Leaving the Democrats

[rlg94086]

miguel:

How is it Constitutional for a federal district judge to tell a state how to spend its own money? Wilson was appealing the decision. But Davis dropped the appeal when he got in.

I voted for Prop 187 and fully understand that there is nothing against the Constitution - it deals with the spending of resources on people in the country illegally, so how could it be against the Constitution?

As I said, it appears the judge was wrong; however, his ruling stands until it goes to appeal. If it was dropped, this doesn’t surprise me. Davis was an awful governor, which is why he isn’t in the office now. Can Governor Schwarzenegger bring it back up?

Never mind…we’ve already strayed far enough off topic

 

[miguel]

rlg94086:

I voted for Prop 187 and fully understand that there is nothing against the Constitution - it deals with the spending of resources on people in the country illegally, so how could it be against the Constitution?

As I said, it appears the judge was wrong; however, his ruling stands until it goes to appeal. If it was dropped, this doesn’t surprise me. Davis was an awful governor, which is why he isn’t in the office now. Can Governor Schwarzenegger bring it back up?

Never mind…we’ve already strayed far enough off topic

My only point in raising it was to illustrate that the laws of the land are being thwarted by judges. That should only happen when they are clearly unconstitutional. There is no Constitutional guarantee protecting abortion. They simply made it up. They threw out state laws that were placed on the books by elected representatives. That is why we have elected representatives. So we can democratically make these decisions, not have them imposed on us by unaccountable judges. That is our Constitutional system. These judges are illegally violating it. They are not legislators. They are not executives. And there is a dangerous mindset in this country that is acquiesing to it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

So if you want to kill your wife, do you think the authorities should help you if a judge “orders” them to? I don’t. I don’t think the authorities should ever help a husband kill his wife. And if they are part of the executive branch, I don’t think they should respond to court orders without the assent of the executive branch. And if they are part of the judicial branch, I think that’s dangerous.

The problem is, what you and I think doesn’t make law.

The judge ordered it done. The husband wanted it done. It could only be stopped by force.

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

The problem is, what you and I think doesn’t make law.

The judge ordered it done. The husband wanted it done. It could only be stopped by force.

Not necessarily. A judge could be challenged by the executive branch and back down. Or wherever necessary, cops need to be put under the authority of the executive branch, if they’re not already in the various states. Obviously, this would take time. But we need to stop giving executive power to these judges. We need to start taking it back. The alternative is to continue to let these judges have their way. We keep electing pro-lifers to office. They keep passing pro-life laws. The judges keep throwing them out. Something has to change.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

Not necessarily.

Tell me how you would stop it without force? Let me point out that the husband wanted to do it, and he was surrounded by his supporters.

You sure wouldn’t TALK him out of it – that had already failed.

miguel:

A judge could be challenged by the executive branch and back down.

How? What sort of challenge?

miguel:

Or wherever necessary, cops need to be put under the authority of the executive branch, if they’re not already in the various states. Obviously, this would take time. But we need to stop giving executive power to these judges. We need to start taking it back. The alternative is to continue to let these judges have their way. We keep electing pro-lifers to office. They keep passing pro-life laws. The judges keep throwing them out. Something has to change.

You use force in a situation like this and you forfeit all chance you ever have of convincing people that your way is right.

 

[Brad]

JKirkLVNV:

Since we all share so much with each other, I thought I’d share this:

I come from a long line of blue-collar/farmer Democrats. I’ve belonged to the party since I could first vote (though I cast that first vote for Ronald Reagan, may he rest in peace). Over the last decade, my party has increasingly distanced itself from me and from the values that my family instilled in me (so much so that my old grandfather finally registered as a Republican! If you had told us in the 80’s that he might do that in the late 90’s, we would have rather discourteously laughed at you). As I find my conscience, formed by our Catholic faith, increasingly at odds with the Democrats, I have finally come to the decision to leave the party. I will be going to our county building and registering as an Independent/Non-partisan. Many of the conversations that have occured here in these forums helped me toward that decision.

God bless you. You have made the right choice.

 

[marvin]

O.K., another reason to leave the Democrats, (from April 2005):

66.195.16.55.bio920.html

 

[marvin]

O.K… Yet another reason to leave the Democrats (from April 2005):

cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/16/politics/main6886600.shtml

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

You use force in a situation like this and you forfeit all chance you ever have of convincing people that your way is right.

Very true. But how long do we have to wait? 1.5 million babies have died every year going back to 1973. We do not have to wait indefinitely to convince every single person in the country. That’s why we have force. Since judges won’t use it to protect the innocent (and it’s not their Constitutional prerogative anyway), it’s time for the other branches, particularly the executive, to step up. This should have happened the instant Roe v Wade was passed. So much time has passed now that abortion has gained a large acceptance. But this Constitutional showdown is coming. We either stand up to the judiciary, or we will lose our freedom, just as the 40 million dead babies have lost theirs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

Very true. But how long do we have to wait? 1.5 million babies have died every year going back to 1973. We do not have to wait indefinitely to convince every single person in the country. That’s why we have force.

