[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past? Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues [FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests) What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS] Source: Ace Of Spades URL Source: http://ace.mu.nu/#362525 Published: Apr 1, 2016 Author: Ace Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative Keywords: None Views: 35324 Comments: 253 Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed." "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Donald Trump: About That Thing I Just Said A Few Hours Ago-- Nevermind —Ace The woman will, or rather will not be punished, and the laws will not, or rather will, be changed. .@realDonaldTrump spox Hope Hicks walks back Trump abortion comments to CBS. Says Trump WILL change law on abortion pic.twitter.com/1oedertZbC— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 2, 2016 Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. Posted by Ace at 09:03 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-68) not displayed.       .       .       . #69. To: SOSO (#66) 1. No state prohibited abortion prior to the mid-1800s or so. 2. Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected, for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century. Nice foot shot. You just proved yourself a liar. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   21:30:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: SOSO (#66) It is undisputed that at common law, abortion performed before "quickening - the first recognizable movement of the fetus in utero, appearing usually from the 16th to the 18th week of pregnancy - was not an indictable offense. Followed by a lame and disingenuous attempt to move the goal posts. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-02   21:32:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: misterwhite (#4) Pro-life" is a convenient description given to those who want to make most, or all, abortions illegal. It says nothing about whether or not the individual considers it murder. For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:20:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: misterwhite (#5) No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can change our abortion laws. Congress can act using the 14Th amendment. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/816/text http://www.prolifealliance.com/end_roevwade.html A statement from Paul elaborated on both the timeliness and the subject matter of the bill: "As thousands of Americans prepare to participate in the annual March for Life, it is time for Congress to recognize the right to life is guaranteed to all Americans in the Declaration of Independence, and it is the constitutional duty of all members of Congress to ensure this belief is upheld,” Sen. Paul said. “The Life at Conception Act legislatively declares what most Americans believe and what science has long known - that human life begins at the moment of conception, and therefore, is entitled to legal protection from that point forward. Only when America chooses, remembers, and restores her respect for life will we rediscover our moral bearings and truly find our way." Rand Paul Life at conception act For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:33:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: Fred Mertz (#24) Have no idea what you are rambling on about. Morals are absolute. There's no getting around an innocent human life is terminated with abortion. It is premeditated murder. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:38:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: SOSO (#56) The States applied English Common Law to restrictions on abortion. At the adoption of the Declaration of Independence 236 years ago on July 4, 1776, abortion was banned in all of the 13 American colonies. The colonies inherited English Common Law and largely operated under it until well into the 19th century. English Common Law forbade abortion. Abortion prior to quickening was a misdemeanor. Abortion after quickening (feeling life) was a felony. This bifid punishment, inherited from earlier ecclesiastic law, stemmed from earlier “knowledge” regarding human reproduction. In the early 1800s it was discovered that human life did not begin when she “felt life,” but rather at fertilization. As a direct result of this, the British Parliament in 1869 passed the “Offenses Against the Persons Act,” eliminating the above punishment and dropping the felony punishment back to fertilization. One by one, across the middle years of the 19th century, every then-present state passed its own law against abortion. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had prohibited abortion with new laws. These laws, preceding and following the British example, moved the felony punishment from quickening back to conception. Early US abortion laws For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-02   23:50:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: SOSO (#56) And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously : Abortion Colonial America Even though states enacted laws in the 19th century, by the still used English Common Law in the US restricted abortion. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   0:01:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: SOSO (#63) That was not at all clear. But it is a mute point as up to well into the 1800s no so state had laws prohibiting abortion prior to quickening. Most pregnancies were not confirmed until quickening. Quickening varies. What is clear in the 21st century is human life begins at conception. Science is clear on that matter: Abortion: Scientific evidence for new human being at conception: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098593 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-27#post-69097465 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/can-we-reach-a-compromise-regarding- abortion.7926139/page-28#post-69098685 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/why-abortion-is-immoral.7923648/page- 42#post-69092147 http://www.christianforums.com/threads/liberals-who-are-pro-choice-explain- why-a-womans-choice-is-more-important-than-a-fetuss-life.7915201/page- 10#post-69082245 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   0:07:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: redleghunter (#76) What is clear in the 21st century is human life begins at conception. Science is clear on that matter: If that were the case RvW could not still be the law of the land. Read post #66, especially that part of the majority opinion that says: "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person."