If Democrats Win

[BioCatholic]

Well, I never said the Constitution is clear-cut, but some of it is…the often ignored 10th Amendment for example:

Seems pretty clear to me. Welfare programs, education, etc. should be handled by the states or local governments. This also matches up with the Church teachings on subsidiarity.

Article 1 Section 8 with respect to Legislative powers…

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries

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.

Education needs to have a standard. If education were totally left up to the states, more conservative states would teach less science, evolution ect. Think about a student coming from South Carolina and trying to apply to medical school elsewhere. The admissions would laugh their application out of the office.

There needs to be somewhat of a uniform standard of the education system, as interstate commerce, governance, national defense all depend on persons from the various states. without a baseline standard, inevitably this would interefere in the ability for people to communicate and work together across state lines.

That last quote from Article I is always interpreted as very broad in its scope. it is a “catch all”, for Congress to use at its discretion with the hopes the Executive and/or the Judiciary can check and veto/overturn a bill that goes far beyond the power that is “necessary and proper”.

 

[steveandersen]

… All of you pro-lifers who are angry at Republicans, don’t take it out on the unborn! The unborn need our help! Do what is right!

Ishii

The republicans are not the source of all that is goodness and light

Remember that 6 of the 9 judges who decided Roe v Wade were republican appointees. 5 of them sided with the majority.

The current court is very conservative and probably won’t overturn precedent.
So barring a constitutional amendment (which doesn’t seem likely) the unfortunate truth seems to be that regardless of their position on the issue nothing is going to be done by either party.

I often suspect that it is used merely as a vote getter.

 

[Richardols]

The republicans are not the source of all that is goodness and light.

!!!

The current court is very conservative and probably won’t overturn precedent.

I agree with you here.

So barring a constitutional amendment (which doesn’t seem likely) the unfortunate truth seems to be that regardless of their position on the issue nothing is going to be done by either party.

Agreed again. I can’t see how a GOP win would make any difference now or later.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The republicans are not the source of all that is goodness and light

Remember that 6 of the 9 judges who decided Roe v Wade were republican appointees. 5 of them sided with the majority.

The current court is very conservative and probably won’t overturn precedent.
So barring a constitutional amendment (which doesn’t seem likely) the unfortunate truth seems to be that regardless of their position on the issue nothing is going to be done by either party.

I often suspect that it is used merely as a vote getter.

I’m certain of it and I don’t buy it anymore. I won’t vote pro-choice-on-abortion, but I won’t vote for faux “pro-life,” either.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m certain of it and I don’t buy it anymore. I won’t vote pro-choice-on-abortion, but I won’t vote for faux “pro-life,” either.

So, you are voting agin’ pro-life?

Oh, sorry I read that as fo’ instead of faux.

 

[BioCatholic]

The current court is very conservative and probably won’t overturn precedent.
So barring a constitutional amendment (which doesn’t seem likely) the unfortunate truth seems to be that regardless of their position on the issue nothing is going to be done by either party.

I often suspect that it is used merely as a vote getter.

EVEN IF they overturn Roe v Wade, then the matter returns to the states and is out of the power of the FEDERAL government still.

Congress won’t be able to pass legislation, other than a Constitutional amendment, dictating how states decide the matter.

California, NY, NJ, MA, RI and all blue states will retain abortion because their constitutions explicitly contain privacy clauses.

It is also out of the power of BOTH states and Congress to prohibit interstate travel to circumvent local and state laws. This has been upheld with gambling, prostitution ect. NO ONE has EVER been prosecuted for traveling to Neveda, married or otherwise, to have sex with a prostitute. NO ONE. The Mann Act is unenforcable with Lawrence vs Texas.

So someone in South Dakota can hop in a car, plane or train and go to NY, NJ ect for an abortion, and there isnt, or will ever be, a thing anyone can ever do about it. Unless the Constitution is amended.

Even if SD passed a constitutional amendment granting the embryo full rights, those rights end at SD borders, and the ability to travel freely between states superceeds any state laws and statutes.

 

[mary_bobo]

The republicans are not the source of all that is goodness and light

Remember that 6 of the 9 judges who decided Roe v Wade were republican appointees. 5 of them sided with the majority.

