Thanks for bringing Schriner to my attention. His positions as described here line up almost exactly with my own.I will not comment on the intricacies of the Catholic official position, but will try to address the question itself.
There is a Catholic consistent life ethic independent candidate running for President - Joe Schriner.
Republican candidate for President Ron Paul opposes both abortion and the death penalty, and also is strongly anti-war. He is pretty far from Catholic social teaching on social justice issues, however.
Filibusters don’t require that a senator actually continue to speak. That may have been true in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, but it isn’t the way it works now (the rule was changed in 1975). A filibuster only ends when cloture is invoked by three-fifths of the senators (60).It takes 60 votes to END a filibuster. But a filibuster is not some magic panacea whereby 41 senators can guarantee a bill will not be voted on. And that is all a filibuster is. It stops all senate work while a speaker talks. Of course the speaker will eventually stop talking. He’ll have to go to the bathroom for instance.
This is incorrect. In order for a bill to go to reconciliation it has to be passed by both houses and a filibuster will keep a bill from ever being voted on, let alone passed.And anyway the senate devised a strategy to prevent filibusters from having any real power. They created ‘reconciliation’.
Brown was sworn in before the bill passed the House but not before it passed in the Senate.The Health Care bill passed in March of 2010. Senator Brown was sworn in Feb 4 2010, before the passage.
OK, but the Dems did have the necessary votes for the time it took to pass Obamacare. Whether it was for one year or for two doesn’t change that.And this was halfway into the first Congress under Obama. So no, the Dems did not have 60 votes the first two years.
Obamacare required 60 votes, not 60 Democrats. That the mix included 58 Dems and two Independents is not relevant.And by there were actually only ever 58 Dems. Two independent senators caucused with the Dems.
I think you should have read this article more closely as the very first sentence says exactly what I said:Here is a good article about the limited power of filibusters.
Filibusters, Cloture, and Lazy Senators
You’ve misunderstood this article as well. What the House voted on was the bill that had already passed the Senate; the Senate did not have to vote on it again. This was the bill sent to the President that he signed and it could hardly have gone to him if it had not already passed both the House and Senate. The “companion” bill sent to the Senate was to get changes made to the bill they had just passed and the reason for doing it this way was because they knew they could never get the Senate to pass the original legislation a second time with Brown in the Senate instead of Kennedy. What the House did was to pass the Senate bill and then sent up a new bill to try to get Republicans to sign on to changes to the original.You can see the bill was first passed in the House and then the Senate had to approve it.
Source
It isn’t clear that filibusters are allowed on budget bills, and I have no idea what tactic you’re referring to.Republicans have used the same tactic to push through tax cuts.
No, you haven’t. You’ve shown that you misunderstood what you read.So I think I have conclusively shown that it does not take a filibuster proof majority to pass controversial laws.
Even if Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority they still could not “do away with” abortion. Even if everyone in government was a Republican, no law could be passed making abortion illegal. Abortion can be eliminated in only two ways: a Constitutional amendment or a reversal of Roe v. Wade by SCOTUS. Congress and the president can do nothing at all to make it illegal.Having proven that the excuse that Republicans do not have a filibuster proof majority and therefore can not do away with abortion or at least defund Planned Parenthood is shown to be not true.
I don’t think there are any totally pro-life candidates. Pro-life not only includes no abortion & no death penalty (esp for innocent people who just happened to be near people when they died accidentially … and there have been several innocents or those with reasonable doubt who have been executed in Texas), but it also includes candidates who will work hard to reduce harms, deaths, and miscarriages from environmental harms (local pollution to global warming).abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/death-penalty-applause-for-rick-perrys-ultimate-justice-at-republican-debate/#.TmlHqJTMw-o.email
From conception to natural death. No exceptions. That’s life in the image and likeness of God…
Every candidate that is running is a pro life candidate, although I am a little skeptical about Ron Paul because he supports the morning after pill.There are few pro-life candidates, and there is NO pro-life party. Any party that’s memebers cheer at the mention of letting people die because they can’t afford health insurance is NOT pro-life and should be ashamed.
I can’t speak to MillTownCath’s motives, but most Catholics I’ve seen who delight in attacking the Republicans do it to feel above it all.I don’t why you are using a soundbite from one debate to castigate an entire party of people. Not everybody cheered at that debate, some people did.
"Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore
every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe
that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member,
through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be
both praiseworthy an advantageous to have it cut out of the body. Now
every individual person is compared to the whole community, on
account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be
executed in order to safeguard the common good,...
Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank
having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals,
can lawfully put evil doers to death." (Q.64 Art. 2 -3 Pt.II-II)The purchase of a car is not a deductible expense unless it was purchased for business use and medical expense write-offs begin at 7.5% whether the cost goes to heart surgery or liposuction and a tummy tuck.My boss wrote his car off on his taxes. Why did his luxury car deserve a write off but saving my life didn.'t?
I believe a certain Republican candidate mentioned earlier pointed out that if you ended the various wars you could take government back to year 2000 spending, even keeping most of the social welfare programs, and at the same time eliminate the income tax altogether and pay for all of government with its other revenue streams.If the Republicans are for tax breaks and against Obamacare where are they for me?
Yes. The House voted to approve the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on March 21st. This bill was introduced into the House as ‘Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009’. It was approved by the Senate on Dec. 29th with an amendment requiring it go back to the House.You’ve misunderstood this article as well. What the House voted on was the bill that had already passed the Senate; the Senate did not have to vote on it again. This was the bill sent to the President that he signed and it could hardly have gone to him if it had not already passed both the House and Senate. The “companion” bill sent to the Senate was to get changes made to the bill they had just passed and the reason for doing it this way was because they knew they could never get the Senate to pass the original legislation a second time with Brown in the Senate instead of Kennedy. What the House did was to pass the Senate bill and then sent up a new bill to try to get Republicans to sign on to changes to the original.
And I think the point still stands that Democrats seem to get what they want, socialized health care. Even Republicans get what they most want, tax cuts. And both do so without having to worry about filibusters as they use the reconciliation process. The reason for mentioning this to being with was to point out Republicans could defund Planned Parenthood. They might not be able to overturn abortion, but they could at least do that. But they dont. They dont even make it a high priority. They use their political capital on other things. If they dont consider it a priority I dont consider voting for them as they are unworthy.By the end of 2009, separate health care reform bills had been passed by both houses of Congress. The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, became the most viable avenue to reform following the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and his replacement by Republican Scott Brown. Lacking a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began encouraging the House to pass an amended version of the Senate bill using the reconciliation process.
"Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore
every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe
that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member,
through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be
both praiseworthy an advantageous to have it cut out of the body. Now
every individual person is compared to the whole community, on
account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be
executed in order to safeguard the common good,...
Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank
having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals,
can lawfully put evil doers to death." (Q.64 Art. 2 -3 Pt.II-II)Don’t forget Hollywood’s support for Democrats. I like knowing who those celebrities are, because then I know whose movies I won’t watch.I can’t speak to MillTownCath’s motives, but most Catholics I’ve seen who delight in attacking the Republicans do it to feel above it all.
They also believe a number of lies about Republicans that you’d think small children wouldn’t believe nowadays.
E.g., the Republicans’ average donation is $50. The Democrats’ average donation is a secret, because they don’t want people to know their support comes from movie moguls—and Wall Street!—cutting them husky checks. And yes, Wall Street supports the Democrats, go look up who got more donations from Goldman Sachs or any other investment firm. It’s actual business the Republicans are in favor of (sometimes unreflectively so), not the share-shufflers making money off it.
And the crowd was probably just mocking the questioner for trying to use a tear-jerker story as a propaganda tool, FYI. Occasionally people have been doing that lately, acting callous just because they’re sick of being manipulated; I think America might be inventing a new, national type of sarcasm, like Jews’ kvetsching.
Yes, this was the Obamacare legislation. It was approved by the Senate when the Dems had 60 votes and yes, it had to go back to the House but once they approved it it went straight to the president and became law.Yes. The House voted to approve the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) on March 21st. This bill was introduced into the House as ‘Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009’. It was approved by the Senate on Dec. 29th with an amendment requiring it go back to the House.
This is also correct, but this act did not change any of the major aspects of Obamacare. That ship had already sailed; this bill was to change some of the more egregious aspects of the bill that even the Dems wanted changed. Filibustering this bill made no sense since both sides wanted to make changes.Then the House passed also on March 21st. the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 to amend a law (PPACA) which was not currently a law because it had not been signed. This was then approved by the Senate on March 25th. At this point in time the Senate was composed of 41 Republicans which is enough to filibuster.
No, the reconciliation process involves only budget bills. Obamacare did not fall into that category.So the second part of the bill was passed when Democrats did not have enough to filibuster. The only reason any of it passed is because the Democrats were using the reconciliation process and thus avoiding being subject to a filibuster.
This is completely wrong. Everything except budget bills can be filibustered in the Senate, thus if one party objects, the other party can pass no bill without 60 votes.And I think the point still stands that Democrats seem to get what they want, socialized health care. Even Republicans get what they most want, tax cuts. And both do so without having to worry about filibusters as they use the reconciliation process.
