Home - List All Discussions

fallacy of the life amendment tactic

by: faithman

Article I
Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
No where in the constitution does it give the court the power to make law. That belongs soully to the Congress.

reply from: faithman

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
There was no law at the federal level governing abortion on demand. There for the court had no jurisdiction to over turn the laws of the state of Texas.

reply from: faithman

section 5 of the 14th amnedment
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
The congress has the authority to atribute personhood to the womb child. The 14th amendment already gives congress the authority to act

reply from: faithman

Article 3 section 2
...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make..
The court is to rule on law that congress makes. If there is no law, then the court has nothing to rule on. The only constitutional law there is, is that which is passed by the legislature according to article one. Futhure, the congress can make an exception of abortion on demand, and regulate the court to never rule on it again. That is what the life at conception act will do. It was stated by the court that if personhood was established, the complaintants in the roe had no case. Even though the court agrees that congress has power to act, the congress does not need "scotus" permission to do so. The life at conception act is a court proof way to do abortion on demand in. That is why the mainstream pro-abort media has not done any stories on life at conception act. They know it is constitutional, and would end abortion on demand. It is also why the bortheads want to get FOCA passed. It would exclude a pro-life court from over turning Roe, and it would close the back door left open for congress to act.

reply from: faithman

Article 5
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Amending the constitution is a very long drawn out ordeal. One way is thru a constitutional convention. Advocacy of an amendment of any kind puts us in danger of going into a consitutional convention. It is not the only way to amend it, but if we are not careful, and very vigilant, that is what could happen. If we were to go into a constitutional convention, we could loose the constitution all together, and a new one ushered in. They could completely strip the American people of all rights, and make it imposible to ever outlaw abortion on demand. This almost happened with the ERA a few decades ago. If the powers that be get a hold of our constitution, they would take all our rights away, and make it imposible to protect the womb child from the killer caroles of the world.

reply from: faithman

Preamble of the Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
If you count 40 words into the preamble, you find the word posterity. Posterity means future generations. the preamble sets the spirit for the rest of the document. The very spirit of the US constitution secures the blessings of it to future generations, which includes pre-born life. It is obsurd for anyone to say the constitution is ambiguous about the personhood of womb children. The very first Spirited wordsd of the document secures the blessings of it that we enjoy, to the future generations. Every elected official who swore to uphold, and defend the constitution, should stand up and declare Roe nill and void. Every law enforcement officer who also swore to defend the constitution, should close every abortion clinic that murders posterity the Contitution made a promise to secure.

reply from: faithman

I have been accused by a baby killer [who has vowed to fight personhood if it did not let future baby killers go free], and a secular humanist who has agreed with Planned Parenthood [the avowed mortal enemy of womb children] of not really being pro-life. They want to play their little word games and ask one sided questions that demand more than a yes/ no answere. I will leave it up to you to decide. But it will not stop me from producing, and distributing the best material I can to futher the cause of equality thru personhood. I can not suport legislation as prolife that has "health of the mother exceptions" that assures that said laws will not protect one womb child at all. How can it be considered a victory, when not one child would be spared? I can not advocate an amendment at this time. It is unnessisary, and would delay progress for years to come. It would be multiple times harder than a life at conception act to get passed. And it would place us way to close to a Constitution convention, which would strip away the ability of WE THE PEOPLE from ever outlawing slaughter of womb children. SSSSSOOOO just who is the faux-lifer? The one who has killed three, and used pro-death lingo to defend her little youthful mistake? A secular humanist who is all good with planned parent given access to young minds to raise up the next generation of clinic customers? Or a man who has dedicated his life to the defence of children in the womb? Two who have on several occassions sold the womb child out to personal aggenda, or someone whos only aggenda on this issue is getting to the quickest end of the butchering? The Life at conception act is ther most expediant, constitutional, and safest way to end abortion on demand. I can not support an amendment at this time, because it is unnessisary, and will cause a many year delay to the killing, and has very little chance of passage anyway. We have a far better chance of getting personhood legislation passed at the state level, then keep the pressure up at the national level. No compromises are nessisary. Just keep pushing for Personhood untill we get there. Our you can listen to the 5th colum phonies who care more about their personal aggendas than the babies.

reply from: faithman

Thanks for catching that for me.

reply from: cracrat

The way I understand it, Jane Roe went to the supreme court asking if she was constitutionally allowed to terminate her pregnancy. The SCOTUS decided that there was nothing in the constitution disallowing her, so she was therefore allowed to go ahead. If Congress were to pass a law denying a woman the right to end her pregnancy, it would, by SCOTUS's interpretation (which is their job) of the constitution, violate the highest law in the land. It would be deemed unconstitutional and therefore would not stand. So surely without altering the constitution, everything else is just so much hot air?
Please correct me if I've got this wrong, I didn't spend any time at school learning about your system so everything I know about it is self-taught and I quite readily concede I might've got the details mixed up.

reply from: faithman

I laid it all out for you on thiosw thred. You do have it wrong because the constitution does not allow for the court to make law, only rule on it. There was no law for them to rule on, thefore they had no juridiction, and should have refused to hear the case. SCOTUS is not the dictator of the US. The court can only rule on law passed by the legislature. Texas law was not in violation of the constitution, nor law past by congress. there for the court is the one who was acting unconstitutional. Rrrread the thred all the way thru. I laid it out pretty clear.

reply from: cracrat

Except that I thought that the constitution was, amongst other things, the highest law of the land. If there is not a relevant Bill to settle a given dispute, turn to the constitution and see what it says either explicitly or in spirit. The SCOTUS were not creating new law in RvW, but interpretting the constitution as it applies to abortion.

reply from: nancyu

The Constitution is fine the way it is. Roe V Wade is NOT the Constitution. Roe V Wade is the highly flawed interpretation of the what the Constitution is supposed to mean.
Unfortunately Cracrat, I think some members of the SCOTUS didn't spend much more time than you or I in learning about the Constitution before they made this ruling.
I'd be all for an amendment to ROE V WADE -- but not to the US Constitution.

reply from: faithman

Except that I thought that the constitution was, amongst other things, the highest law of the land. If there is not a relevant Bill to settle a given dispute, turn to the constitution and see what it says either explicitly or in spirit. The SCOTUS were not creating new law in RvW, but interpretting the constitution as it applies to abortion.
Are you reading what I posted here, or are you purposely playing dumb. The court can only rule on that which is legislated into law. If there was no law, or constitutional amendment, article, act, violated; then the court had nothing to rule on. The 10th amendment assures the state authority in such cases. The court should have refused to here the case. the court most assuredly were creating new law, as there was none for them to rule on. There wasn't anything in the constitution that gave the court to rule on. The court does not set exceptions and regulations on anything. That is the job of the congress. Congress has the authority by article 1, section 5 of the 14th Amendment, article 3 section 2, and the Roe discission itself to atribute personhood to the womb child by an act of congress. No amendment is nessisary. Congress already has enough constitutional power to dismantle Roe with out one change to the Constitution. An amendment takes years to pass thru congress and ratified by 3/4 of the states. All A Life at conception act takes is a majority vote in congress, and a Presidents signature. Congress can make abortion on demand an exception, and regulate the court to not even be able to rule on it. That is what the bort heads want to pass FOCA. It would make abortion an exception, and regulate a pro-life court from over turning roe. FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. Obama has already promised to sign FOCA into law. The so called pro-life additions to the court are meaningless if FOCA passes. If a life at conception act was SSSSSSOOOOO uncostitutional like the phony monkey boy contends, then the pro-aborts in the media would be hollering it from the house tops. The reason they don't, is because they know that LACA is totally constitutional, and could end abortion in a matter of weeks, not years like an amendment would take. The constitution already gives congress the power and authority to act, and the very language of Roe acknowlages that fact.

reply from: cracrat

I have read and reread the whole thread trying to understand where you're coming from. And I have already admitted that my understanding of the American system is not what it could be. You, and anyone else who joins in here, are being my teacher.
Except that there was a law, the constitution. It is the legal document from which all other American law is derived. If there is no specific law dealing with the matter before SCOTUS then it is their duty to refer to the constitution to determine the legality or not of the case presented.
The 10th amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
meaning that unless the federal government has been specifically delegated a power by the constitution, it is not theirs to exercise.
I would direct you to Article 3, Sections 1 & 2
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
ie, the judicial authority of the United States stems from the supreme court and other lower courts. It is they who determine the legality of an act, it is they who decide whether or not something is prohibited by the law.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
ie, a case must be of significant seriousness to invoke the power of the federal court. I think we can all agree that asking if one can end the life of your unborn child is of appropriate seriousness.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
ie, some cases may be brought directly to the supreme court without being heard first in a lower court. The supreme court also exercises appellate review over decisions of lower courts, within regulations set by congress
All of this means that the supreme court was acting in it's consitutionally defined role when determining the legal course of action in the dispute presented to them during RvW.