The current court is very conservative and probably won’t overturn precedent.
So barring a constitutional amendment (which doesn’t seem likely) the unfortunate truth seems to be that regardless of their position on the issue nothing is going to be done by either party.

I often suspect that it is used merely as a vote getter.

Just goes to show that you cannot always tell how they will vote when nominated. I know Reagan was led to believe that Sandra Day O’Connor was a conservative. Ande Suiter (sp) was suggested by the senior Sununu who was very conservative. Look how he has voted, particularly on eminent domain. So you can’t really tell, can you? Vote getter or no, the GOP has made some small inroads in the problem as enumerated elsewhere on this forum.

 

[rlg94086]

LOL…you underlined the wrong part…

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

The word “by” actually tells you how the federal government is supposed to promote the progress of science and useful arts. What follows “by” is a description of patents and copyrights. Yes, I agree that patents and copyrights should be handled by the federal government.

Your views on education, while valid opinions, have no constitutional basis. The Department of Education was created in 1979 and is a bureaucratic monster. If it just laid out guidelines, that would be okay with me. Instead, it is used as a vehicle for both Democrats and Republicans for the “do something” disease to waste our tax dollars.

I trust the people in South Carolina to educate their children properly to compete in the global marketplace. California on the otherhand…maybe not.

Article 1 Section 8 with respect to Legislative powers…

Education needs to have a standard. If education were totally left up to the states, more conservative states would teach less science, evolution ect. Think about a student coming from South Carolina and trying to apply to medical school elsewhere. The admissions would laugh their application out of the office.

There needs to be somewhat of a uniform standard of the education system, as interstate commerce, governance, national defense all depend on persons from the various states. without a baseline standard, inevitably this would interefere in the ability for people to communicate and work together across state lines.

That last quote from Article I is always interpreted as very broad in its scope. it is a “catch all”, for Congress to use at its discretion with the hopes the Executive and/or the Judiciary can check and veto/overturn a bill that goes far beyond the power that is “necessary and proper”.

 

[steveandersen]

Just goes to show that you cannot always tell how they will vote when nominated. I know Reagan was led to believe that Sandra Day O’Connor was a conservative. Ande Suiter (sp) was suggested by the senior Sununu who was very conservative. Look how he has voted, particularly on eminent domain. So you can’t really tell, can you?

That eminent domain ruling was quite conservative.

Vote getter or no, the GOP has made some small inroads in the problem as enumerated elsewhere on this forum.

12 years in control of congress (with a brief bump in the Senate) and the last 6 years in control of the executive too
And still nothing

 

[steveandersen]

…I trust the people in South Carolina to educate their children properly to compete in the global marketplace. California on the otherhand…maybe not.

I’ve lived in both places

The Schools in SC (while there are some bright spots in some of the richer districts) are generally below average. We have a guy running for chairman of the state BOE who home schooled all his children and wants to dismantle the whole system. Meanwhile I’m trying to run an engineering firm and there are no trained people to be found.

CA used to have a great school system but they have so hog tied themselves with propositions, voter initiatives, and constitutional restrictions that the system is no where near what it was

 

[rlg94086]

I’ve lived in both places

The Schools in SC (while there are some bright spots in some of the richer districts) are generally below average. We have a guy running for chairman of the state BOE who home schooled all his children and wants to dismantle the whole system. Meanwhile I’m trying to run an engineering firm and there are no trained people to be found.

Sorry to hear that…they, as a state, need to correct the situation. It would benefit them to do so. You, as an employer, need to hire from out of state and let them know you are doing so.

steveandersen:

CA used to have a great school system but they have so hog tied themselves with propositions, voter initiatives, and constitutional restrictions that the system is no where near what it was

When? I grew up in CA and attended public schools in the 70s and 80s and they were marginal. My kids attended in the 90s and 00s and they were still marginal. Maybe they were good in the 1800s?

 

[vern_humphrey]

12 years in control of congress (with a brief bump in the Senate) and the last 6 years in control of the executive too
And still nothing

You overstate your case – the house, senate and presidency have been under Republican control for only 4 years. For the first two years of hte Bush presidency, the Senate was Democratic. Despite that, we managed to get two fairly conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have held all three centers of power for many more years than that. It will take a long time to roll back what they did.

