W
Worthy5
Guest
Your characterization my friend—and you are not on the Court.
- Status
P
PEPCIS
Guest
"Worthy5:
So, for instance, if a cop stops you for speeding, and he proceeds to beat the h-e-double hockey sticks out of you, do you believe that he is doing so out of complete ignorance of the morality of law? See, you are clearly confused, because you obviously have not thought this through. That is why you are leaving, because when it comes down to brass tacks, you can’t defend your position.
Worthy5:
In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmum refused to entertain the question whether or not the fetus was a citizen, and he therefore negated the whole of his opinion for the lack of that one detail.
Oh, and your statement that a moral-based law system leads to an autocratic government is also pure nonsense. An autocratic government does not speak to the question of morality, but to the type of government, which is one that has one person ruling, typically a dictator, or a king/queen.
That dictator, MIGHT be a kind, benevolent, and moral dictator. So too with a King or Queen. There have been some kind, benevolent, and moral autocrats in history who have been excellent examples of moral heads of state.
Worthy5:
Worthy5:
Worthy5:
Really? So you must be implying that government can choose when to be moral, and when not to be? That they can turn it on for this law, and then turn it off for this one? You’re talking absolute, utter nonsense. ALL law is moral, and the exercise of it is a reflection of the morals of those who perform it.But the key is - you work off of an assumption that you have not justified and do not want to accept the implications of-----that all law is morality and all morality is law------that assumotion ultimately leads to an autocractic govt
PEPCIS:
So, for instance, if a cop stops you for speeding, and he proceeds to beat the h-e-double hockey sticks out of you, do you believe that he is doing so out of complete ignorance of the morality of law? See, you are clearly confused, because you obviously have not thought this through. That is why you are leaving, because when it comes down to brass tacks, you can’t defend your position.
What is the sole and exclusive purpose of the law? To prevent injustice. THAT IS A MORAL PURPOSE. In order for the Supreme Court (or any other court or jurisdictional authority in the United States) to prevent injustice to any class of citizens, it must be willing to define who is a citizen. Any case in which a declaration by any ruling authority refuses to define who is a citizen worthy of protection, is a case which demands to be overturned.
In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmum refused to entertain the question whether or not the fetus was a citizen, and he therefore negated the whole of his opinion for the lack of that one detail.
Oh, and your statement that a moral-based law system leads to an autocratic government is also pure nonsense. An autocratic government does not speak to the question of morality, but to the type of government, which is one that has one person ruling, typically a dictator, or a king/queen.
That dictator, MIGHT be a kind, benevolent, and moral dictator. So too with a King or Queen. There have been some kind, benevolent, and moral autocrats in history who have been excellent examples of moral heads of state.
Do you have a dissociative disorder or something?
Your argument FOR limited government is about as valuable as your knowledge of what a limited government is. That is evidenced by your faulty belief that the United States is a limited government. Indeed, it’s SUPPOSED to be a limited government; it’s DESIGNED to be a limited government. But our government more closely resembles an oligarchy than a limited government.
You keep on saying this. I believe it to be part of your dissociative disorder, because several of us have already stated that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. Are you listening at all?Go amend the Constitution, my friend…and God Bless you for it!
P
PEPCIS
Guest
Worthy5 said:PEPCIS:
Worthy5:
Really? So you must be implying that government can choose when to be moral, and when not to be? That they can turn it on for this law, and then turn it off for this one? You’re talking absolute, utter nonsense. ALL law is moral, and the exercise of it is a reflection of the morals of those who perform it.
So, for instance, if a cop stops you for speeding, and he proceeds to beat the h-e-double hockey sticks out of you, do you believe that he is doing so out of complete ignorance of the morality of law? See, you are clearly confused, because you obviously have not thought this through. Don’t try to walk away from the debate. Tell us in DETAIL how it is that the law is amoral.
I don’t believe you know what the purpose of the law is. Let me share that with you. The sole and exclusive purpose of the law is to prevent injustice. THAT IS A MORAL PURPOSE. In order for the Supreme Court (or any other court or jurisdictional authority in the United States) to prevent injustice to any class of citizens, it must be willing to define who is a citizen. Any case in which a declaration by any ruling authority refuses to define who is a citizen worthy of protection, is a case which demands to be overturned.
In Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmum refused to entertain the question whether or not the fetus was a citizen, and he therefore negated the whole of his opinion for the lack of that one detail.
Oh, and your statement that a moral-based law system leads to an autocratic government is also pure nonsense. An autocratic government does not speak to the question of morality, but to the type of government, which is one that has one person ruling, typically a dictator, or a king/queen.
That dictator MIGHT be a kind, benevolent, and moral dictator. So too with a King or Queen. There have been some kind, benevolent, and moral autocrats in history who have been excellent examples of moral heads of state.