Except that there was a law to rule on, the constitution. One of the principles of having such a document is that when all else fails, turn to it. In instances when there is no law or the law is vague, the constitution has the final say. Furthermore, laws cannot be enacted by the legislature that contravene the constitution. Therefore, if SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is allowed under the constitution, any law banning abortion enacted by congress is clearly contravening the constitution (irrespective of your personal feeling) and will be ruled void by SCOTUS.
Article 1 says (I assume this is the bit you mean)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
meaning that congress has sole power to determine legislation. Jolly good, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over judicial matters. Each alone does not make the laws of the land, but rather to two of them working together (or occassionally working against each other) do. It is a check on the power of one branch against another. It stops, for example, congress from enacting blatently unjust laws. If congress had the power to overule any decision SCOTUS made which they didn't like, the balance of power within the government would be way off.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
presumably you mean they have the power to enforce section 1 of the same
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would refer you to the word born. Which is bloody inconvenient to yourself and nancyu and the like who insist that abortion is already illegal, but unfortunately until you are born or become a naturalised citizen you are not protected by the consitution. The unborn just don't qualify unfortunately. Of course, if you were to change the text of the contitution...
Except as CP has pointed out, the personhood bill was brought before a sympathetic congress with a pro-life president 7 years ago and didn't even make it out of committee. Now if you were able to get 2/3 of the states to petition for a constitutional amendment, something that a grass-roots movement could achieve, you'd be on your way to protecting the unborn in the most permanent fashion available.
And if FOCA passes, another bill can undo the damage. Just as if a personhood bill passes, an unpersonhood bill can undo that. If a constitutional amendment is hard to achieve, it is hard to undo aswell. This is the principle reason I'm against getting legislation involved in solving this, because whatever legal changes we make can be unmade by the other side, and however much you might not like to hear it, there are a lot more of them than us.

reply from: faithman

I have read and reread the whole thread trying to understand where you're coming from. And I have already admitted that my understanding of the American system is not what it could be. You, and anyone else who joins in here, are being my teacher.
Except that there was a law, the constitution. It is the legal document from which all other American law is derived. If there is no specific law dealing with the matter before SCOTUS then it is their duty to refer to the constitution to determine the legality or not of the case presented.
The 10th amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
meaning that unless the federal government has been specifically delegated a power by the constitution, it is not theirs to exercise.
I would direct you to Article 3, Sections 1 & 2
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
ie, the judicial authority of the United States stems from the supreme court and other lower courts. It is they who determine the legality of an act, it is they who decide whether or not something is prohibited by the law.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
ie, a case must be of significant seriousness to invoke the power of the federal court. I think we can all agree that asking if one can end the life of your unborn child is of appropriate seriousness.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
ie, some cases may be brought directly to the supreme court without being heard first in a lower court. The supreme court also exercises appellate review over decisions of lower courts, within regulations set by congress
All of this means that the supreme court was acting in it's consitutionally defined role when determining the legal course of action in the dispute presented to them during RvW.

Except that there was a law to rule on, the constitution. One of the principles of having such a document is that when all else fails, turn to it. In instances when there is no law or the law is vague, the constitution has the final say. Furthermore, laws cannot be enacted by the legislature that contravene the constitution. Therefore, if SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is allowed under the constitution, any law banning abortion enacted by congress is clearly contravening the constitution (irrespective of your personal feeling) and will be ruled void by SCOTUS.
Article 1 says (I assume this is the bit you mean)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
meaning that congress has sole power to determine legislation. Jolly good, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over judicial matters. Each alone does not make the laws of the land, but rather to two of them working together (or occassionally working against each other) do. It is a check on the power of one branch against another. It stops, for example, congress from enacting blatently unjust laws. If congress had the power to overule any decision SCOTUS made which they didn't like, the balance of power within the government would be way off.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
presumably you mean they have the power to enforce section 1 of the same
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would refer you to the word born. Which is bloody inconvenient to yourself and nancyu and the like who insist that abortion is already illegal, but unfortunately until you are born or become a naturalised citizen you are not protected by the consitution. The unborn just don't qualify unfortunately. Of course, if you were to change the text of the contitution...
Except as CP has pointed out, the personhood bill was brought before a sympathetic congress with a pro-life president 7 years ago and didn't even make it out of committee. Now if you were able to get 2/3 of the states to petition for a constitutional amendment, something that a grass-roots movement could achieve, you'd be on your way to protecting the unborn in the most permanent fashion available.
And if FOCA passes, another bill can undo the damage. Just as if a personhood bill passes, an unpersonhood bill can undo that. If a constitutional amendment is hard to achieve, it is hard to undo aswell. This is the principle reason I'm against getting legislation involved in solving this, because whatever legal changes we make can be unmade by the other side, and however much you might not like to hear it, there are a lot more of them than us.
And your last paragraph proves you are indeed CP. You have posted the same untrue crap, and have totaly ignored the facts. You are the one ignoring the fact that congress already has authority to make exceptions, and regulate the court. the court can only rule on what the legislature passes, "scotus" is not the final dictator over all things. They can only rule on what the constitution says, and the legislature passes. there was nothing for the court to rule on. You overly wordy post full of crap, particularly the last paraghraph proves you are the jailhouse wife CP, and just as willinly ignore of truth.

reply from: cracrat

Legislative powers, law making is a cooperative process between those who write the laws (the legislature) and those who interpret/enforce the laws (the judiciary).

reply from: cracrat

The supreme court, as the name suggests, is the highest court in the land. It has the power to review or overturn any decisions made by lower courts or laws enancted by the state or federal congress. If a state decided they no longer wished to submit to this system, they could always cecede from the union.

reply from: cracrat

You are being selective with your quoting of the constitution. The whole sections says
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
which means, and I'm quoting the US senate here,
Certain cases may be brought directly to the Supreme Court without having been heard by another court. Under statute, the Supreme Court also exercises appellate review, that is the right to review the decisions of a lower federal or state court.
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Nothing to do with congress deciding what laws SCOTUS can and can't rule on.

reply from: cracrat

You were doing splendidly up to this point. If you reread the article, you will note that the word "born" is applied only in defining who is a citizen, and the right to life, equal treatment, etc, are applied to "all persons under our jurisdiction, which would include non-citizens on American soil, and there not be qualified by birth.
Ohh, so close but no sausage . Gonna have to keep reading then.

reply from: nancyu

And I refer YOU right back to the word born which applies to whether or not one is a citizen NOT to whether or not one is a person.
An unborn child is not a citizen. That is not in dispute.
An unborn child is a person and it does NOT matter whether that child is or is not a citizen; you still are not allowed to murder them!
And that is bloody inconvenient, isn't it cracrat.

reply from: nancyu

Sorry, cracrat. I didn't see your correction.

reply from: carolemarie

If we can pass a ban on abortion in a state, that would automatically force the opposing side to file for relief in federal court, claiming the ban violates the Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision. The court would then hear and rule on the ban, and they could reverse themselves, thus ending Roe and throwing abortion back to each state. So we would have states that allow abortion, Colorado, California, NY to name a few and others that would ban it like S.Dakota and Mississippi.
Then we would have to fight the battle every year in every state government.
A constitutional ban would end abortion accross the entire nation.
Or, the court could rule that Roe stands, and void the state law.

reply from: nancyu

If we can pass a ban on abortion in a state, that would automatically force the opposing side to file for relief in federal court, claiming the ban violates the Supreme Court Roe v Wade decision. The court would then hear and rule on the ban, and they could reverse themselves, thus ending Roe and throwing abortion back to each state. So we would have states that allow abortion, Colorado, California, NY to name a few and others that would ban it like S.Dakota and Mississippi.
Then we would have to fight the battle every year in every state government.
A constitutional ban would end abortion accross the entire nation.
Or, the court could rule that Roe stands, and void the state law.
I think we should just forget the word "abortion" and ask for enforcement of laws against murder.

reply from: carolemarie

The court rules on laws that bring up constitutional questions, federal or state. That is where your premise starts to fall apart. The court was ruling (it's job) on the constitutionality of the Texas law.

reply from: Faramir

But nancyu, those who abort are prochoice and those who are prochoice are not persons, according to you.
If they're not persons, then they can't do anything illegal, so there would be nothing to enforce.

reply from: faithman

The court rules on laws that bring up constitutional questions, federal or state. That is where your premise starts to fall apart. The court was ruling (it's job) on the constitutionality of the Texas law.
And this is where your stupid baby killing willing ignorant behind, posts crap aagain. It does no0t fall apart. The court [as well as you] ignored the 10th amendment. The court had no business hearing the cxase at all. OK dumb ass, name the federal law, act, amendment, or any part of the constitution that said anything about abortion. It does not. There was no constitutional question to answere. The court can only rule on what the legislature passes. Everything else according to the 10th amendment reverts back to the states. You were stupid enough to kill three, looks like part of the stupidity comes from a lack of educatiion. The court refuses all the time to not here cases because they lack contitutional jurisdiction. They are not the "final dictator" of america. And it is stupid idiots like you, who haven't the foggiest as to how our government actually works that lets travistees lioke this happen. The Texas law was not in violation of any constitutional law. The court was not doing its job but usurped the job of the legislature. You must have aborted a part of your brain with your children.
\
10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. There was no law at the federal level governing abortion on demand. There for the court had no jurisdiction to over turn the laws of the state of Texas.