And what if a pro-abortion governor uses the National Guard to FORCE Catholic doctors to perform abortions?

miguel:

Since judges won’t use it to protect the innocent (and it’s not their Constitutional prerogative anyway), it’s time for the other branches, particularly the executive, to step up. This should have happened the instant Roe v Wade was passed. So much time has passed now that abortion has gained a large acceptance. But this Constitutional showdown is coming. We either stand up to the judiciary, or we will lose our freedom, just as the 40 million dead babies have lost theirs.

We stand up at the ballot box. Vote for pro-life candidates, and against pro-abortion candidates. If your party has a pro-abortion plank, clean your party up.

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

And what if a pro-abortion governor uses the National Guard to FORCE Catholic doctors to perform abortions?

We vote him out. We can’t vote judges out. BTW, the threat of force is a constant menace against people who would try to save these babies.
vern humphrey:

We stand up at the ballot box. Vote for pro-life candidates, and against pro-abortion candidates. If your party has a pro-abortion plank, clean your party up.

Absolutely. But there is still a Constitutional problem with these judges exercising legislative and executive power. This is blatantly illegal. And they are undermining all of our efforts to enact pro-life laws. Yes. Those candidates need to appoint pro-life judges. My point is the executive is under no obligation to obey and enforce judicial will under every circumstance. And that is a very Constitutional principle. Alexander Hamilton made the same point in the Federalist papers. And it could have saved 40 million babies had it been asserted at the time of Roe.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

We vote him out.

How do you do that from behind barbed wire?

miguel:

We can’t vote judges out.

Which is why we should vote out the Senators who demand judges support Roe v Wade. If we vote out enough pro-abortion people and vote in enough pro-life congressmen and senators, we can impeach some judges.

miguel:

BTW, the threat of force is a constant menace against people who would try to save these babies.

Which shows how dangerous it is to use force.

miguel:

Absolutely. But there is still a Constitutional problem with these judges exercising legislative and executive power. This is blatantly illegal. And they are undermining all of our efforts to enact pro-life laws. Yes. Those candidates need to appoint pro-life judges. My point is the executive is under no obligation to obey and enforce judicial will under every circumstance.

What you’re asking for is a constitutional crisis – not a good idea. Imagine if Hillary Clinton is our next president. Do you want her sending in troops to enforce her will?

There’s a better way – Congress can set the rules for courts. They could pass a law, for example, requiring the Courts to stick to Original Intent.

miguel:

And that is a very Constitutional principle. This is Alexander Hamilton’s arguement. And it could have saved 40 million babies had it been asserted at the time of Roe.

It would have been better had the Catholic Bishops had the will to oppose it. Yet to this day they will not act to ban pro-abortion “Catholics” from communion.

Many people ask, "How bad can it be if you vote against a partial-birth abortion ban and can still take communion in the Catholic Church?

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

Which is why we should vote out the Senators who demand judges support Roe v Wade. If we vote out enough pro-abortion people and vote in enough pro-life congressmen and senators, we can impeach some judges.

I think we are violently agreeing. This is exactly what I’m arguing for…the other branches of government asserting their own Constitutional power. By not doing that, they have let things get out of hand, to the point that judges think their power is absolute. It isn’t.
vern humphrey:

Which shows how dangerous it is to use force.

I agree with you. It is dangerous. But the other side has had no problem using it to enforce its will. And we have 40 million dead babies as a result.
vern humphrey:

What you’re asking for is a constitutional crisis – not a good idea.

Baloney. The other branches have the power. They need to use it. Otherwise we have judicial dictatorship. What’s better? Constitutional crisis or dictatorship?
vern humphrey:

Imagine if Hillary Clinton is our next president. Do you want her sending in troops to enforce her will?

I have no trouble imagining her as exactly the sort of person who wouldn’t hesitate to use force.
vern humphrey:

There’s a better way – Congress can set the rules for courts. They could pass a law, for example, requiring the Courts to stick to Original Intent.

One branch of government telling another what to do? I think you’ve caught the fever…checks and balances…what an American idea. Article III Section 2 gives them the power to limit the Courts appellate jurisdiction. They could simply pass a law saying state abortion laws are outside their jurisdiction. Of course the judges would rule the law unconstitutional. They don’t give a gnat’s eyelash about the Constitution. That’s when it’s time for an executive order…
vern humphrey:

It would have been better had the Catholic Bishops had the will to oppose it. Yet to this day they will not act to ban pro-abortion “Catholics” from communion.

Many people ask, "How bad can it be if you vote against a partial-birth abortion ban and can still take communion in the Catholic Church?

Pathetic. We’re all divided because they won’t lead.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

I think we are violently agreeing. This is exactly what I’m arguing for…the other branches of government asserting their own Constitutional power. By not doing that, they have let things get out of hand, to the point that judges think their power is absolute. It isn’t.
I agree with you. It is dangerous. But the other side has had no problem using it to enforce its will. And we have 40 million dead babies as a result.