..............But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54 [410 U.S. 113, 158] " Get back to me when you read the entire post. It is clear that the majority of SCOTUS disagreed with your references in 1972 and in spite of all the cases it heard on the subject subsequently SCOTUS still does not agree. Don't you think that if the science was clear that all the pro-life groups would by now have sued for the overturn of RvW, especially since the majority opinion specifically acknowledge that by stating "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment {14th}. The appellant {Roe} conceded as much on reargument." C'mon, Ram, you should know better. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   1:24:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: SOSO (#77) Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   1:32:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: redleghunter (#75) And you will see that even in Colonial America they took abortion and infanticide seriously : What has changed is that in recent years a substantial population has developed that is so calloused that it it regards pregnancy and partial birth abortion with the same degree of concern that it has for a bad bowel movement. rlk  posted on  2016-04-03   2:28:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: redleghunter (#71) (Edited) "Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life." So, do these "pro-life Christians" believe in punishing the mother for murdering her unborn child? If they represent a large voting bloc (I assume they do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up), then Trump just scored big with them. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   10:26:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: redleghunter (#72) "Congress can act using the 14Th amendment." First, they haven't acted in 43 years. Why not? Second, a future pro-choice Congress could simply reverse that decision. And I doubt we'll ever see a pro-life Republican Congress again. Maybe that's "why not". misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   10:52:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: SOSO (#67) "Not true in all cases. There is a federal crime of murder." Thank you for pointing out that .0001% of murders are federal crimes. It totally destroys the point I was trying to make. I give up. You win. "True but only as long as any of such law did not trump the Constitutional rights that would restrict same. In other words, sate law could not deprive a citizen or a person as the case may be of their Consitutional rights." False. It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). "All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   11:10:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: misterwhite (#82) It wasn't until the Warren court in the 1960's that the Bill of Rights began limiting state laws (via the 14th amendment). Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights. ""All I will point out to you is the same can be said about slavery" I fail to see the connection, but thanks for the history lesson." I'm not too surprised. Just because something in the past was tolerated or codified in law or was comfortable etc. etc. etc. doesn't make it right, much less a rational basis to continue it. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   11:41:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: redleghunter (#78) Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses. So why hasn't there been so much more action to overturn RvW on the basis that life begins at conception? Why hasn't personhood legislation proliferated in every state? You need to read the RvW majority opinion. It did not claim that a fertilized human egg was not life. It never addressed that question. The court concluded that a fertilized egg is not a person within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. Science hasn't advanced nearly far enough to make the definitive claim that a fertilized egg is a person. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   11:46:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: redleghunter, SOSO (#78) Science has advanced since 73. No more excuses. Amniocentesis, ultrasound, care standards for premature fetuses infants which has lowered the age of viability outside the womb by months, abortion for sex selection, etc. Yes, Roe is very overdue to be revisited by the Court strictly on the grounds of the advances in knowledge and technology since the Sixties. In no other area of medicine other than abortion has the Court imposed 1973 as the last year in which medical science should be considered. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-03   11:51:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: SOSO (#83) "Not that it will matter to you but the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights.' The Due Process clause of the 14th amendment was used by the U.S. Supreme Court to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Go here (http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html) and read under "Bar to Federal Action" and "Incorporation". It's short and to the point. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   11:53:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#85) Yes, Roe is very overdue to be revisited by the Court strictly on the grounds of the advances in knowledge and technology since the Sixties. In no other area of medicine other than abortion has the Court imposed 1973 as the last year in which medical science should be considered. So why hasn't it happened? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   12:10:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: misterwhite (#86) Thanks for the link. There is something inherently wrong about the position that from the git-go the states can ignore the Bill of Rights and thereby deny those rights to anyone within the state jurisdiction. The position of Hamilton and Madison re: the the Alien and Sedition Act: "As to the Bill of Rights being a bar to federal acts, the Bill took some knocks in the first years of the new nation. The 1798 Alien and Sedition Act, for example, made nationals of countries the United States was at war with subject to summary arrest, and also made "false, scandalous and malicious" writings about the government a crime, with the burden of proof placed squarely on the shoulders of the defendant rather than the state. Madison and Thomas Jefferson were both adamantly opposed to the Act, and said that being unconstitutional, states were free to ignore (or nullify) the law. The Act, repealed in 1801, was never ruled unconstitutional." What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will? Are you claiming that since the end of the Civil War and the 1960s any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote? There is an awful lot of nuance that is ignored in your reference. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   12:23:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: SOSO (#88) There is something inherently wrong about the position that from the git-go the states can ignore the Bill of Rights Constitution-haters, such as yourself, always spew some variation of the ignorance. But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-03   12:28:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: SOSO (#88) "What then is the value of a constitutional law if any state can ignore it at will?" I believe you mean to ask, "What then is the value of a constitutional federal law if any state can ignore it at will?" The value is that the federal government cannot violate it. The states, however, are not required to enforce it (which is what Madison and Jeffersom were alluding to). "any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?" Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I was only referring to the Bill of Rights. My link only addressed the Bill of Rights. Let's stay with that, shall we? If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you see that they were written as a limitation of the federal governent only. No such limitation applies to other amendments. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   12:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: Roscoe (#89) Or, it's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-03   12:47:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: misterwhite (#90) Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. You have more patience than I do. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-03   12:49:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: misterwhite (#91) Like any of them have ever read the Preamble. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-03   12:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: Y'ALL, misterwhite, redleghunter (#5) No President ... no Congress ... no State ... can, acting alone,change our abortion laws. ---- misterwhite No President ... no Congress ... no SCOTUS... no State ... can, acting alone,change our abortion laws. ---- Under our constitution, acting as a republican form of government with divided powers, --- no single branch of government has that power... tpaine  posted on  2016-04-03   13:24:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: SOSO (#77) I do know better. I debate pro life issues daily on another forum which has thousands of active posters. Up thread I posted a link to the efforts of Rand Paul in the Senate reference the life at conception act. It is not my imagination. Pro Life conservatives like Paul know the weaknesses of Roe and are now using the Blackmund loop hole to drive legislation. What is missing is not a legal argument but political backbone. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   13:31:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: rlk (#79) What has changed is that in recent years a substantial population has developed that is so calloused that it it regards pregnancy and partial birth abortion with the same degree of concern that it has for a bad bowel movement. Indeed. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   13:33:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: misterwhite (#80) So, do these "pro-life Christians" believe in punishing the mother for murdering her unborn child? If they represent a large voting bloc (I assume they do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up), then Trump just scored big with them. I think this has been answered many times. The pro life movement is focused on preserving innocent human life and that means shutting down those who provide the service. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   13:35:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: misterwhite, roscoe, spreading r (#91) If you read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, you see that they were written as a limitation of the federal governent only. No such limitation applies to other amendments. misterwhite posted on 2016-04-03 12:44:48 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #91. To: Roscoe (#89) Or, it's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights: THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. There is no such 'preamble to the bill of rights'... The actual preamble is titled; -- --- Amendments to the Constitution --- THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-03   13:36:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #99. To: SOSO (#84) See the post on the life at conception act. Senator Rand Paul leading the effort. For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8) redleghunter  posted on  2016-04-03   13:36:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: redleghunter, Y'ALL, misterwhite, gatlin, grandisland (#71) For pro life Christians there is no ambiguity. Abortion in most cases is the premeditated taking of human life. There is only one word in the Hebrew for this and that is murder. --- redleghunter So, do these "pro-life Christians" believe in punishing the mother for murdering her unborn child? If they represent a large voting bloc (I assume they do, otherwise you wouldn't have brought it up), then Trump just scored big with them. ---- misterwhite Yep, in his own bumbling way, Trump has thrown light on a major flaw in the 'abortion is murder' voting bloc. No jury in the USA is ever going to convict a mother for early term abortion/murder. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-03   13:54:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: redleghunter (#95) Pro Life conservatives like Paul know the weaknesses of Roe and are now using the Blackmund loop hole to drive legislation. What is missing is not a legal argument but political backbone. I agree. But again I remind you that the issue decided in RvW was personhood not life. Science and medicine do not have much too contribute with respect to the issue of personhood and likely never will. That is why I am not surprised that little of a significant consequence has been attempted to force a revisit of RvW on this point. As for political backbone to take on this issue, where are you going to find that? Dollar Donald squealed like a pig after he screwed the pooch on his consequences for women comment. IDM that some women might be a victim as well, but all are not and other than in forced abortion they are a consenting party, if not the prime mover for the abortion. Do you think that anyone could elected to any public office with a campaign position of let's make abortion illegal again AND let's have some punishment for women that, save for medical and rape reasons, initiate the process of abortion and freely consent to it? I don't think that you are living in a different reality than mine on the stae of mind of voters on those questions. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   14:01:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #102. To: redleghunter (#99) The issue on RvW is not, nor ever has been a question of life but personhood. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   14:03:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #103. To: redleghunter (#99) See the post on the life at conception act. Senator Rand Paul leading the effort. A chip off the old block, not too surprising. Ron Paul had similar bills. The GOPe doesn't like being forced on the record necessarily but you can't ever progress if you don't start. The Pauls have some courage and constituents that are willing enough to support them. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-03   14:19:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #104. To: misterwhite (#90) "any state could have reinstituted slavery or denied women the right to vote?" Those issues are not in the Bill of Rights. I Correct, slavery is embedded in the body of the original text of the Constitution which passed by the convention and sent to the states for ratification. The Bill of Rights was added after the fact of the convention and was not part of the original document. "Article. I. Section. 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." Do you contest that at in and around the late 1780s when the Constitution was passed and ratified that black slaves were not considered citizens of the U.S.? "Article 1 Section. 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." Are you contesting that the Articles of the U.S. Consitution permitted the continued importation of slaves through 1806? "Article III. Section. 2. The judicial Power {off SCOTUS} shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." What do you think Section 9 means? It seems clear that the judicial power of SCOTUS extends well into the workings of the respective laws of the states. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to place specific limits on government power, not just federal government power. Here's the full text of the BoR "The Bill of Rights – Full Text Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Amendment V 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. Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Only Amendments 1, 7, 9 and 10 are solely addressed to the Federal government. For example, it seems pretty clear in Amendment 5 prohibits a state from waiving habeas corpus or waive protection against double jeopardy. And it seems pretty clear that Amendment 6 prohibits a state from denying the accused of the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed. All of these protections against a state denying these rights to a person were in effect when the BoR was ratified. They didn't have to wait until the 14th Amendment was ratified. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   15:09:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #105. To: tpaine, misterwhite, roscoe, (#98) There is no such 'preamble to the bill of rights'... The actual preamble is titled; -- --- Amendments to the Constitution --- Correct. It's hard to deal hold a rational dialogue with uneducated, ignorant, mental midgets, isn't it. I will not bother any more with the moron called. Roscoe. Please see post #104. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   15:14:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #106. To: TooConservative, redleghunter, misterwhite, tpaine (#103) The Pauls have some courage and constituents that are willing enough to support them. Yet the Wizard Paul advocates that there should be 50 independent state laws governing the status of an unborn fetus and abortion. A totally absurd, illogical, immoral position. Either an unborn fetus is a human life, a person subject to the protection of the U.S. Constitution or it isn't. The states can determine what constitutes Due Process for the killing of an unborn fetus but it would have to pass Constitutional muster before depriving the unborn fetus of life. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   15:21:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #107. To: misterwhite (#104) You may also be interest in this as it addresses the Fed's Constitutional right to regulate state activities from the git-go, prior to the BoR. "Commerce Clause The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The Constitution enumerates certain powers for the federal government; the Tenth Amendment provides that any powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are reserved for the states. Congress has often used the Commerce Clause to justify exercising legislative power over the activities of states and their citizens, leading to significant and ongoing controversy regarding the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The Commerce Clause has historically been viewed as both a grant of congressional authority and as a restriction on states’ powers to regulate. The “dormant” Commerce Clause refers to the prohibition, implied in the Commerce Clause, against states passing legislation that discriminates against or excessively burdens interstate commerce. Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) {N.B. - well before Amendment 14.} потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   15:35:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #108. To: SOSO (#106) Yet the Wizard Paul advocates that there should be 50 independent state laws governing the status of an unborn fetus and abortion. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.     : ) You can't get there from here if no one takes the first step. It is a way to keep faith with pro-life voters and to keep your ideology brand alive. The marketplace of ideas has a limited shelf life. You have to keep your issues going and in the minds of your voters. You have to keep challenging the reigning orthodoxy you wish to overturn. Tooconservative  posted on  2016-04-03   15:40:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: TooConservative (#108) It is a way to keep faith with pro-life voters and to keep your ideology brand alive. The marketplace of ideas has a limited shelf life. You have to keep your issues going and in the minds of your voters. You have to keep challenging the reigning orthodoxy you wish to overturn. Ah, by fooling them. Got it. Thanks. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2016-04-03   15:46:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (110 - 253) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com