reply from: faithman

No, but the judicial branch interprets the law, including the Constitution. The Congress is not authorized to redefine the constitutional interpretations of the SCOTUS through legislation.
That is where you are point blank wrong . The legislature most assuredly can make exceptions and regulate what the court rules on. That is all the court can rule on, is what the legislature, and ther constitution allows. The court had no authority to pass Roe from the bench. "scotus" is not the dictator of the US. YWhat you and the court are doing is destroying the constitution not up holding it.

reply from: faithman

You have rebutted nothing. Your claims are wrong. "scotus" is not the final say on everything constitutional, and they most assuredly do not have the authority to legislate, or did you not read the very first article of the constitution? The teas law violated no amensment, article, act or section of the constitution. That meaqns the 10th amendment kicks in, and the court had no authority to even hear the case. You are the one who has vbeen solidly rebutted, but you refuse to look at reality, because you are willing to throw everything under the bus to promote your secular humanist agenda based on nothing but your puffed up ego.

reply from: faithman

What "secular humanist agenda?" Ending legal abortion on demand? I'm sorry that you find my prolife stance to be so offensive, and also regret the fact that you would prefer abortion on demand to continue unabated rather than amend our Constitution...Hopefully, you can one day be persuaded to become prolife with no exceptions.
The constitution does not need amending in order to throw roe out. There is already enough authority invested in the congress to get the job done. You can post all the lies you like, but all one has to do is go back to the beginning of this thred and follow it thru. I haVE STEP BY STEP SHOWN THAT WHAT YOU SAY IS NOT TRUE. yOU are the one who would keep the womb child in jeapardy for years, insted of putting a swift constitutional end to it. The court had no authority to hear the case in the first place. No article, amendment, federal law, or act of congress was being violated, there for the 10th amendment protected the states right to pass law. Why do you advocate the continued slaughter of children by delaying constitutional action for years? Why to you continuosly ignore the facts right in front of your eyes?

reply from: faithman

True enough, but only the SCOTUS can reverse the ruling...Congress can not.
You are wrong. The congress has the authority to make exceptions, and regulate the court. Even the language of Roe itself recognizes that fact. The door was left open. Alll is required to end this is passage of a life at conception act. Thart would operates on the words of the court, as well as the words of the constitution. The series of my post which are the very wordds of the constitution bears out what I have been saying. All we get from you is your opinion, not anything from the instrument of our government.

reply from: faithman

Now, pay attention to the last sentence:
What "other cases aforementioned?" The ones in the first paragraph that are not mentioned specifically in the second! So what cases can Congress regulate? All but "cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." Was a state a party in Roe? Of course...Is abortion a state issue? Of course it is, therefore Congress can not simply declare it to be excluded from SC jurisdiction. That would be a breach of our Constitution...
Is this really so hard to understand?
Once again you totally missed the point. There was no law, no amendment, no act of congress, no article or section in which Texas was in violation of. The court had no jurisdiction to make a ruling. And why can't you understand that an exception can be made by the legislature, and the court can be regulated by the congress. That is point blank in article 3 section 2 of the constitution. The congress can, and has overturned the court. What part of make exceptions and regulate are you having trouble understanding. I have proven that I most assuredly understand twice as much about our form of government that you do. The court is not the dictator of this land. The congress most assuredly has the constitutional power to make exceptions, and regulate what the court can rule on. The court can only rule on that which the legislature passes into law. The court may not violate the 10th amendment and dictate to a state, and make law from the bench. If a state is not in violation of legislature passed law, or constitutional writ, then they are protected by the 10th amendment to pass laws. The court had niether the jurisdiction, nor the constitutional authority to pass Roe from the bench. Congress can simply make abortion an exception to abortion, and make a regulation to which the womb child is a person which would be beyond the courts authority to rule on one way or the other except uphold as a constitutionally passed law. The first article gives congress "ALL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIT?Y". the court can only rule on that with the legislature passes. And the congress most assuredly has the authority to make exceptions and regulate what the court can rule on. Now hopw come you can't read and understand that? Historically you are just dead wrong. Even the very language of Roe says so.

reply from: faithman

Oh, so the SCOTUS can only rule on what the legislature passes, but the Congress can forbid them from ruling? Geez! So if Congress decided to pass a bill saying you can't own a gun, your constitutional right to bear arms is toast? The SCOTUS can't do their job and force legislation to align with our Constitution if Congress doesn't want them to? Congress can just do whatever they like, and the Constitution be damned?
Once again little boy, you comprehension is willingly ignorant, and you twist words into what was never said. The court can only rule on the constitution, and what the congress passes. Article 3 section 2 most assuredly says that the congress makes exceptions, and regulates what the court may rule on. The second amendment is part of the constitution. But indeed, if congress was to go thru the proper channels, then they could throw out the second amendmant, and that would then be an exception and regulation the court would have to uphold. ALL legislative authority is given to the congress. Aritcle 3 point blank says the court can only rule on law passed by the congress. It can not violate the first article, and the 10th amendment, and over turn law that is not in violation of the constitution or an act of congress. . The court can not operate outside the duely constitutional authority afforded it. Roe is a violation of the constitution. I have proven you totaly wrong on this issue over and over again. But some little boys just don't know how to read. Go back to the beginnig and follow it thru. ALL legislative authority belongs to congress ARTICLE ONE. THE COURT CAN ONLY RULE ON THAT WHICH THE LEGISLATURE PASSES. Article 3 , and the congress can make exceptions and regulate what the court may rule on Article 3 section 2. The 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congress te authority to legislate law concerning personhood. The very language of ROE agrees. A life at conception act is all that is needed to make abortion an exception that the court must uphold as a duely passed law of the legislature, and it would regulate the court to rule that way from then on. That is how our government works. You are simp[ly wrong no matter how much you want to twist it. The court should have refused to hear the case, because there was no constitutional violation. No amendment, article, act, or law was being violated. In which case the 10th amendment assured the states right to pass and enforce law. The court was not doing it's job, it usurped the job of the legislature and the state.
Sorry, son, you're just not picking up what I'm putting down here...

reply from: faithman

Now, pay attention to the last sentence:
What "other cases aforementioned?" The ones in the first paragraph that are not mentioned specifically in the second! So what cases can Congress regulate? All but "cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party." Was a state a party in Roe? Of course...Is abortion a state issue? Of course it is, therefore Congress can not simply declare it to be excluded from SC jurisdiction. That would be a breach of our Constitution...
Is this really so hard to understand?
What your stupid little self refuses to read even though it is in your own post:"with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." The constitution most assuredly gives congress the authority to make abortion an exception that the court is regulated not to rule on. The court does not have the authority to ignore the constitution to uphold it. The court ignored article one, and usurped the complete authority of congress to legislate. The cour completely ignored article 3, that regulates the court to only rule on what the legislature passes. The court ignored the 10th amendment that clearly states that if the constitution does not address a particular issue, then the issue reverts to the states. The court had no authority to even hear the case as Texas was not in violation of the constitution, nor congressional act. Section5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to act, and the very language of roe agrees. No amendment is nessisary. The congress can act and the court must comply to exceptions and regulations of congress. That is what the very words of the constitution say in your own post. Don't know why you chose to ignore it. But it ain't the first time you ignore fact to puff up your little boy ego.

reply from: yoda

That's correct. Congress has to power to remove the "appellate jurisdiction" of the SCOTUS on any matter of law.

reply from: faithman

That's correct. Congress has to power to remove the "appellate jurisdiction" of the SCOTUS on any matter of law.
Tweedle dumb and Tweedle dense.....
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
They are obviously not correct. Congress' power to regulate the SCOTUS doesn't apply to any case wherein a state is party. Why? Because the Constitution says so, and it is the ultimate law of the land...Abortion is a states right issue, since it is not specifically covered in the Constitution, therefore Congress certainly can not simply forbid the SCOTUS to rule on the issue.
In this very post is the statement of the contitution that point blank says :"Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." This point blank says that congress can make exceptions to, and regulate that which the court may rule on. You are the one who does not understand, and choses to ignore the very things you post. The court can only rule on law, not make it up. The ourt rules on law. When there is none, there is nothing for them to rule on. The court usurped the authority of the congress, and blantantly ignored the 10th amendment that points out that when the constitution does not address an issue, then it is left up to the state to govern as the state goverment sees fit by constitutional authority of the 10th amendment. The congress can forbid the court to rule on any issue by exception, and regulation, by Acts and amendments passed thru the legislature. That is all the court is allowed to do. The first article says that ALL legislative authority is vested in a congress. That , and the constitution is all the court can rule on. That is what exceptions and regulations mean. Yes, the congress can forbid the court to rule on issues by exceptions and regulations. That is what that phrase means.

