interesting forum so... hello.

I'm curious to know why so many here are desiring to use the Federal Government as a hammer to outlaw abortion?

I'm just finishing a two month study on the Constitution and its origins and it seems pretty apparent (to me) that using the Feds to accomplish this goal is against everything those who created the Constitution stood for.

Stephen

So you are saying that it was the intent to afford the right to life to those born and naturalized. That the unborn was alway at the will of the mother being born. having studied the constitution can you say where the constitution supports the right to life of the unborn?

 

[drbrumley]

If North Carolina decided it was legal to kill Jews, should the feds stay out of it?

No, on the other hand, if the FEDS decided legally to kill us (to stop dissent), who's left to get in it?

See here is the problem. I understand both points. It is the Feds who started this nonsense. They are the ones who decided it was legal to kill babies.

Who created the Federal Government?

Was the Federal Government supposed to be the big dog in charge?

Does the Congress of the United States have the authority to tell the Supreme Court to shove it where the sun don't shine? Do the states for that matter?

Was the US Constitution unconstitutional?

What was United States law (Constitution) based on?

Just a sampling of questions I like answered.

 

[drbrumley]

So you are saying that it was the intent to afford the right to life to those born and naturalized. That the unborn was alway at the will of the mother being born. having studied the constitution can you say where the constitution supports the right to life of the unborn?

Abortion is a rather new phenomenon. The founders didn't think anything of the procedures done today to have an abortion. So the intent is there, yes.

 

[PKevman]

hey all,

I'm a newb to this very interesting forum so... hello.

I'm curious to know why so many here are desiring to use the Federal Government as a hammer to outlaw abortion?

I'm just finishing a two month study on the Constitution and its origins and it seems pretty apparent (to me) that using the Feds to accomplish this goal is against everything those who created the Constitution stood for.

Stephen

If you are who I think you are then TOL has just gained another homeschooled youth.

I would answer that question by saying that you shall not murder is an instruction that supercedes state's rights. It is a command from God that has not changed one iota throughout the annals of human history.

We are the United States of America, not a bunch of individual countries, but one country. In the instance of "Do not murder", the United States of America needs to have one policy. That policy should be do not murder, regardless of whether we are talking about cities, states, territories, or anything else that would be considered a PART of the United States of America.

This is what needs to happen in my estimation. It should not be left up to each state to decide whether "Do not murder" is a binding law for them.

 

[drbrumley]

If you are who I think you are then TOL has just gained another homeschooled youth.

Awesome!!!!!!!!

I would answer that question by saying that you shall not murder is an instruction that supercedes state's rights. It is a command from God that has not changed one iota throughout the annals of human history.

:up:

We are the United States of America, not a bunch of individual countries, but one country.

Not so fast. We are now, that is true. But that certainly was not the case prior to the Civil War.

In the instance of "Do not murder", the United States of America needs to have one policy. That policy should be do not murder, regardless of whether we are talking about cities, states, territories, or anything else that would be considered a PART of the United States of America.

And generally, this is the case. The issue PK is not whether murder is wrong, the issue is when life begins. This is why abortion is so muddled, esp to the liberals. They do not see the fetus as a human being. Until the Federal Government stands up and says life begins at conception, we will always have this problem.

 

[elected4ever]

If you are who I think you are then TOL has just gained another homeschooled youth.

I would answer that question by saying that you shall not murder is an instruction that supercedes state's rights. It is a command from God that has not changed one iota throughout the annals of human history.

We are the United States of America, not a bunch of individual countries, but one country. In the instance of "Do not murder", the United States of America needs to have one policy. That policy should be do not murder, regardless of whether we are talking about cities, states, territories, or anything else that would be considered a PART of the United States of America.

This is what needs to happen in my estimation. It should not be left up to each state to decide whether "Do not murder" is a binding law for them.

Good grief, PK. Wont you deal with reality. No one believes in murder. Oh and by the way. No human is subject to God's law. Jesus bore that law on calvary. We as chrildren of God are the only righteousness the world will ever see. We are in the world but not of it. So quit preaching law and show righteousness. I am tired of your legal garbage that has been proven that no man can keep. So get off it and help in the real world and not your little fantasy world.

 

[drbrumley]

Good grief, PK. Wont you deal with reality. No one believes in murder. Oh and by the way. No human is subject to God's law. Jesus bore that law on calvary. We as chrildren of God are the only righteousness the world will ever see. We are in the world but not of it. So quit preaching law and show righteousness. I am tired of your legal garbage that has been proven that no man can keep. So get of it and help in the real world and not your little fantasy world.

Lets not get off topic here.