Why Catholics Should Vote for Trump article

[Ridgerunner]

Watching the disputation over the possible appointment of Amy C. Barrett, it’s interesting to consider if she or Lagoa are appointed, six out of the nine Supreme Court justices will be Catholic. One might wonder about the views of Roberts regarding abortion. Since NARAL approved Sotomayor, it’s reasonable to assume she’s pro-abortion.

But regardless, that’s a lot of Catholics on the Court.

 

[farronwolf]

But regardless, that’s a lot of Catholics on the Court.

There are a lot of Catholics on the court and in the legislature. That fact does not change what the Constitution says, so religious affiliation has little bearing on the laws of America.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The constitution says there shall be no religious “tests” for public office and no “establishment” of religion. That is not the same thing as forgetting you have religious principles or saying you cannot consider them in decisionmaking.

 

[farronwolf]

A judge should consider the law, not their religious beliefs when ruling on a case which is based on or challenging the law.

The law my go against their religious beliefs, or align with their beliefs, but should have no bearing on their interpretation of the law, or enforcement of the law.

If a law goes against your religious principles, but you have taken an oath to uphold the law, religious principles are to be ignored.

 

[LilyM]

Rau:

farronwolf:

See in the Constitution, person, means someone who has been born.

That’s probably right. Who would have thought it would be necessary to specify the very limited and ordinary right in which the unborn stand in need…the right not to be killed.

Well you can blame the founding fathers which comprised white males for that, since the only persons who had full rights when the Constitution was written were basically white males.

And to an extent only rich white males, given.the shameful exploitation of a lot of manual labourera of all races - not all tonthe same extent of course.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A judge should consider the law, not their religious beliefs when ruling on a case which is based on or challenging the law.

The law my go against their religious beliefs, or align with their beliefs, but should have no bearing on their interpretation of the law, or enforcement of the law.

If a law goes against your religious principles, but you have taken an oath to uphold the law, religious principles are to be ignored.

In other words, no law should ever change. If the only guiding principle of the law is the law, that’s the result. There would still be slaves in the U.S. and men would still be killed in duels.

No legislative body or court could ever seek to improve on the administration of justice, because there could never be anything better or fairer or higher to achieve than the existing law itself.

Fortunately, that’s not what humans in a decent society do. We try to always make the law consistent with higher principles. The very Declaration of Independence belies any argument otherwise. Why did the signers appeal to God as the source of human rights? Because the Will of God is a higher good than the goods of man, and man’s will should not be allowed to overcome that which God has bestowed on mankind.

Do they not teach that historical fact any longer? Guess not. What a sorry people we would be if we looked no further than our own past acts for guidance in the future.

 

[farronwolf]

other words, no law should ever change. If the only guiding principle of the law is the law, that’s the result. There would still be slaves in the U.S. and men would still be killed in duels.

That is not what I said. So dont know where you come up with that.

Apparently you dont know your history or civics because it clearly states how to change laws and the constitution.

Slavery is a perfect example. An amendment was passed and is the new law. Fetus have no rights under the constitution currently just as slaves had no rights before it was changed and their rights recognized.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Apparently you dont know your history or civics

Gratuitous hostility. Need to keep the anger in check.

But if only the law could be the inspiration for the law, slavery would still be with us. Actually unborn children have the right to life under some circumstances. If a person other than the mother or killer doctor kills one, that person can be charged with murder in many jurisdictions. Only the mother and the “doctor” can murder with impunity. But of course, the Supremes “discovered” that right to kill in the “penumbra” of the constitution (since it wasn’t in the constitution itself). So I guess we can develop the law on nonsense like “penumbras” but not on religious conviction.

 

[buffalo]

There are a lot of Catholics on the court and in the legislature. That fact does not change what the Constitution says, so religious affiliation has little bearing on the laws of America.

Not so. Legislators make laws. The original one’s were all Christian.

 

[buffalo]

A judge should consider the law, not their religious beliefs when ruling on a case which is based on or challenging the law.

The law my go against their religious beliefs, or align with their beliefs, but should have no bearing on their interpretation of the law, or enforcement of the law.

If a law goes against your religious principles, but you have taken an oath to uphold the law, religious principles are to be ignored.

True justice will be truthful and fully align with truth itself, God.

 

[farronwolf]

No anger on my part that needs to be checked.

Do they not teach that historical fact any longer? Guess not.

You are the one who suggested others didn’t know history.

The Declaration of Independence is not the governing document which the laws of this country must be compared to, the Constitution is. Exactly why some laws are declared Un Constitutional, not Un Declarational.

The SCOTUS didn’t discover the right to kill the unborn in the Constitution, they based it on the mothers rights.

The unborn have no rights granted in the Constitution. The only persons who had full rights established by the Constitution where white males, which is why it has been amended to grant others the rights that the white males enjoyed from the beginning.

If these other persons who were already born and in the country didn’t have the rights, how can you say that unborn persons had those rights in the Constitution. That is quite the stretch.

I guess folks fail to realize that “strict Constitutionalist” look to what the founding fathers thought and meant when they drafted the documents. That is the definition of looking to the past for guidance.

You are right that in some states people other than the mother can be charged. Because it affects the mother. No different than if a person attacks the mother, or cuts her arm off, or any other harm to her. If she does those things to herself, there are no grounds for charges being filed.

If the people wish the law to be changed, and improve on the current law, the legislature has every power granted by the Constitution to do that. That is why it is a living document. It has been done 27 times previously and can be done as many times more under the prescribed method of changing it.

The courts do not have the power to change the Constitution.