reply from: carolemarie

The court rules on laws that bring up constitutional questions, federal or state. That is where your premise starts to fall apart. The court was ruling (it's job) on the constitutionality of the Texas law.
And this is where your stupid baby killing willing ignorant behind, posts crap aagain. It does no0t fall apart. The court [as well as you] ignored the 10th amendment. The court had no business hearing the cxase at all. OK dumb ass, name the federal law, act, amendment, or any part of the constitution that said anything about abortion. It does not. There was no constitutional question to answere. The court can only rule on what the legislature passes. Everything else according to the 10th amendment reverts back to the states. You were stupid enough to kill three, looks like part of the stupidity comes from a lack of educatiion. The court refuses all the time to not here cases because they lack contitutional jurisdiction. They are not the "final dictator" of america. And it is stupid idiots like you, who haven't the foggiest as to how our government actually works that lets travistees lioke this happen. The Texas law was not in violation of any constitutional law. The court was not doing its job but usurped the job of the legislature. You must have aborted a part of your brain with your children.
\
10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. There was no law at the federal level governing abortion on demand. There for the court had no jurisdiction to over turn the laws of the state of Texas.
Faithman!
Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
" The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
That is how come they heard Roe! Texas had a law that prohibited abortion unless the mother would die. Norma claimed she was raped and sued for the right to have an abortion. She filed in US district court (Federal court). They ruled in her favor but refused to allow an injunction that would halt the law against abortion. so Norma appealed the decision and the US Spreme Court agreed to hear it.
Now I agree it is bad reasoning and bad law, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court gets to make that decision, not you and not me.

reply from: faithman

The court rules on laws that bring up constitutional questions, federal or state. That is where your premise starts to fall apart. The court was ruling (it's job) on the constitutionality of the Texas law.
And this is where your stupid baby killing willing ignorant behind, posts crap aagain. It does no0t fall apart. The court [as well as you] ignored the 10th amendment. The court had no business hearing the cxase at all. OK dumb ass, name the federal law, act, amendment, or any part of the constitution that said anything about abortion. It does not. There was no constitutional question to answere. The court can only rule on what the legislature passes. Everything else according to the 10th amendment reverts back to the states. You were stupid enough to kill three, looks like part of the stupidity comes from a lack of educatiion. The court refuses all the time to not here cases because they lack contitutional jurisdiction. They are not the "final dictator" of america. And it is stupid idiots like you, who haven't the foggiest as to how our government actually works that lets travistees lioke this happen. The Texas law was not in violation of any constitutional law. The court was not doing its job but usurped the job of the legislature. You must have aborted a part of your brain with your children.
\
10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. There was no law at the federal level governing abortion on demand. There for the court had no jurisdiction to over turn the laws of the state of Texas.
Faithman!
Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
" The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
That is how come they heard Roe! Texas had a law that prohibited abortion unless the mother would die. Norma claimed she was raped and sued for the right to have an abortion. She filed in US district court (Federal court). They ruled in her favor but refused to allow an injunction that would halt the law against abortion. so Norma appealed the decision and the US Spreme Court agreed to hear it.
Now I agree it is bad reasoning and bad law, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court gets to make that decision, not you and not me.
No they do not. there was no law for them to rule on. There was no amendment, act, article that the state law was in violation of. the court is regulated by the 10th amendment not to rule in such matters. They should have refused to hear the case based on the fact they had no jurisdiction. ALLL [what part of all are you having a problem with] legislative authority berlongs to the congress includding the authority to make exceptions and regulate the court. No where in esction 2 of article 3 does it say the court can ignore amendments and usurp the power of the very first article of the constitution. Article one, section 5 of the 14th amendment, and artical 3 section 2, gives congress the authority to pass the life at conception act, and thus the court would be bound and regulated to up hold the personhood of the womb child in all 50 states. The court did not have the authority to shove Roe down our throats. If what you idiots are saying is true, thaen it would all apply to an amendment as well. But ion this case an amendment is not nessisary because the very language of Roe recognized the authority of the congress to establish personhood of the womb child by section 5 of the 14th amendment. That is making exceptions and regulating the court which ids the job of the congress. The congress most assuredly has the power to forbid the court to make such rulings, and should. That is the glory of the Colorado bill over the SD one. Colorado personhood shoots it's arrow straight to the heart, and legally causes Roe to collapse as the very language of Roe states. The SD bill is a farce, and has the very language that Roe and Doe used to legalize the slaughter in the first place. Even if it passes, it will not save a single womb child, because it includes "HEALTH OF THE MOTHER" which translates into for any reason she chooses. Personhood puts the focus on the womb child, and says that the blessings that are secured for the born child, are equally secured for the womb child. Equality thru personhood is the only real pro-life stance. Anything less is saying that we will allow the slaughter of at least some. Any bill that allows one drop of womb child blood to hit the floor of a clinic is not pro-life, and actually adds a legal brick to the pro-choice fortress.

reply from: carolemarie

I am still mad that I was fooled by Henry Hyde introducing the life begins at conception act over and over. I actually thought that it was for real.
P

reply from: faithman

The court rules on laws that bring up constitutional questions, federal or state. That is where your premise starts to fall apart. The court was ruling (it's job) on the constitutionality of the Texas law.
And this is where your stupid baby killing willing ignorant behind, posts crap aagain. It does no0t fall apart. The court [as well as you] ignored the 10th amendment. The court had no business hearing the cxase at all. OK dumb ass, name the federal law, act, amendment, or any part of the constitution that said anything about abortion. It does not. There was no constitutional question to answere. The court can only rule on what the legislature passes. Everything else according to the 10th amendment reverts back to the states. You were stupid enough to kill three, looks like part of the stupidity comes from a lack of educatiion. The court refuses all the time to not here cases because they lack contitutional jurisdiction. They are not the "final dictator" of america. And it is stupid idiots like you, who haven't the foggiest as to how our government actually works that lets travistees lioke this happen. The Texas law was not in violation of any constitutional law. The court was not doing its job but usurped the job of the legislature. You must have aborted a part of your brain with your children.
\
10th Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. There was no law at the federal level governing abortion on demand. There for the court had no jurisdiction to over turn the laws of the state of Texas.
Faithman!
Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution outlines the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the United States:
" The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
That is how come they heard Roe! Texas had a law that prohibited abortion unless the mother would die. Norma claimed she was raped and sued for the right to have an abortion. She filed in US district court (Federal court). They ruled in her favor but refused to allow an injunction that would halt the law against abortion. so Norma appealed the decision and the US Spreme Court agreed to hear it.
Now I agree it is bad reasoning and bad law, but the fact remains that the Supreme Court gets to make that decision, not you and not me.
What more can really be said to a guy who insists that his state can make any law they like, and that the SCOTUS has no say in the matter?
That isn't what I said at all. I said the court ignored the fact that all authority to legislate was given to the congress in the 1st article. The 3 article states that the court can only rule on law, facts, and anything that is cover in the constitution, or passed by the legislature. Name the amendment, article, section, or act of congress that the state was in violation of? There was none. In which case the 10th amendment protects the right of the state to pass and prosicute law. The court had no authority to Make law in roe. I did not say they could make any law they like, but niether can the court. As a matter of fact, they can make no law. Roe was not ruling on any law at all. It was making law from the bench. The court has no authority to do so. the court had no authority to even hear the case, and they should have refused to do so, and upheld the 10th amendment which is there job.

reply from: faithman

Roe was a constitutional challenge against Texas statute, dumbass. The SCOTUS ruled on Texas law. Neither of us liked the ruling, but continuing to make idiotic claims that the SCOTUS was not authorized to rule on the case, and that there was no law to rule on, is asinine.
The 10th amendment secured the right for texas to pass and prosicute that law. there was no federal law. the court can only over turn state law if it is in violation of a federal law, constitutional article, section, or amendment. Texas laws was not in violation of any such thing. The court violated the 10th amendment that states that if a state law is not in said violation, then their right to pass and prosicute law is secured. The court also said that if congress established personhood roe goes away. Section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to do just that. What is asinine is your willing ignorance about the constitution, even when you yourself post it. The court has to refuse cases all the time because there is no federal law, article, section, amendment, or act has been violated. In the case of roe, they violated article one, and ran ruff shod over the 10th amenment. The court did not have the constitutional authority to make Roe law, and voilate the state of texas's 10th amendment rights. That is not an idiotic claim, that is the truth, and the only thing asinine is you who claims to be SSSSSOOOO briliant not seeing it even thought it stares you in the face.

