L
Lemuel
Guest
The Constitution is the supreme law. You follow it or you change it.
- Status
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Yes must be interpreted and applied to modern era, but the meanings of the terms you use when applying it in modern era are the meanings assigned to the terms at time Constitution written. Otherwise you invite a rogue Judge to invent definition of a term and achieve outcome he/she wants, which is not good, no matter what side of debate you’re on.
L
Lemuel
Guest
When the Constitution was written, we had doctors. We had schools. We had poor. In those days it was unconstitutional to collect taxes for health care, education and welfare. That has nothing to do with time we live in.
S
StephenBales
Guest
Then thank goodness for the electoral college.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic—or at least we used to be.
Pure democracy is mob rule.
We are not a democracy, we are a republic—or at least we used to be.
Pure democracy is mob rule.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Even broader, it was unconstitutional to compel the purchase of a good or service.
Irony of “tax” is it can’t be a tax for Supreme Court to hear the case. At beginning of oral argument you’ll hear Roberts and other Justices inquire to be sure ACA isn’t a tax since there is a law (anti-injunction act) which forbids Supreme Court from hearing cases challenging a tax until its paid (and nobody had paid ACA penalty yet). Yet then they say it is a tax when upholding it. Whole thing is sham
Last edited:
They may be as “pro-life” as their political circumstances (i.e., ability to win) will allow them to be.
I would really, really like to hear from someone who can articulate clearly "abortion in cases of rape or incest, while tragic, is acceptable because…"
As for “life of the mother” (and I mean deciding who lives and who dies, not “health of the mother” — two different things), we as Catholics realize that we cannot commit evil to bring about good. We cannot kill the mother to save the baby, and we cannot kill the baby to save the mother. A doctor, in an unthinkable instance, might have to allow both to die rather than directly taking the life of the baby. Some ethical systems allow evil to be committed to bring about good — “the end justifies the means”. Catholic morality rejects this.
Bernard Nathanson makes a fairly efficient argument for taking the life of the baby, albeit reluctantly, to save the life of the mother, in Aborting America. He likens it to floating in the open ocean, tethered to a maniac who is thrashing, fighting, and will take both of you down if not checked, or cutting the maniac loose and letting him drown while you save yourself. I am not necessarily advocating this, but it is something to think about. I would like to see a similarly clean, efficient, internally logical argument made for killing the baby in the case of rape or incest.
S
Sbee0
Guest
Yep. I don’t believe President Bush was truly pro life for that reason (and his wife was openly prochoice too)
S
Sbee0
Guest
Yup. Same with Al Gore if I’m not mistaken.
I love Gabbard’s stance on war, it’s too bad she caved on this issue.
J
JSRG
Guest
This is a thoroughly unwarranted assumption. If the electoral college did not exist, then the candidate’s campaigning strategies would have been different. And even if their campaigning strategies remained exactly the same, the voting patterns would have been different.
For example, if you live in a swing state under the current system, you are more likely to go out and vote because your vote is more likely to matter. But in a popular vote system, you would be less incentivized to do those things, as your vote would be less likely to matter as it would be “lost” among the much larger population of the country. Contrariwise, someone who lives in a solidly Republican or Democratic state would under a popular vote be more incentivized to get out and vote, as their vote could actually have some small chance of changing the election (rather than the 0% it would under the current system). All of this would result in a different vote total on both sides.
And again, this is only the voting patterns if the candidates did everything exactly the same. Different tactics or strategies of candidates under a popular vote system would have occurred, which would also tilt the vote totals.
It is impossible to predict how these changes in total would affect the vote total. Therefore, it is little more than blind speculation to say that if not for the electoral college, Hillary would have won.
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
Trump himself was an admitted pro choicer 20 years ago but in interviews you can tell he struggled big time (bigly? 
) with the idea of abortion.
I think his “conversion” could be seen coming.
) with the idea of abortion.I think his “conversion” could be seen coming.
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Plus she said she changed after going to Iraq? You’d think that would make someone pro abortion become pro life. Just sounds like excuse for falling in line and her hiding behind Iraq record. She seems good other than that. I wonder if Dems see her like GOP saw Kasich
Last edited:
S
Sbee0
Guest
Yeah. She looked at it as a “women’s rights” and “freedom” issue which is unfortunate and misguided. She isn’t the first to do so.
L
Lemuel
Guest
If we ever actually followed the Constitution, most of our federal employees would be out of work and would have to find real jobs.
L
Lemuel
Guest
If we held democratic elections then Trump would have campaigned that way and probably kicked her butt even worse.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
It wouldn’t matter. It’s what the party platform believes not what any individual rep wants…THE PARTY PLATFORM determines the position that is taken. The Democrat party platform is rabid infanticide at any stage of development.
They want
Appointing Judges
Securing Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice
No they’re not
THAT is already happening under Trump. When the economy is roaring, and unemployment is the lowest in over 50 yrs, that puts upward pressure for wage increases, because people have more options on where to work. Meaning companies raise wages to keep people they like or get people they like…
JoeShalotnik:
Obama care was a disaster. No state could afford it. They ALL abandoned it
Both sides want a clean environment.
Last edited:
O
Odilon
Guest
Yeah, sure. More minorities are now employed because of his policies. He has stood up for the Constitution of the United States and has stopped kowtowing to foreign governments as previous presidents have done. He is trying to secure our national sovereignty and our borders. He will go down in history as being one of our better chief executives.
O
Odilon
Guest
That is irrelevant. The President is elected by the number of electoral votes garnered and for sure Hillary was trying to get the required electoral votes herself. It’s not my problem she didn’t campaign more vociferously in Wisconsin, Michigan, and a couple of other states. She lost fair and square - time to get over it.
O
Odilon
Guest
Guys like Obama, Clinton, and many of their top lieutenants never served in the military either. Hillary never served. By the way, Secretary Pompeo graduated first in his class at West Point in 1986 eventually becoming a Captain before his discharge. But what’s your point about people never having served - does that disqualify them from serving in a high government position?
Last edited:
J
JulianN
Guest
That’s one of the scariest statements I’ve ever seen. And is the attitude among many Trump supporters that explains what some view as “hysteria” on part of the left.
- Status