Why do you speak in the third person?
Your argument FOR limited government is about as valuable as your knowledge of what a limited government is. That is evidenced by your faulty belief that the United States is a limited government. Indeed, it’s SUPPOSED to be a limited government; it’s DESIGNED to be a limited government. But our government more closely resembles an oligarchy than a limited government.
You keep on saying this. Several of us have already stated that there is nothing wrong with the Constitution. What’s wrong is not the Constitution, but the interpretation of it. What needs to be changed is the Justices who sit on the Court, not the Constitution itself. Why do you insult us by repeating a baseless statement?
K
kimmielittle
Guest
No, I’m just a citizen represented by the Constitution, amendments, and Declaration of Independence - and when I see people hijack those instruments allowing support of one segment of the population to murder another …I don’t justify them…and you?you are not on the Court.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Yes and Article III of that Constitution vest the judicial power in the Supreme Court. Quit your complaining and help efforts to deal with the problem rather than looking for govt to solve it.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
It does not give power to "invent’ what isn’t within or as you call it "broadly Interpret’ . They could have “Broadly interpreted” the Star Spangled Banner and found as much justification to promote a right of a selected group of population to murder another selected population.
Actually, you seem, throughout your posts, to forget ** who** exactly is the Government and it’s sole reason to exist - in the first place…Quit your complaining and help efforts to deal with the problem rather than looking for govt to solve it.
You - we “deal with problems” in many ways but to ignore the core is to become part of the problem.
The core of this 'problem" - The Government is refusing equal protection of human life, under the law. You wish us to put a topical bandage only reactionary ] against a causative agent.
Maybe, it’s too simplified for you…I dono.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Come on brother, get out that and let us help solve this problem. We do not need to wait for no law.
C
CPA2
Guest
A new film has been made about the abortion industry
BLOOD MONEY
PLEASE HELP PROMOTE IT BY FORWARDING TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS!
Dear friends :
The following link is to a new independent film which needs our support to
expose the corruption of Planned Parenthood. The movie is called Blood Money
and in order for the producers to get it into the theaters they need to show
that millions of interested people have visited their website. You need only
visit the website; there is no need to sign-up as a supporter unless you are
compelled to do so. The second link is the trailer for the movie. PLEASE
HELP GET THIS IMPORTANT FILM INTO THEATERS BY VISITING THE WEBSITE, then
forward this to your family and friends! Americans NEED to see this…
**
bloodmoneyfilm.com/ **
God bless you!
BLOOD MONEY
PLEASE HELP PROMOTE IT BY FORWARDING TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS!
Dear friends :
The following link is to a new independent film which needs our support to
expose the corruption of Planned Parenthood. The movie is called Blood Money
and in order for the producers to get it into the theaters they need to show
that millions of interested people have visited their website. You need only
visit the website; there is no need to sign-up as a supporter unless you are
compelled to do so. The second link is the trailer for the movie. PLEASE
HELP GET THIS IMPORTANT FILM INTO THEATERS BY VISITING THE WEBSITE, then
forward this to your family and friends! Americans NEED to see this…
**
bloodmoneyfilm.com/ **
God bless you!
K
kimmielittle
Guest
I’m a girl and a kidCome on brother, get out that and let us help solve this problem. We do not need to wait for no law.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Yes, as am I sister, let us take this charge together!=kimmielittle;6570347]I’m a girl and a kid
T
Tom_Qualey
Guest
Hi, Kimmielittle,
I totally agree!
Unforltunately, since Roe there are only two alternatives: (1) the Court reverses itself as it did with segregation in the Brown v Board of Education case or (2) the country passes a Constitutional Amendment.
With Obama claiming to say there is no abortion litmus test for any of his SC Nominee (except all of on the ‘short list’ are reportedly for unlimited aboriton) it looks like amending the Consitution will be the only option open.
Now, it looks like more and more states are unhappy about the recent Health Care law having an increase in abortions and are seeking to apply some restrictions (here is a link: abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-seek-ways-restrict-abortions/story?id=10477585 ) So, maybe the idea of amending the Constitution is not so far fetched as it may appear.
God bless
Tom
I totally agree!
Unforltunately, since Roe there are only two alternatives: (1) the Court reverses itself as it did with segregation in the Brown v Board of Education case or (2) the country passes a Constitutional Amendment.
With Obama claiming to say there is no abortion litmus test for any of his SC Nominee (except all of on the ‘short list’ are reportedly for unlimited aboriton) it looks like amending the Consitution will be the only option open.
Now, it looks like more and more states are unhappy about the recent Health Care law having an increase in abortions and are seeking to apply some restrictions (here is a link: abcnews.go.com/Politics/states-seek-ways-restrict-abortions/story?id=10477585 ) So, maybe the idea of amending the Constitution is not so far fetched as it may appear.