reply from: cracrat

Roe was a constitutional challenge against Texas statute, dumbass. The SCOTUS ruled on Texas law. Neither of us liked the ruling, but continuing to make idiotic claims that the SCOTUS was not authorized to rule on the case, and that there was no law to rule on, is asinine.
The 10th amendment secured the right for texas to pass and prosicute that law. there was no federal law. the court can only over turn state law if it is in violation of a federal law, constitutional article, section, or amendment. Texas laws was not in violation of any such thing. The court violated the 10th amendment that states that if a state law is not in said violation, then their right to pass and prosicute law is secured. The court also said that if congress established personhood roe goes away. Section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to do just that. What is asinine is your willing ignorance about the constitution, even when you yourself post it. The court has to refuse cases all the time because there is no federal law, article, section, amendment, or act has been violated. In the case of roe, they violated article one, and ran ruff shod over the 10th amenment. The court did not have the constitutional authority to make Roe law, and voilate the state of texas's 10th amendment rights. That is not an idiotic claim, that is the truth, and the only thing asinine is you who claims to be SSSSSOOOO briliant not seeing it even thought it stares you in the face.
And there we have it. SCOTUS ruled that the Texas law was in violation of a constitutional article, section or amendment and thus threw it out.
This really reminds me of an altercation I saw in the bank a few weeks ago. There was a bloke whose account was £1500 overdrawn, he'd taken out £200 so his new balance was £1700 o/d. However, he was insisting to the poor girl behind the desk that his balance should be £1300 o/d since
1500 - 200 = 1300. He just kept repeating over and over again that his balance should be £1300 o/d, until at one point she got a calculator and showed him that -1500 - 200 = -1700. At which point you could see on his face he realised what a total ass he'd made of himself, insisted once more he was right then turned and left the bank saying he'd sort it out over the phone.

reply from: faithman

Roe was a constitutional challenge against Texas statute, dumbass. The SCOTUS ruled on Texas law. Neither of us liked the ruling, but continuing to make idiotic claims that the SCOTUS was not authorized to rule on the case, and that there was no law to rule on, is asinine.
The 10th amendment secured the right for texas to pass and prosicute that law. there was no federal law. the court can only over turn state law if it is in violation of a federal law, constitutional article, section, or amendment. Texas laws was not in violation of any such thing. The court violated the 10th amendment that states that if a state law is not in said violation, then their right to pass and prosicute law is secured. The court also said that if congress established personhood roe goes away. Section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to do just that. What is asinine is your willing ignorance about the constitution, even when you yourself post it. The court has to refuse cases all the time because there is no federal law, article, section, amendment, or act has been violated. In the case of roe, they violated article one, and ran ruff shod over the 10th amenment. The court did not have the constitutional authority to make Roe law, and voilate the state of texas's 10th amendment rights. That is not an idiotic claim, that is the truth, and the only thing asinine is you who claims to be SSSSSOOOO briliant not seeing it even thought it stares you in the face.
And there we have it. SCOTUS ruled that the Texas law was in violation of a constitutional article, section or amendment and thus threw it out.
This really reminds me of an altercation I saw in the bank a few weeks ago. There was a bloke whose account was £1500 overdrawn, he'd taken out £200 so his new balance was £1700 o/d. However, he was insisting to the poor girl behind the desk that his balance should be £1300 o/d since
1500 - 200 = 1300. He just kept repeating over and over again that his balance should be £1300 o/d, until at one point she got a calculator and showed him that -1500 - 200 = -1700. At which point you could see on his face he realised what a total ass he'd made of himself, insisted once more he was right then turned and left the bank saying he'd sort it out over the phone.
But that is the problem. they did not rule that way. they made law from the bench. There was no federal law, asticle, section, amendment, nor congressional act, that the state law was in violation of. In fact the court said it was ambiguous. Inted of saying we have no jusidiction, and the state i well within their 10th amendment right, they usurped article one that says ALL constitutional authoruty to legislate belongs to congress, and if congress has not legislated an amendment, section or act, and the constitution does not contain an article to deal with an issue, then the state has the authority to act acording to the 10th amendment. You are the one not doing the constitutional math, not me. Artcle 1 + article 3 + 10th amendment= refusal to here the case baed on no jurisdiction. Now these idiots are refusing to do the math that swiftly ends it. Language of Roe itself + 5th section of the 14th amendment+ authority of article one + the exceptions and regulations clause of article3 section2 = the life at conception act which the court has no other contitutional choice but to uphold as duely passed constitutional law. The very language of Roe recog nizes that. You, and the rest of your idiot freinds are playing the same kind of "new math" based on nothing the court did in the first place. There was nothing for the court to rule on. You are simply wrong again. And I have shown you point upon point what the constitution says, and you refuse to be educated, even though you adimit you are ignorant as to what the constitution says, and who our government works. I am not the one who is ignorant, nor guilty of doing bad math. I have laid it out very clearly. It is you who refuses to be a good math student, because for what ever reason you don't like how it adds up, and you refuse to except the very evidence before your eyes. the court descission was aggenda driven, much like your refusal to do the real math on this issue.

reply from: nancyu

Roe was a constitutional challenge against Texas statute, dumbass. The SCOTUS ruled on Texas law. Neither of us liked the ruling, but continuing to make idiotic claims that the SCOTUS was not authorized to rule on the case, and that there was no law to rule on, is asinine.
The 10th amendment secured the right for texas to pass and prosicute that law. there was no federal law. the court can only over turn state law if it is in violation of a federal law, constitutional article, section, or amendment. Texas laws was not in violation of any such thing. The court violated the 10th amendment that states that if a state law is not in said violation, then their right to pass and prosicute law is secured. The court also said that if congress established personhood roe goes away. Section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to do just that. What is asinine is your willing ignorance about the constitution, even when you yourself post it. The court has to refuse cases all the time because there is no federal law, article, section, amendment, or act has been violated. In the case of roe, they violated article one, and ran ruff shod over the 10th amenment. The court did not have the constitutional authority to make Roe law, and voilate the state of texas's 10th amendment rights. That is not an idiotic claim, that is the truth, and the only thing asinine is you who claims to be SSSSSOOOO briliant not seeing it even thought it stares you in the face.
And there we have it. SCOTUS ruled that the Texas law was in violation of a constitutional article, section or amendment and thus threw it out.
And which Constitutional article, section or amendment was it in violation of?

reply from: faithman

Roe was a constitutional challenge against Texas statute, dumbass. The SCOTUS ruled on Texas law. Neither of us liked the ruling, but continuing to make idiotic claims that the SCOTUS was not authorized to rule on the case, and that there was no law to rule on, is asinine.
The 10th amendment secured the right for texas to pass and prosicute that law. there was no federal law. the court can only over turn state law if it is in violation of a federal law, constitutional article, section, or amendment. Texas laws was not in violation of any such thing. The court violated the 10th amendment that states that if a state law is not in said violation, then their right to pass and prosicute law is secured. The court also said that if congress established personhood roe goes away. Section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to do just that. What is asinine is your willing ignorance about the constitution, even when you yourself post it. The court has to refuse cases all the time because there is no federal law, article, section, amendment, or act has been violated. In the case of roe, they violated article one, and ran ruff shod over the 10th amenment. The court did not have the constitutional authority to make Roe law, and voilate the state of texas's 10th amendment rights. That is not an idiotic claim, that is the truth, and the only thing asinine is you who claims to be SSSSSOOOO briliant not seeing it even thought it stares you in the face.
And there we have it. SCOTUS ruled that the Texas law was in violation of a constitutional article, section or amendment and thus threw it out.
And which Constitutional article, section or amendment was it in violation of?
But that is the problem. they did not rule that way. they made law from the bench. There was no federal law, asticle, section, amendment, nor congressional act, that the state law was in violation of. In fact the court said it was ambiguous. Inted of saying we have no jusidiction, and the state i well within their 10th amendment right, they usurped article one that says ALL constitutional authoruty to legislate belongs to congress, and if congress has not legislated an amendment, section or act, and the constitution does not contain an article to deal with an issue, then the state has the authority to act acording to the 10th amendment. You are the one not doing the constitutional math, not me. Artcle 1 + article 3 + 10th amendment= refusal to here the case baed on no jurisdiction. Now these idiots are refusing to do the math that swiftly ends it. Language of Roe itself + 5th section of the 14th amendment+ authority of article one + the exceptions and regulations clause of article3 section2 = the life at conception act which the court has no other contitutional choice but to uphold as duely passed constitutional law. The very language of Roe recog nizes that. You, and the rest of your idiot freinds are playing the same kind of "new math" based on nothing the court did in the first place. There was nothing for the court to rule on. You are simply wrong again. And I have shown you point upon point what the constitution says, and you refuse to be educated, even though you adimit you are ignorant as to what the constitution says, and who our government works. I am not the one who is ignorant, nor guilty of doing bad math. I have laid it out very clearly. It is you who refuses to be a good math student, because for what ever reason you don't like how it adds up, and you refuse to except the very evidence before your eyes. the court descission was aggenda driven, much like your refusal to do the real math on this issue.

