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: 45409
Comments: 253
I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. "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: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are
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." 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.
Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. .@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
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 (1-212) not displayed.
.
.
.
#213. To: Roscoe, Y'ALL (#209)
ConservingFreedom (#207 --- it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate
to enact "all appropriate legislation" --- Roscoe
To enact 'all constitutionally appropriate legislation'.
#214. To: Roscoe (#212)
Cling fiercely to your moronic disinterpretations - maybe you'll fool somebody besides yourself.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#215. To: ConservingFreedom (#214)
The powers in the constituion are delegated powers.
Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution.
Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?
#216. To: A K A Stone (#215)
The powers in the constituion are delegated powers.
And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent.
Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution.
If you think judicial review is constitutionally grounded - do you? - then quite plausibly the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law is "necessary and proper."
Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America?
No, only of federal law - state laws exist and have their validity independent of the federal constitution (which was ratified by the states).
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#217. To: ConservingFreedom (#214)
moronic disinterpretations
Actual language of the Constitution. Of course, you Constitution-haters prefer judicial activism.
#218. To: Roscoe (#217)
Your moronic disinterpretation is "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions".
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#219. To: Roscoe (#217)
"disinterpretations"
Is that a word?
#220. To: ConservingFreedom (#216)
"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."
So who should decide their extent?
#221. To: misterwhite (#219)
Is that a word?
The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#222. To: ConservingFreedom (#218)
The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions
Yep
#223. To: misterwhite (#220)
So who should decide their extent?
That would be ConservingFreedom, silly. Just as the Constitution clearly says in a penumbral emanation.
#224. To: misterwhite (#219)
Is that a word?
It's a malapoop.
#225. To: misterwhite (#220)
"And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent."
So
Are we agreed on that point?
who should decide their extent?
As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#226. To: ConservingFreedom (#225)
exercising their checks
Quote the "check."
[crickets]
#227. To: Roscoe (#222)
[DECEPTIVELY OMIITED BY ROSCOE: Your moronic disinterpretation is "]The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions".
Yep
For the record, you're a liar and a clumsy stupid one to boot - not that anyone on this forum doesn't already know it.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#228. To: ConservingFreedom (#227)
Quote the "check."
[crickets]
#229. To: Roscoe (#226)
Quote the "check."
"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
"If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#230. To: ConservingFreedom (#229)
1. "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7
2. "If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison
1. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.
Poor you.
2. And the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to determine what the laws should be regarding commerce among the states, and to enact all laws necessary and proper for carrying those laws into execution.
Another nice foot shot.
#231. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#229)
Article 1 Section 7Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law.
Poor you.-- roscoe
Poor roscoe, attempting to prove that the legislative power to override a presidential veto negates the checks and balances inherent in our constitution..
Weird fella.
#232. To: tpaine (#231)
Weird fella.
It must be some sort of compulsive behavior - he can't possibly think his posts fool anyone (although his little buddy is at least willing to pretend).
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#233. To: ConservingFreedom (#232)
Not only is Congress authorized to determine the laws necessary, it may do so without the President's signature.
Another epic fail for CF.
#234. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#232)
It must be some sort of compulsive behavior ----
Obsessive compulsive, as we see in his grandiose 'epic fail' howler.
#235. To: ConservingFreedom (#221)
"The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't."
The parallel? They both start with dis-.
Other than that, I see no parallel at all.
#236. To: misterwhite (#235)
Poor you.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#237. To: misterwhite (#235)
The voices in his head all got it.
#238. To: ConservingFreedom (#225)
"Are we agreed on that point?"
Not in the least.
"As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative."
Wrong. Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions.
#239. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#238)
ConservingFreedom (#225) ----- "As a matter of proceszs, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative."
Exactly, although majority rule communitarians, like Paulsen/misterwhite, insist that Congress can prohibit damn near anything, using the commerce clause.
Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions. --- misterwhite
There is no power to prohibit in our Constitution.
#240. To: misterwhite (#238)
Not in the least.
Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#241. To: ConservingFreedom (#240)
Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?
You've got it exactly backwards.
What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them?
#242. To: Roscoe, --- constitutionally backward (#241)
What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them?Roscoe
Poor backward roscoe, can't read or understand the 10th Amendment.
#243. To: Roscoe (#241)
Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?
You've got it exactly backwards.
What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them?
Move those goalposts.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#244. To: ConservingFreedom (#243)
Move those goalposts.
You don't know what move the goalposts means. Figures.
#245. To: ConservingFreedom (#240)
"Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent?"
The extent of the law is limited in that it must be necessary and it must be proper.
#246. To: misterwhite (#245)
The extent of the law is limited in that it must be necessary and it must be proper.
That's a limit only if it's false that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#247. To: ConservingFreedom (#246)
That's a limit only if it's false that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper.
"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
#248. To: Roscoe (#247)
I notice you didn't contradict the statement you quoted.
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#249. To: ConservingFreedom (#248)
No, you didn't.
#250. To: ConservingFreedom (#246)
"That's a limit only if it's false that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper."
Gobbledygook.
You concede that Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", but you say that Congress cannot decide what is necessary and proper.
That's like saying a city has the power to set speed limits, but they're not allowed to decide the speed.
#251. To: misterwhite (#250)
You concede that Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", but you say that Congress cannot decide what is necessary and proper.
Well, that's because the Constitution says in section ____________ that ______________ is actually authorized to make the decision.
#252. To: misterwhite (#250)
You concede that Congress has the power "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers", but you say that Congress cannot decide what is necessary and proper.That's like saying a city has the power to set speed limits, but they're not allowed to decide the speed.
No, it's like saying a city has the power to set speed limits on public roads, but they're not allowed to 'expansively' decide that the local racetrack is a "public road".
A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them.
#253. To: ConservingFreedom (#252)
The local public road racetrack in Long Beach, California.
Long Beach raises the speed limit on race day.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]