Given that funding for PP is probably in a budget bill - which cannot be filibustered - it might well be true that they could be defunded with a simple majority. I don’t know the details of that situation. It is clear, however, that you are searching for justification for opposing the Republicans, but don’t believe that the justification you’ve given is sensible. Where is the sense in opposing those who - however ineffectively - oppose abortion when this only helps those who support it?The reason for mentioning this to being with was to point out Republicans could defund Planned Parenthood. They might not be able to overturn abortion, but they could at least do that. But they dont. They dont even make it a high priority. They use their political capital on other things. If they dont consider it a priority I dont consider voting for them as they are unworthy.
While I, again, cannot speak to ex nihilo’s specific reasons, the typical reason is that it lets them call people who don’t pretend to be above it all “partisan”.Where is the sense in opposing those who - however ineffectively - oppose abortion when this only helps those who support it?
In an otherwise very well presented argument, I do take exception to this comment. An individual forfeits his right to life not because he presents a threat to others but because he has done something (e.g. murder) for which the just punishment is death. 2267 is just wrong on this point. It is not security that justifies executing a criminal, it is retributive justice. Pius XII made this point in 1952:For Roman Catholics there are some human beings who have, by their own choice, forfeited their right to liberty and some their right to life itself. These individuals have brought upon themselves this terrible consequence by posing a threat to the natural harmony and order of a free society in general and to another or other individuals in particular.
You’ve presented a very logical argument (elsewhere) but even your logic gets tangled up when it starts from an incorrect premise. The fact that someone committed a heinous crime in the past is no indication that he represents a future threat. John Wayne Gacy is a perfect example of this as, despite the horrific nature of his crimes, he presented no threat at all once he was in prison. His execution was not only justified by the nature of his crimes but mandated by them - regardless of the complete lack of threat he posed. He had already “disposed himself of his right to live.”By their actions they either require incarceration or their actions are so heinous that the only appropriate response is to rid society and its innocent citizens from this threat and to create an atmosphere conducive to the innocent prospering and living in peace and security.
Exactly, and this is the argument that needs to be made and defended.Execution is also a just form of punishment meted out by the state especially for those criminals who have committed crimes which have deliberately taken innocent human life or crimes which by their very nature are so heinous that the person who commits them deserves the ultimate punishment the natural and civil law allow.
Yes, technically it does. But as with everything in government the practice is different from the intent. They stick all sorts of unrelated laws into one giant bill. These criminals are, like any crook, quite clever.No, the reconciliation process involves only budget bills. Obamacare did not fall into that category.
Under the Fiscal Year 2010 budget resolution the text submitted to the Budget Committee had to have been reported by October 15, 2009.[5] Therefore, the Democrats combined the text of America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 as reported out of the Ways and Means Committee, and as it was reported out of the Education and Labor Committee, and the text of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act as reported out of the Education and Labor Committee.[6][7] This version was never meant to be passed, it was only there to serve as the base for the actual ‘fix’ bill.[5] The bill was automatically amended to the version that was meant to be passed per the special rule that was reported out of the Rules Committee.[8] The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act was added to the Reconciliation Act as only one reconciliation bill can be passed each budget year, and it also faced a tough road through the Senate due to Republican filibuster and opposition from several centrist Democratic Senators.[9] The move was also thought to give President Obama two key victories in overhauling the health care and student loan system. It also eventually became clear that the budget savings caused by the student loan bill would become essential to the overall reconciliation bill by reducing the deficit enough for the overall bill to qualify for the reconciliation process.[9]
The Dems passed a terrible bill knowing they could ‘fix’ it through reconciliation. Reconciliation allows you to insert anything you want into the reconciliation bill. It is a way to pass things without the need for a ‘super majority’.That ship had already sailed; this bill was to change some of the more egregious aspects of the bill that even the Dems wanted changed. Filibustering this bill made no sense since both sides wanted to make changes.
What is clear to you is not in keeping with all the facts. I supported the Republicans for quite some time. I never supported Democrats. The more I paid attention to what Republicans actually did, that is what they actually accomplished, the more I realized they really were not the answer. They achieve none of what they promise to do, other than tax cuts along with increased spending (which is deceitful and morally wrong). In time I realized this makes sense since the goal of a politician is to get elected. He has the perverse incentive to fail so as to be reelected.It is clear, however, that you are searching for justification for opposing the Republicans, but don’t believe that the justification you’ve given is sensible. Where is the sense in opposing those who - however ineffectively - oppose abortion when this only helps those who support it?
I think that’s a positive way to approach the topic.Every candidate that is running is a pro life candidate…