reply from: faithman

Roe was a constitutional challenge against Texas statute, dumbass. The SCOTUS ruled on Texas law. Neither of us liked the ruling, but continuing to make idiotic claims that the SCOTUS was not authorized to rule on the case, and that there was no law to rule on, is asinine.
The 10th amendment secured the right for texas to pass and prosicute that law. there was no federal law. the court can only over turn state law if it is in violation of a federal law, constitutional article, section, or amendment. Texas laws was not in violation of any such thing. The court violated the 10th amendment that states that if a state law is not in said violation, then their right to pass and prosicute law is secured. The court also said that if congress established personhood roe goes away. Section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to do just that. What is asinine is your willing ignorance about the constitution, even when you yourself post it. The court has to refuse cases all the time because there is no federal law, article, section, amendment, or act has been violated. In the case of roe, they violated article one, and ran ruff shod over the 10th amenment. The court did not have the constitutional authority to make Roe law, and voilate the state of texas's 10th amendment rights. That is not an idiotic claim, that is the truth, and the only thing asinine is you who claims to be SSSSSOOOO briliant not seeing it even thought it stares you in the face.
And there we have it. SCOTUS ruled that the Texas law was in violation of a constitutional article, section or amendment and thus threw it out.
And which Constitutional article, section or amendment was it in violation of?
The "right to abort" was ruled to fall under the penumbra of the right to privacy, but Sarah Weddington invoked the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments in her original complaint.
You should really study the case.
None of those amendments say you have the right to kill a kid, nor say anything at all about abortion. The court was wrong in its ruling by usurping the first article, trampling under foot the 10 amendment. The court did leave it open for teh congress to act, and the very language of Roe, coupled with the 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congress all the constitutional authority to establish equality thru personhood by the life at conception act. No amendment nessisary.

reply from: nancyu

Roe was a constitutional challenge against Texas statute, dumbass. The SCOTUS ruled on Texas law. Neither of us liked the ruling, but continuing to make idiotic claims that the SCOTUS was not authorized to rule on the case, and that there was no law to rule on, is asinine.
The 10th amendment secured the right for texas to pass and prosicute that law. there was no federal law. the court can only over turn state law if it is in violation of a federal law, constitutional article, section, or amendment. Texas laws was not in violation of any such thing. The court violated the 10th amendment that states that if a state law is not in said violation, then their right to pass and prosicute law is secured. The court also said that if congress established personhood roe goes away. Section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress the authority to do just that. What is asinine is your willing ignorance about the constitution, even when you yourself post it. The court has to refuse cases all the time because there is no federal law, article, section, amendment, or act has been violated. In the case of roe, they violated article one, and ran ruff shod over the 10th amenment. The court did not have the constitutional authority to make Roe law, and voilate the state of texas's 10th amendment rights. That is not an idiotic claim, that is the truth, and the only thing asinine is you who claims to be SSSSSOOOO briliant not seeing it even thought it stares you in the face.
And there we have it. SCOTUS ruled that the Texas law was in violation of a constitutional article, section or amendment and thus threw it out.
And which Constitutional article, section or amendment was it in violation of?
The "right to abort" was ruled to fall under the penumbra of the right to privacy, but Sarah Weddington invoked the 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments in her original complaint.
You should really study the case.
I have, and the ruling is flawed. Because..... an unborn child is a person.

reply from: yoda

I have, and the ruling is flawed. Because..... an unborn child is a person.
Talk about making stuff up.... the word "penumbra" is from the science of astronomy and refers to a particular type of shadow.... it is not, never has been, and probably never will be a legal term.
But of course, it's a good cover word for "I'm just making this crap up so I'll use whatever terms I want to, since I'm a big SCOTUS justice and nobody can stop me".

reply from: faithman

The only skull numb around here belongs to baboon boy who refuses to look at the constitutional evidence then claims to be speecking for the constitution. You have given no evidence for your postion. Kinda like evolution. We are supose to believe you are right simply because you say so, never mind the evidence to the contrary.

reply from: Faramir

It is not necessarily an astronomical term. It refers to the soft shadow surruonding the "main" dark shadow.
What did he mean by that word--that's what counts. If he screwed up on a word one time, so what? Does that destroy his intent? The word is not entirely inappropriate, and I can understand what he means by it. Maybe a better word would have been "umbrella"?
At any rate, he used a real word and not a made up one like "pro abort."
Now if you want to start correcting people about their word usage, what about your buddy faithman...

reply from: faithman

There is no "shadow" to the first article that says ALL legislative authority belongs to congress. Nor is there any shadow to the 3rd article that very clearly defines that the court can only rule on what the congress passes. No shadow behind a shadow about the fact that article 3 section 2 says that the congress can make exceptions as to what the court can rule on, and regulate the court as well. the court has agreed with those facts in the very language of Roe, and the 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congress all the contitutional authority it needs to pass the life at conception act which would end abortion on demand in all 50 states. The court could not rule it unconstitutional when the court has already ruled in Roe itself that the congress has the authority. Besides the fact that the life at conception act would make outlawing abortion ondemans an exception , and regulate the court from the moment of passage to recognize the womb child as a person. The court would have no constitutional grounds to oved turn the life at conception at. The bortheads know that, that is why they keep it jammed up in commitee. If it were ever to make it out of commitee and pass, and the president signed it into law, then the court would be constitutionally bound, and regulated to uphold it as the law of the land. They would have absolutly no grounds to dismiss it. It would be the law of the land.

reply from: carolemarie

I have read and reread the whole thread trying to understand where you're coming from. And I have already admitted that my understanding of the American system is not what it could be. You, and anyone else who joins in here, are being my teacher.
Except that there was a law, the constitution. It is the legal document from which all other American law is derived. If there is no specific law dealing with the matter before SCOTUS then it is their duty to refer to the constitution to determine the legality or not of the case presented.
The 10th amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
meaning that unless the federal government has been specifically delegated a power by the constitution, it is not theirs to exercise.
I would direct you to Article 3, Sections 1 & 2
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
ie, the judicial authority of the United States stems from the supreme court and other lower courts. It is they who determine the legality of an act, it is they who decide whether or not something is prohibited by the law.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
ie, a case must be of significant seriousness to invoke the power of the federal court. I think we can all agree that asking if one can end the life of your unborn child is of appropriate seriousness.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
ie, some cases may be brought directly to the supreme court without being heard first in a lower court. The supreme court also exercises appellate review over decisions of lower courts, within regulations set by congress
All of this means that the supreme court was acting in it's consitutionally defined role when determining the legal course of action in the dispute presented to them during RvW.

Except that there was a law to rule on, the constitution. One of the principles of having such a document is that when all else fails, turn to it. In instances when there is no law or the law is vague, the constitution has the final say. Furthermore, laws cannot be enacted by the legislature that contravene the constitution. Therefore, if SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is allowed under the constitution, any law banning abortion enacted by congress is clearly contravening the constitution (irrespective of your personal feeling) and will be ruled void by SCOTUS.
Article 1 says (I assume this is the bit you mean)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
meaning that congress has sole power to determine legislation. Jolly good, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over judicial matters. Each alone does not make the laws of the land, but rather to two of them working together (or occassionally working against each other) do. It is a check on the power of one branch against another. It stops, for example, congress from enacting blatently unjust laws. If congress had the power to overule any decision SCOTUS made which they didn't like, the balance of power within the government would be way off.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
presumably you mean they have the power to enforce section 1 of the same
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would refer you to the word born. Which is bloody inconvenient to yourself and nancyu and the like who insist that abortion is already illegal, but unfortunately until you are born or become a naturalised citizen you are not protected by the consitution. The unborn just don't qualify unfortunately. Of course, if you were to change the text of the contitution...
Except as CP has pointed out, the personhood bill was brought before a sympathetic congress with a pro-life president 7 years ago and didn't even make it out of committee. Now if you were able to get 2/3 of the states to petition for a constitutional amendment, something that a grass-roots movement could achieve, you'd be on your way to protecting the unborn in the most permanent fashion available.
And if FOCA passes, another bill can undo the damage. Just as if a personhood bill passes, an unpersonhood bill can undo that. If a constitutional amendment is hard to achieve, it is hard to undo aswell. This is the principle reason I'm against getting legislation involved in solving this, because whatever legal changes we make can be unmade by the other side, and however much you might not like to hear it, there are a lot more of them than us.
And your last paragraph proves you are indeed CP. You have posted the same untrue crap, and have totaly ignored the facts. You are the one ignoring the fact that congress already has authority to make exceptions, and regulate the court. the court can only rule on what the legislature passes, "scotus" is not the final dictator over all things. They can only rule on what the constitution says, and the legislature passes. there was nothing for the court to rule on. You overly wordy post full of crap, particularly the last paraghraph proves you are the jailhouse wife CP, and just as willinly ignore of truth.
You just hate being proved wrong don't you. You are wrong, you have the proof in front of you. And I would point out if the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to rule on Roe, or Lawrence v Texas for example, don't you think Christian attorneys would have lept into the fight? None did because you are WRONG.
Cp has pointed it out, now a Cracat has posted it. It is like listening to Nancy say abortion is illegal when it is obviously not illegal. GET OVER IT