God bless
Tom
W
Worthy5
Guest
Quit mischaracterizing, its pro-choice not pro-abortion.The issue is about govt role not about the right or wrong of abortion.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hi, Kimmielittle,
I totally agree!
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Hiyas
C’mon, I know you are too intelligent to buy the Pro-choice nonsense…the pro-abortionist try to sell…
Pro-choice is - you getting to decide chocolate or vanilla ice cream -
The choice pro-abortionists present is …to chose murdering a selected human population.
They are pro-abortionists.
W
Worthy5
Guest
=kimmielittle;6572860]Hiyas
No pro-choice is about keeping the govt where it belongs–out of people’s business.
If the women violates God’s law, then God can arrest her—you know God is pretty good—He really can handle things quite well.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Actually, no - pro-abortionist do not wish to keep the Government out of peoples business - They invoke the Government to justify a select population the right to murder another select population. Without invoking the Government they have no justification.No pro-choice is about keeping the govt where it belongs–out of people’s business.
No doubtIf the women violates God’s law, then God can arrest her—you know God is pretty good—He really can handle things quite well.
BUT it doesn’t exempt our responsibility.“Dear God, I knew you would take care of this, that’s why I did nothing to stop …the rape…murder of YOUR Children lent to these Mothers for a short period of time…theft…etc etc…AND I know you favor limited Government Father, so I didn’t try to overturn unjust laws.”. No doubt… HE will take care of that too.
T
Tom_Qualey
Guest
Hi, Kimmielittle,
Actually, no - pro-abortionist do not wish to keep the Government out of peoples business - They invoke the Government to justify a select population the right to murder another select population. Without invoking the Government they have no justification.
I wonder if Worthy can identify what ‘other’ choices the so-called ‘Pro-Choice’ group offers besides death by dismemberment, being burned alive in a causic saline bath or having one’s brain’s sucked from their skull. Sounds like quite a set of choices to me! NOT!!
No doubt
“Dear God, I knew you would take care of this, that’s why I did nothing to stop …the rape…murder of YOUR Children lent to these Mothers for a short period of time…theft…etc etc…AND I know you favor limited Government Father, so I didn’t try to overturn unjust laws.”. No doubt… HE will take care of that too.
This is a great prayer, Kimmielittle,-
The idea that anyone can seriously call the group ‘Pro-Choice’ and then not claim that they have been totally duped by the marketing techniques of Planned Parenthood is truly beyond my imagination.
There is no question about God being a Just Judge - the issue, like the three servants with the talents - the lazy servant did nothing and was punished for that (Matt 25:26)
God bless
Tom
W
Worthy5
Guest
=kimmielittle;6572998]Actually, no - pro-abortionist do not wish to keep the Government out of peoples business - They invoke the Government to justify a select population the right to murder another select population. Without invoking the Government they have no justification.
No doubt
Mr. Justice Blackmun, Mr. Justice Powell, Mr. Justice Stewart, Mr. Justice Marshall, Mr. Chief Justice Burger, Mr. Justice Brennan (a Catholic) and Mr. Justice Douglas: Could you please explain further the distinction between and issue of law and an issue of morality? Are friend seems to be having some difficulty.“Dear God, I knew you would take care of this, that’s why I did nothing to stop …the rape…murder of YOUR Children lent to these Mothers for a short period of time…theft…etc etc…AND I know you favor limited Government Father, so I didn’t try to overturn unjust laws.”. No doubt… HE will take care of that too.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Our friend knows;Could you please explain further the distinction between and issue of law and an issue of morality? Are friend seems to be having some difficulty.
Legality doesn’t negate moral responsibility. Moral obligations and Governments sole responsibility - is to protect the weak and innocent. If a law exists that defies these basics - it becomes immoral, unjust and illegal.
Legality is supposed to reflect moral responsibility. When it doesn’t, it’s an immoral instrument…no matter how many Judges sign it into law. It’s even more immoral when Judges knowingly allow a law that justifies one selected part of a population to kill another selected population.
I don’t think it’s our friend who’s having difficulty
T
Tom_Qualey
Guest
Hi, Kimmielittle,
Well said!
Well said!
Our friend knows;
Legality doesn’t negate moral responsibility. Moral obligations and Governments sole responsibility - is to protect the weak and innocent. If a law exists that defies these basics - it becomes immoral, unjust and illegal.
Legality is supposed to reflect moral responsibility. When it doesn’t, it’s an immoral instrument…no matter how many Judges sign it into law. It’s even more immoral when Judges knowingly allow a law that justifies one selected part of a population to kill another selected population.
I don’t think it’s our friend who’s having difficulty
You know… I do not think that this friend is having difficulty, either! ;-0
- Status