Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
doesn't the Constitution call for the Supreme Court to a representative body of all the people?
Wouldn't that require 3 conservatives, 3 moderates and 3 liberals?


[/ QUOTE ]

In a word, no.

Re: Ron Paul - clear on abortion
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

What pro-lifers do not understand, is that if God wants a person to be born, he/she will be born, even if the 1st mother decides to have an abortion. God simply choses another fetus in which to install the soul.

Or, God can chose not to make another attempt for that soul to be born into this world, and it becomes an angel.

I do not understand the strong position these christians take on abortion when God looks at our life here as nothing more than short test at the beginning of our eternity of life.

An abortion cannot vaporize the soul within the fetus.

God decides who is born into this world, not the mother. The mother only choses whether she is willing to give birth to the fetus that becomes to the vehicle for the soul.

If she choses not to give birth, she answers to God, not me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is either

a) an awesome level

b) an intriguing glimpse into the fringe dogma of the doomsday cult from which you claim membership

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that prohibits the states from violating rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


I love your question begging, instead of pointing out the obvious, I will ask you to please reread previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, you can't point out where in the Constitution this is said.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, do you ever think, or do you enjoy being an intagonist to much?

Please read the 10th Amendment you stooge. The States cannot MAKE ANY LAW THAT THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS!!!!!!!


[/ QUOTE ]

I KNOW AND I'M ASKING YOU WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBIT STATES FROM MAKING THIS LAW?

[ QUOTE ]
Michigan can not legislate that all citizens of its state will be Mormans, because this is prohibited by the constituion because it infringes the freedom of religion of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where does it say this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, not to revive an old thread, but I remember reading this, and thinking it was strange. Doesn't the first amendment prohibit michigan from making the above law?

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Michigan can not legislate that all citizens of its state will be Mormans, because this is prohibited by the constituion because it infringes the freedom of religion of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where does it say this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, not to revive an old thread, but I remember reading this, and thinking it was strange. Doesn't the first amendment prohibit michigan from making the above law?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

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.

Michigan != Congress

It was never intended to limit the states and in some states you even had to be part of a specific branch of Christianity to vote.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Michigan can not legislate that all citizens of its state will be Mormans, because this is prohibited by the constituion because it infringes the freedom of religion of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where does it say this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, not to revive an old thread, but I remember reading this, and thinking it was strange. Doesn't the first amendment prohibit michigan from making the above law?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

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.

Michigan != Congress

It was never intended to limit the states and in some states you even had to be part of a specific branch of Christianity to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first amendment has been incorporated and it now applies to Michigan. That was not the case pre-Civil War.

Re: Pro-Life is Liberterian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Michigan can not legislate that all citizens of its state will be Mormans, because this is prohibited by the constituion because it infringes the freedom of religion of its citizens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Where does it say this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, not to revive an old thread, but I remember reading this, and thinking it was strange. Doesn't the first amendment prohibit michigan from making the above law?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

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.

Michigan != Congress

It was never intended to limit the states and in some states you even had to be part of a specific branch of Christianity to vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

The first amendment has been incorporated and it now applies to Michigan. That was not the case pre-Civil War.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe Alex said this is the wrong thing to do, and shouldn't happen.

Uhhh, so yeah, good point Alex (in response to my post) I will not say I agree with you right away, I wanna re-read things and re-think a bit (had the debate on, now someone is playing halo 3 in here, so I can't think at all). But I'll post back after more reading. Holler at me dawg.