reply from: faithman

I have read and reread the whole thread trying to understand where you're coming from. And I have already admitted that my understanding of the American system is not what it could be. You, and anyone else who joins in here, are being my teacher.
Except that there was a law, the constitution. It is the legal document from which all other American law is derived. If there is no specific law dealing with the matter before SCOTUS then it is their duty to refer to the constitution to determine the legality or not of the case presented.
The 10th amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
meaning that unless the federal government has been specifically delegated a power by the constitution, it is not theirs to exercise.
I would direct you to Article 3, Sections 1 & 2
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
ie, the judicial authority of the United States stems from the supreme court and other lower courts. It is they who determine the legality of an act, it is they who decide whether or not something is prohibited by the law.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
ie, a case must be of significant seriousness to invoke the power of the federal court. I think we can all agree that asking if one can end the life of your unborn child is of appropriate seriousness.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
ie, some cases may be brought directly to the supreme court without being heard first in a lower court. The supreme court also exercises appellate review over decisions of lower courts, within regulations set by congress
All of this means that the supreme court was acting in it's consitutionally defined role when determining the legal course of action in the dispute presented to them during RvW.

Except that there was a law to rule on, the constitution. One of the principles of having such a document is that when all else fails, turn to it. In instances when there is no law or the law is vague, the constitution has the final say. Furthermore, laws cannot be enacted by the legislature that contravene the constitution. Therefore, if SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is allowed under the constitution, any law banning abortion enacted by congress is clearly contravening the constitution (irrespective of your personal feeling) and will be ruled void by SCOTUS.
Article 1 says (I assume this is the bit you mean)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
meaning that congress has sole power to determine legislation. Jolly good, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over judicial matters. Each alone does not make the laws of the land, but rather to two of them working together (or occassionally working against each other) do. It is a check on the power of one branch against another. It stops, for example, congress from enacting blatently unjust laws. If congress had the power to overule any decision SCOTUS made which they didn't like, the balance of power within the government would be way off.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
presumably you mean they have the power to enforce section 1 of the same
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would refer you to the word born. Which is bloody inconvenient to yourself and nancyu and the like who insist that abortion is already illegal, but unfortunately until you are born or become a naturalised citizen you are not protected by the consitution. The unborn just don't qualify unfortunately. Of course, if you were to change the text of the contitution...
Except as CP has pointed out, the personhood bill was brought before a sympathetic congress with a pro-life president 7 years ago and didn't even make it out of committee. Now if you were able to get 2/3 of the states to petition for a constitutional amendment, something that a grass-roots movement could achieve, you'd be on your way to protecting the unborn in the most permanent fashion available.
And if FOCA passes, another bill can undo the damage. Just as if a personhood bill passes, an unpersonhood bill can undo that. If a constitutional amendment is hard to achieve, it is hard to undo aswell. This is the principle reason I'm against getting legislation involved in solving this, because whatever legal changes we make can be unmade by the other side, and however much you might not like to hear it, there are a lot more of them than us.
And your last paragraph proves you are indeed CP. You have posted the same untrue crap, and have totaly ignored the facts. You are the one ignoring the fact that congress already has authority to make exceptions, and regulate the court. the court can only rule on what the legislature passes, "scotus" is not the final dictator over all things. They can only rule on what the constitution says, and the legislature passes. there was nothing for the court to rule on. You overly wordy post full of crap, particularly the last paraghraph proves you are the jailhouse wife CP, and just as willinly ignore of truth.
You just hate being proved wrong don't you. You are wrong, you have the proof in front of you. And I would point out if the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to rule on Roe, or Lawrence v Texas for example, don't you think Christian attorneys would have lept into the fight? None did because you are WRONG.
Cp has pointed it out, now a Cracat has posted it. It is like listening to Nancy say abortion is illegal when it is obviously not illegal. GET OVER IT
I am not wrong, no matter how many false phony pro-lifers want to say so. "pro-life" has been highjacked by pfolks like you who have murdered children, and want futher murderers to go free, or who run personality cults and make a livung off of a PR war that means they have to "Regulate" abortion, and pass meaningless laws they then call victories. These so called lawyers you talk about, are henchmen in the PR war. IF what you stupid people are saying is true, then the prop-aborts would be singing it from the house tops in the media they own. But because they know what I am saying is constitutionally corect, they hush it up. That is the same reason you hear very little about what is going on in Colorado. You have stated several times that you oppose personhood for the womb child because of special interest and personal agenda. It does not suprise me in the least that you would post such a blatant mis truth, and agree with someon who said they did not know how our government works, and then tries to talk as an authority on it. You are a baby killer, the defender of baby killers, and could really care less about the womb child. The thing your crowd needs to know is, that the group in Colorado is led by lawyers, they know the lies that have been told over the years, and the are taking a tact that goes straight to the heart of the issue. Your lies are being dispelled all over the country, just like they are being dispelled here. I am not the one who is wrong. I am the one who has given constitutional proof of what I am saying. All we get from you is your false baby killers opinion. you have absolutly no substance, or evidence to back up anything you have said. FACT: Article one of the constitution gives all legislative authority to the congress. FACT: Article 3 confines the court to only rule on the constitution, and laws passed by the legislature. FACT: the 2nd section of article 3 most assuredly says that the congress can make exceptions, and regulate what the court can even rule on. FACT: The very language of Roe recognized the congresses authority to establish personhood of the womb child. FACT: section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress all the authority it needs to pass a life at conception act, and if drafted right, would be beyond judicial review. It would be law, and the copurt would be constitutionally bound to uphold it. Those are facts, not opinions. You are just a reallyu small minded baby killer who posts only your opinion that eminates from a bruised ego. You offer nothing of substance to the discussion, and are only here to try and kick the feet out from under real action because it would mess up your baby killer tea party. But bad news for you is, people are starting to wake up. Punks like flip benham ate no longer "the voice" of pro-life. Organizations like national right to life are being exposed for the government shills they are. And people are starting to read our founding document for themselves and are beginning to realize how the have been lied to by the likes of you. Just keep poting your baby killing lies, and I will keep posting the truth in their defence. Roe was a violation of the constitution. Nothing about it was right, except where the court ackowleged that congress has the authority to act. An amendment is not nessisary, and is a waist of valuable time and effort, when an act of congress will work just fine.

reply from: carolemarie

Lets get something straight,
Ii am prolife. I care about the babies who are dying, that is why I am prolife.
I also care about the women who are choosing abortion and I care what happens to them as well. It isn't an either or thing. It is a both thing. And if I love people, that requires that I treat them with respect and kindness.
You can care about the issue of abortion and vent your feelings or you can choose to love the people involved in abortion. I choose the relationship over the principle.
The law is man's attempt to end abortion. Doing it in our strength and power.
Love is God's way of ending abortion. Doing it in HIS strength and power.
Abortion will not end until those who are involved in the battle put down their stones and pick up the banner of love. That means factions need to stop fighting each other. That means prolifers who disagree still don't get to call their brothers and sisters names or accuse them of not being followers of Christ.
And so that I have nothing to be ashamed of at the altar, I apologize for responding in anger toward your remarks. I may not agree with you but since you are a brother in Christ I have no right to respond in anger to you, but to respond in love. I still believe you are wrong, and are in error. I have pointed those out, but I didn't do it in a spirit of love, so for that I apologize.

reply from: faithman

I care not for passive agressive tactics designed to try to shut folks up behind the pretence of "love". This is just another attempt to polish the self image of idolatry. The only error that needs pointing out is just about everthing you post here. You are more for the killers than the ones being killed. reguardless wheather you even have the ability to recognize it or not, you are the deadly enemy of the womb child, and you continuosly oppose any effectual effort that would stop them from dying, if it meant that the ones doing the killing would be brought to justice. Your "theology" is totally out of ballance, and ignores half of what is actually written in the scripture. You can try and hide your accusational attack behind a pretence of an apology, but the only apology that would ring true is an admission of error, and a promise to correct it. That is what true repentance is. My loyalty on this issue belongs to the womb child. I make no apologies for identifying their enemies, and doing everything I can to defeat them. When you quit being the deadly enemy, both by deed as well as word, of the womb child; you won't here another word out of me. But if you think you are going to hide behind the kind of surgar coated passive aggressive attacks represented in this post, you are self decieved.

reply from: yoda

Mmmm...... okay...... is the baby involved in an abortion? And is the baby a person?
Do you have a relationship with the baby?