 

[farronwolf]

True justice will be truthful and fully align with truth itself, God.

In eutopia that would be absolutely true, but I live in American and in America justice is based on the law which is far from being fully aligned with God’s teachings.

Legislators make laws. The original one’s were all Christian.

They did a piss poor job of aligning our Constitution with God’s teachings.

 

[LilyM]

No anger on my part that needs to be checked.

Ridgerunner:

Do they not teach that historical fact any longer? Guess not.

You are the one who suggested others didn’t know history.

The Declaration of Independence is not the governing document which the laws of this country must be compared to, the Constitution is. Exactly why some laws are declared Un Constitutional, not Un Declarational.

The SCOTUS didn’t discover the right to kill the unborn in the Constitution, they based it on the mothers rights.

The unborn have no rights granted in the Constitution. The only persons who had full rights established by the Constitution where white males, which is why it has been amended to grant others the rights that the white males enjoyed from the beginning.

If these other persons who were already born and in the country didn’t have the rights, how can you say that unborn persons had those rights in the Constitution. That is quite the stretch.

I guess folks fail to realize that “strict Constitutionalist” look to what the founding fathers thought and meant when they drafted the documents. That is the definition of looking to the past for guidance.

You are right that in some states people other than the mother can be charged. Because it affects the mother. No different than if a person attacks the mother, or cuts her arm off, or any other harm to her. If she does those things to herself, there are no grounds for charges being filed.

If the people wish the law to be changed, and improve on the current law, the legislature has every power granted by the Constitution to do that. That is why it is a living document. It has been done 27 times previously and can be done as many times more under the prescribed method of changing it.

The courts do not have the power to change the Constitution.

The Constitution doesn’t always necessarily “grant” rights in the sense of creating them, many times it recognises rights that were already inherent. Rights to freedom of speech, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, things like that, are basic human rights and were so regardless of formal legal recognition.

I tend to agree so far as it seems to me (not being American, disclaimer) that way more analagous issues have been dealt with by amending the Constitution, or Congress passing other legislation, than by Supreme Courts making radical departures in their interpretation from previous decisions.

 

[farronwolf]

I agree that there are certain rights that are inherent from a simply moralistic point of view.

Speaking from a historical and legalistic point of view though, our first 10 amendments were labeled the “Bill of Rights” which were spelled out and codified as to remove any questions regarding laws which might seek to infringe on those rights.

Those rights which should not have to be spelled out on paper, since they are just moral truths, unfortunately haven’t always been applied equally to all of our society.

This is where I find fault with the argument that since it is a truth that abortion is the killing of a human being we don’t need to codify it in our Constitution.

People saying, well that is the way it is and everyone should see it this way is ignoring the reality that over our nations history we have not recognized other truths until they were codified in the Constitution.

 

[buffalo]

In eutopia that would be absolutely true, but I live in American and in America justice is based on the law which is far from being fully aligned with God’s teachings.

10 Commandments are posted all over the place. Ignoring them is another story.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The only persons who had full rights established by the Constitution where white males,

The right to life was never limited to white males. You shouldn’t invent things like this.

You are right that in some states people other than the mother can be charged. Because it affects the mother.

Totally wrong. You cannot be charged with murder of one person for killing another. In some states, the personhood of the baby is recognized. In others, it isn’t so people can kill freely.

the legislature has every power granted by the Constitution to do that.

Untrue. Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision. Only the court can do that. Now watch the Dems fight to prevent another prolife justice being appointed.

This is where I find fault with the argument that since it is a truth that abortion is the killing of a human being we don’t need to codify it in our Constitution.

The right to life is guaranteed in the Constitution. Demanding that “life of the unborn” be specifically protected in the constitution is as ridiculous as demanding that “murder by poisoning”, “murder by euthanasia”, “murder by forced starvation”, “murder by child neglect” be in the constitution separately. All are murder and recognized as being part of constitutional prohibitions.

 

[PaulinVA]

The Declaration of Independence is not the governing document which the laws of this country must be compared to, the Constitution is. Exactly why some laws are declared Un Constitutional, not Un Declarational.

LOL…

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Not so. Legislators make laws. The original one’s were all Christian.

A lot of them were Masons. That leaves that out.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The right to life was never limited to white males. You shouldn’t invent things like this.

We gonna act like the Civil War never happened? Or Susan B Anthony didn’t exist?

 

[farronwolf]

The right to life was never limited to white males. You shouldn’t invent things like this.

Could a slave owner kill his slave without repercussions? Was that slave’s life protected by the right which you claim is in the Constitution? Nope.

Untrue. Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision. Only the court can do that. Now watch the Dems fight to prevent another prolife justice being appointed.

Nonsense. Congress can overrule the SCOTUS by passing an amendment and having it ratified and becoming part of the Constitution or passing laws which clarify positions for the courts. The SCOTUS can not rule contrary to the Constitution. By your reasoning, the SCOTUS can rule that slavery is now legal again in the country.

Look at the Lilly Ledbetter case as an example. Based on the dissenting opinion of the court, congress passed law to address the SCOTUS decision.

The right to life is guaranteed in the Constitution. Demanding that “life of the unborn” be specifically protected in the constitution is as ridiculous as demanding that “murder by poisoning”, “murder by euthanasia”, “murder by forced starvation”, “murder by child neglect” be in the constitution separately.

Nope, because all those examples you give have to do with persons which are recognized in the Constitution. Fetus’ are not recognized as persons. Only after they are born does the Constitution recognize them as persons for the language of the Constitution.

What age can a person vote, or a person become eligible to be President. It certainly isn’t based on date of conception. It is based on date of birth.

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.