Let’s take the Partial Birth Abortion Ban as an example. It passed both house and senate – but was vetoed by a Democratic president.

In the next session of congress, it passed the house and went to the senate, where 60 senators signed on as co-sponsors, and the Republican President announced he would sign it. So it passed, right?

Wrong. The Senate was Democratic, and the most radical Democrats controlled the committee chairmanships – and despite overwhelming support for the bill in the senate, it never got to the floor for a vote.

Only in the next Congress, when Republicans controlled both house and senate did the bill pass – and a Republican president signed it.

 

[Thekla]

Tyrannical? Come on, Thelka. You have many arguments against Bush, and I know there are many legitimate arguments against him, but a tyrant? How many people have been murdered or threatened because they spoke out against Bush or opposed the ‘regime’? This is belittling to people who have lived under real tyranny–people who would be tortured or killed if they publicly said what you just said. Don’t cheapen the term “tyrrant” by using it with such abandon.

Here’s a voice from the left that makes the same point well (albeit about a different topic):

If democrats win, we have zero chance of overturing Roe vs Wade.

Hmmm. You take issue with the tyrannical part but not with the incompetent part.

tyranny = dominance through threat of punishment and violence.

 

[Jay74]

Hmmm. You take issue with the tyrannical part but not with the incompetent part.

No, I don’t. I don’t think he’s incompetent, but you’re entitled to that opinion. Tyrranical is over the top.

tyranny = dominance through threat of punishment and violence.

I have a dictionary too. Bush doesn’t fit the bill of a tyrrant. You criticize him all the time–are you afraid to? I doubt it.

You probably voted for Kery in 2004. Were you afraid of being executed, beaten, tortured, or imprisoned for voting for him? I doubt it.

 

[steveandersen]

Sorry to hear that…they, as a state, need to correct the situation. It would benefit them to do so. You, as an employer, need to hire from out of state and let them know you are doing so.

I and most of my competitors are from out of state
A lot of the professionals in the area are.

It seems to be one of those places with very little middle to it
A lot of guys on the bottom and a lot of guys on the top

When? I grew up in CA and attended public schools in the 70s and 80s and they were marginal. My kids attended in the 90s and 00s and they were still marginal. Maybe they were good in the 1800s?

I was referring to the 50s and 60s
I keep forgetting they allow you young’ns on these forums

 

[rlg94086]

I was referring to the 50s and 60s
I keep forgetting they allow you young’ns on these forums

:ehh: You are only three years older than me…(assuming your profile is accurate).

It is possible that the schools were better pre-summer-of-love. I think that’s when the wheels on the bus started to get wobbly…before completely falling off.

 

[Benedictine]

If the Democrats win, they will waste a ton of time and money on trying to impeach President Bush. Payback, in their eyes, for what happened to President Clinton.

 

[Thekla]

No, I don’t. I don’t think he’s incompetent, but you’re entitled to that opinion. Tyrranical is over the top.

I have a dictionary too. Bush doesn’t fit the bill of a tyrrant. You criticize him all the time–are you afraid to? I doubt it.

You probably voted for Kery in 2004. Were you afraid of being executed, beaten, tortured, or imprisoned for voting for him? I doubt it.

You know, there’s more to the government than Mr. Bush. I called the government “tyrannical” and the government “incompetent” but you only focus on Mr. Bush being a tyrant or Mr. Bush being incompetent.

I feel that they (the government) threaten us (the citizenry) with violence every day in an effort to dominate us; to make us submissive and maintain their power. That’s tyrannical and I oppose it.

 

[b_justb]

Thekla:

I feel that they (the government) threaten us (the citizenry) with violence every day in an effort to dominate us; to make us submissive and maintain their power. That’s tyrannical and I oppose it.

Is this your cat?

http://www.peskytherat.com/peskypics/tinfoil_cat.jpg

 

[Ahimsa]

Cliff May tells us what he thinks will happen if the Democrats win.

I’m reminded of an old “The Who” ditty: “Meet the New Boss…Same as the Old Boss”.

But that would just be cynical.