If we try to use armed force, we will make things worse.

miguel:

Baloney. The other branches have the power. They need to use it. Otherwise we have judicial dictatorship. What’s better? Constitutional crisis or dictatorship?
I have no trouble imagining her as exactly the sort of person who wouldn’t hesitate to use force.

And what happens if the troops refuse to fire on their fellow Americans?

Will you allow elections to take place? If you do, you will lose after a fiasco like that. And the next president will not be on your side, and the troops will be used against you.

miguel:

One branch of government telling another what to do? I think you’ve caught the fever…checks and balances…what an American idea. Article III Section 2 gives them the power to limit the Courts appellate jurisdiction. They could simply pass a law saying state abortion laws are outside their jurisdiction.

Yes, they could – and we need to elect congressmen and senators who will propose and vote for such a law – along with president who will sign it.

miguel:

Of course the judges would rule the law unconstitutional. They don’t give a gnat’s eyelash about the Constitution. That’s when it’s time for an executive order…

No, that’s when it’s time to impeach a few judges – which requires a large majority in the Senate.

miguel:

Pathetic. We’re all divided because they won’t lead.

And until the Church is willing to lead, how can we look down on secular authorities who won’t lead either?

 

[Ignatius]

JKirkLVNV:

Since we all share so much with each other, I thought I’d share this:

I come from a long line of blue-collar/farmer Democrats. I’ve belonged to the party since I could first vote (though I cast that first vote for Ronald Reagan, may he rest in peace). Over the last decade, my party has increasingly distanced itself from me and from the values that my family instilled in me (so much so that my old grandfather finally registered as a Republican! If you had told us in the 80’s that he might do that in the late 90’s, we would have rather discourteously laughed at you). As I find my conscience, formed by our Catholic faith, increasingly at odds with the Democrats, I have finally come to the decision to leave the party. I will be going to our county building and registering as an Independent/Non-partisan. Many of the conversations that have occured here in these forums helped me toward that decision.

Bravo, welcome home.

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

If we try to use armed force, we will make things worse.

I don’t want armed force any more than you do. The peaceful approach is always preferred. History tells us that. But history also tells us there is a limit to people’s patience. Force was inevitable in settling the issue of slavery. I think I’m being a “pessimistic realist” here.
vern humphrey:

And what happens if the troops refuse to fire on their fellow Americans?

Executive power does not have to mean the use of armed force. The executive can simply refuse to enforce judicial will. He can do that by refusing to use force to assist Schiavo in the killing of his wife. He can refuse to use force to keep clinic entrances open. He can order enforcement agencies to refuse to comply with judicial “orders”. I’m sure there are many options open to the executive along these lines. They need to start getting creative.
vern humphrey:

No, that’s when it’s time to impeach a few judges – which requires a large majority in the Senate.

And when all the pro-abort gangsters start rioting in the streets? What then?
vern humphrey:

And until the Church is willing to lead, how can we look down on secular authorities who won’t lead either?

It’s obvious they’re not going to. It’s up to us lay people.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

I don’t want armed force any more than you do. The peaceful approach is always preferred. History tells us that. But history also tells us there is a limit to people’s patience. Force was inevitable in settling the issue of slavery. I think I’m being a “pessimistic realist” here.

Then let’s stop all reference to armed force. Jeb Bush had no option outside of that – so to condemn him is wrong.

miguel:

Executive power does not have to mean the use of armed force. The executive can simply refuse to enforce judicial will. He can do that by refusing to use force to assist Schiavo in the killing of his wife.

Who he? The husband, his friends and the LOCAL police – not the STATE police did that.

miguel:

He can refuse to use force to keep clinic entrances open. He can order enforcement agencies to refuse to comply with judicial “orders”. I’m sure there are many options open to the executive along these lines.

Again, who he?

The police you see outside abortion clinics are local police. They don’t answer to the governor.

There are other problems there – the judiciary can issue orders directly to the police, and they can issue a writ of mandamus, an order to an official to do his duty.

miguel:

And when all the pro-abort gangsters start rioting in the streets? What then?

And what would that mean? Would gangs of pro-abortionists kidnap doctors and force them to perform abortions? IN cases like that, they would be in violation of the law, and normal law enforcement would deal with it.

miguel:

It’s obvious they’re not going to. It’s up to us lay people.

And the way we do it is to get pro-abortionists out of office and pro-life people in.

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

And the way we do it is to get pro-abortionists out of office and pro-life people in.

Obviously. But once they’re in, they need to use their power to protect life. And I’m not convinced that’ll be a totally peaceful process.

 

[vern_humphrey]

miguel:

Obviously. But once they’re in, they need to use their power to protect life. And I’m not convinced that’ll be a totally peaceful process.

We won’t know until we do have a solid majority of committed pro-life officials. If the anti-life people want to riot then, we can deal with it.

 

[miguel]

vern humphrey:

We won’t know until we do have a solid majority of committed pro-life officials. If the anti-life people want to riot then, we can deal with it.

First things first. I get it.