Slogan/motto:
love others as u love yourself... and thank God you dont have to like them
Reputation:
if this nation had listened to Jefferson... No Roe v Wade?? -
May 5th, 2012, 01:47 PM
I think this is rather interesting:
a few yrs ago, i began to wonder why the Supreme Court has so much power... so much that 7 MEN (!) could decide that the state of Texas (or any other) had no right to outlaw abortion... uh... i mean KEEP it outlawed. Up to '73, as we all know there was no legalized abortion (a right to it)
The founders of this country, Jefferson in particular, wanted as little gov as possible... and they put it into the Constit. that whatever powers were not explicitly the US gov's province, belonged to the states...
So anyhow, i thought that the Supreme Ct having FINAL say in how something is judged (Constitutional or not) was weird and not very republican (small r)... meaning it was un-American. I thought that for things to be more American... more in line w/ what the founders taught (seemed to teach... since i had not, at that time, read that much about them) there should be some way of countering the Sup Ct's decisions... some way of overseeing them... or what have u. i thought about a change where it would take something 3/4 of the states to ratify the Sup Ct's decision b4 it was law... But since i wasn't thoroughly educated in politics and / or history, i figured... dont know enough to say...
But then I read something (recently) that said Thomas Jefferson said the same thing... (!) whoa... Blow me away... I'm not an idiot after all.. (Dont even go there, Tedium Hereticum... or HisS)
anyway... now i find out that some states are thinking of getting an Amendment going to correct this problem... Wow... totally cool... going to find out which states.
What Jefferson wrote on this subject is... beautiful to read...
Slogan/motto:
love others as u love yourself... and thank God you dont have to like them
Reputation:
May 5th, 2012, 01:52 PM
Wow... What a disappointment!!!
found this at the cite mentioned below:
Jefferson's mistake was ignoring the Court and brushing off Marbury's case as too unimportant to bother with. In fact, he never sent an attorney to represent the government's interests before the Court. This error in judgment made Jefferson appear to agree with Marshall that the purpose of the Judicial branch (more specifically the Supreme Court) was to interpret the Constitution and ensure laws adhered to its principles. Jefferson became an accomplice in strengthening the power of the Judicial branch, a role he would never have accepted willingly.
a few yrs ago, i began to wonder why the Supreme Court has so much power... so much that 7 MEN (!) could decide that the state of Texas (or any other) had no right to outlaw abortion... uh... i mean KEEP it outlawed. Up to '73, as we all know there was no legalized abortion (a right to it)
The founders of this country, Jefferson in particular, wanted as little gov as possible... and they put it into the Constit. that whatever powers were not explicitly the US gov's province, belonged to the states...
So anyhow, i thought that the Supreme Ct having FINAL say in how something is judged (Constitutional or not) was weird and not very republican (small r)... meaning it was un-American. I thought that for things to be more American... more in line w/ what the founders taught (seemed to teach... since i had not, at that time, read that much about them) there should be some way of countering the Sup Ct's decisions... some way of overseeing them... or what have u. i thought about a change where it would take something 3/4 of the states to ratify the Sup Ct's decision b4 it was law... But since i wasn't thoroughly educated in politics and / or history, i figured... dont know enough to say...
But then I read something (recently) that said Thomas Jefferson said the same thing... (!) whoa... Blow me away... I'm not an idiot after all.. (Dont even go there, Tedium Hereticum... or HisS)
anyway... now i find out that some states are thinking of getting an Amendment going to correct this problem... Wow... totally cool... going to find out which states.
What Jefferson wrote on this subject is... beautiful to read...
i will find it and print it...
If your nation had listened to God, there would be no Illegal Alien, without a birth certificate even elected as dog catcher in your country.
Come to think of it, I'll bet that there's not one anywhere.
Paul -- 050512
---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
It's not "limited" government when it declares that all women who are pregnant must give birth or else. This is the ultimate violation of human rights.
Conservatives who are so opposed to "statism" don't realize that
lack of reproductive freedom is the ultimate form of statism.
Some "limited " government. When the government has the power to pry into women's reproductive organs, there is no freedom .
It's not "limited" government when it declares that all women who are pregnant must give birth or else. This is the ultimate violation of human rights.
Jefferson's mistake was ignoring the Court and brushing off Marbury's case as too unimportant to bother with. In fact, he never sent an attorney to represent the government's interests before the Court. This error in judgment made Jefferson appear to agree with Marshall that the purpose of the Judicial branch (more specifically the Supreme Court) was to interpret the Constitution and ensure laws adhered to its principles. Jefferson became an accomplice in strengthening the power of the Judicial branch, a role he would never have accepted willingly.
Just so that you don't look too foolish when you run up against a God-hating ACLU'er that tries to point out that all of the Founding Fathers were either deists or atheists, instead of using wiki as your source of information, try using Wallbuilders.
Any one who believes anything on the wallbuilders site is pathetically naive and ignorant. Wallbuilders wants to TEAR DOWN the separation of church and state and turn America into an evangelical Christian theocracy which would be little better than the Islamic theocracies of the middle east.
It's founder, the odious and moronic pseudo historian David Barton,
does nothing but spread all manner of lies and distortions about the constitution and the founding fathers, making them out to be
the same kind of fanatical evangelical Christian theocrat he is.
The founders of this country, Jefferson in particular, wanted as little gov as possible... and they put it into the Constit. that whatever powers were not explicitly the US gov's province, belonged to the states...
I guess you missed the 14th amendment and the civil war. And I partially fixed your misrepresentation of history.
Slogan/motto:
Hard work never hurt anybody - but why take the chance !!!
Reputation:
May 6th, 2012, 08:22 AM
What "TruthSetsFree" conveniently forgets to mention is that the only way to enforce any anti-abortion law is through "government intervention," whether it be federal or state.
The attempt to appeal to Jefferson's "as little gov as possible" is entirely misleading, true "as little gov as possible" would ultimately leave the decision as whether to abort /or not to abort up to the individual citizen.
Roe v Wade gurantees the individual the right to make that decision without government intervention - but "TruthSetsFree" wants the state government to make it for them!
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
May 6th, 2012, 10:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horn
It's not "limited" government when it declares that all women who are pregnant must give birth or else. This is the ultimate violation of human rights.
If a woman is 8 months pregnant should she be legally able to obtain an abortion? Is it the "ultimate violation of human rights" to force her to give birth?
Even you don't believe what you're peddling.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
If she is 8 months pregnant and it's a normal pregnancy, no.
But if her life and health are at stake, YES !!!!!!!
Situations like htis DO happen. Sometimes pregnancies go terribly wrong at a late stage, and if the doctor does not perfom an emergency abortion, neither the woman or the fetus will survive .
To deny women the right to abortions in emergency situations is absolutely barbaric. No woman should have to die because of a pregnancy.
Anti-choice women here, would YOU want to die if you were pregnant and a situation like this happened ?
And men- if YOUR wife were in an emergency situation like this, would you want her to die. And suppose you already had other children.
Would you want them to be left motherless ?
Furthermore, women in the 8th month of a pregnancy don't just arbitrarily and capriciously decide to have an abortion this late in the game. This just doesn't happen .
Slogan/motto:
...the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love thei
Anti-choice women here, would YOU want to die if you were pregnant and a situation like this happened ?
If I was 8 months pregnant and a life-threatening situation occurred, I would demand that my doctor give me a C-section so that both I and my child had a chance at survival.
June is Gay Pride Month. Tolerance and diversity? More like tolerate perversity.
Linear Mode