reply from: carolemarie

Mmmm...... okay...... is the baby involved in an abortion? And is the baby a person?
Do you have a relationship with the baby?
The baby isn't capable of having a relationship with anyone yet.
I never said the baby wasn't a person or that abortion didn't involved the baby. What I say (over and over and over ) is that you have to reach the mom to save They are a package deal.
Like it or not, you have to reach that mom if you want the baby to live. You have to listen to her and offer a better solution than the abortion clinic has. They are only offering death and misery, so if you are semi articulate, you should be able to make a better offer.

reply from: carolemarie

I have read and reread the whole thread trying to understand where you're coming from. And I have already admitted that my understanding of the American system is not what it could be. You, and anyone else who joins in here, are being my teacher.
Except that there was a law, the constitution. It is the legal document from which all other American law is derived. If there is no specific law dealing with the matter before SCOTUS then it is their duty to refer to the constitution to determine the legality or not of the case presented.
The 10th amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
meaning that unless the federal government has been specifically delegated a power by the constitution, it is not theirs to exercise.
I would direct you to Article 3, Sections 1 & 2
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
ie, the judicial authority of the United States stems from the supreme court and other lower courts. It is they who determine the legality of an act, it is they who decide whether or not something is prohibited by the law.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
ie, a case must be of significant seriousness to invoke the power of the federal court. I think we can all agree that asking if one can end the life of your unborn child is of appropriate seriousness.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
ie, some cases may be brought directly to the supreme court without being heard first in a lower court. The supreme court also exercises appellate review over decisions of lower courts, within regulations set by congress
All of this means that the supreme court was acting in it's consitutionally defined role when determining the legal course of action in the dispute presented to them during RvW.

Except that there was a law to rule on, the constitution. One of the principles of having such a document is that when all else fails, turn to it. In instances when there is no law or the law is vague, the constitution has the final say. Furthermore, laws cannot be enacted by the legislature that contravene the constitution. Therefore, if SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is allowed under the constitution, any law banning abortion enacted by congress is clearly contravening the constitution (irrespective of your personal feeling) and will be ruled void by SCOTUS.
Article 1 says (I assume this is the bit you mean)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
meaning that congress has sole power to determine legislation. Jolly good, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over judicial matters. Each alone does not make the laws of the land, but rather to two of them working together (or occassionally working against each other) do. It is a check on the power of one branch against another. It stops, for example, congress from enacting blatently unjust laws. If congress had the power to overule any decision SCOTUS made which they didn't like, the balance of power within the government would be way off.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
presumably you mean they have the power to enforce section 1 of the same
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would refer you to the word born. Which is bloody inconvenient to yourself and nancyu and the like who insist that abortion is already illegal, but unfortunately until you are born or become a naturalised citizen you are not protected by the consitution. The unborn just don't qualify unfortunately. Of course, if you were to change the text of the contitution...
Except as CP has pointed out, the personhood bill was brought before a sympathetic congress with a pro-life president 7 years ago and didn't even make it out of committee. Now if you were able to get 2/3 of the states to petition for a constitutional amendment, something that a grass-roots movement could achieve, you'd be on your way to protecting the unborn in the most permanent fashion available.
And if FOCA passes, another bill can undo the damage. Just as if a personhood bill passes, an unpersonhood bill can undo that. If a constitutional amendment is hard to achieve, it is hard to undo aswell. This is the principle reason I'm against getting legislation involved in solving this, because whatever legal changes we make can be unmade by the other side, and however much you might not like to hear it, there are a lot more of them than us.
And your last paragraph proves you are indeed CP. You have posted the same untrue crap, and have totaly ignored the facts. You are the one ignoring the fact that congress already has authority to make exceptions, and regulate the court. the court can only rule on what the legislature passes, "scotus" is not the final dictator over all things. They can only rule on what the constitution says, and the legislature passes. there was nothing for the court to rule on. You overly wordy post full of crap, particularly the last paraghraph proves you are the jailhouse wife CP, and just as willinly ignore of truth.
You just hate being proved wrong don't you. You are wrong, you have the proof in front of you. And I would point out if the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to rule on Roe, or Lawrence v Texas for example, don't you think Christian attorneys would have lept into the fight? None did because you are WRONG.
Cp has pointed it out, now a Cracat has posted it. It is like listening to Nancy say abortion is illegal when it is obviously not illegal. GET OVER IT
I am not wrong, no matter how many false phony pro-lifers want to say so. "pro-life" has been highjacked by pfolks like you who have murdered children, and want futher murderers to go free, or who run personality cults and make a livung off of a PR war that means they have to "Regulate" abortion, and pass meaningless laws they then call victories. These so called lawyers you talk about, are henchmen in the PR war. IF what you stupid people are saying is true, then the prop-aborts would be singing it from the house tops in the media they own. But because they know what I am saying is constitutionally corect, they hush it up. That is the same reason you hear very little about what is going on in Colorado. You have stated several times that you oppose personhood for the womb child because of special interest and personal agenda. It does not suprise me in the least that you would post such a blatant mis truth, and agree with someon who said they did not know how our government works, and then tries to talk as an authority on it. You are a baby killer, the defender of baby killers, and could really care less about the womb child. The thing your crowd needs to know is, that the group in Colorado is led by lawyers, they know the lies that have been told over the years, and the are taking a tact that goes straight to the heart of the issue. Your lies are being dispelled all over the country, just like they are being dispelled here. I am not the one who is wrong. I am the one who has given constitutional proof of what I am saying. All we get from you is your false baby killers opinion. you have absolutly no substance, or evidence to back up anything you have said. FACT: Article one of the constitution gives all legislative authority to the congress. FACT: Article 3 confines the court to only rule on the constitution, and laws passed by the legislature. FACT: the 2nd section of article 3 most assuredly says that the congress can make exceptions, and regulate what the court can even rule on. FACT: The very language of Roe recognized the congresses authority to establish personhood of the womb child. FACT: section 5 of the 14th amendment gives congress all the authority it needs to pass a life at conception act, and if drafted right, would be beyond judicial review. It would be law, and the copurt would be constitutionally bound to uphold it. Those are facts, not opinions. You are just a reallyu small minded baby killer who posts only your opinion that eminates from a bruised ego. You offer nothing of substance to the discussion, and are only here to try and kick the feet out from under real action because it would mess up your baby killer tea party. But bad news for you is, people are starting to wake up. Punks like flip benham ate no longer "the voice" of pro-life. Organizations like national right to life are being exposed for the government shills they are. And people are starting to read our founding document for themselves and are beginning to realize how the have been lied to by the likes of you. Just keep poting your baby killing lies, and I will keep posting the truth in their defence. Roe was a violation of the constitution. Nothing about it was right, except where the court ackowleged that congress has the authority to act. An amendment is not nessisary, and is a waist of valuable time and effort, when an act of congress will work just fine.
In Marbury v Madison the Supreme Court gave the Supreme Court all the power they have. And they do have the power to strike down state laws they deem unconstiutional, despite your opinion. Roe was heard on the 11th, 9th and 14th amendment issues, which gave the Supreme Court jurisdiction.
Let's say that Congress COULD pass a law in direct opposition to a Supreme Court ruling, and they pass personhood, at that point lawyers from PPH will file suit asking for injuctive relief while they challenge the constitutionality of the bill. The Supreme Court will hear that bill and rule on it. They get final say-so on constitutional matters. But Congress can't pass a bill in direct opposition to a Supreme Court ruling.
A constitutional amendment stops all the back and forth and ends abortion.

reply from: faithman

You are just simply wrong and refuse to even read the direct quotes from the contitution it self. ALL legislative atority is invested in the congress by the first article. The court can only rule on what the congress pass. That is what the whole of article 3 very clearly lays out. Section 2 0f article 3 very clearly statges that congress already has authority to make exceptions and regulate what the cour can rule on. There was no constitutional violation in the state law of Texas concerning abortion, and the court should have refused to hear the case on those graoundsd because the state was well within it's 10th amendment rights. No where in any of the amendment you number does it say a skanc has the right to kill the womb child. Even the language of Roe, coupled with the 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congre4ss all the authority itd needs to pass the life at conception act, which the court must uphold as the constitutionally passed law of the land. They would not have a choice in the matter as the court is regulated by constitutional authority of congress. No amendment is nessisary, as is the wrong tact because it would take years longer to pass. It also passes us dangerously close to a contitutional convention, inwhich the whole constitution could go by by, and there would be no hope of outlawing abortion if that were to happen. There is already enough constitutional authority vested in the congress to throw roe out with a simple act. An amendment is unnessisary, and a huge waist of time as the womb child dies.

reply from: nancyu

I have read and reread the whole thread trying to understand where you're coming from. And I have already admitted that my understanding of the American system is not what it could be. You, and anyone else who joins in here, are being my teacher.
Except that there was a law, the constitution. It is the legal document from which all other American law is derived. If there is no specific law dealing with the matter before SCOTUS then it is their duty to refer to the constitution to determine the legality or not of the case presented.
The 10th amendment says
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
meaning that unless the federal government has been specifically delegated a power by the constitution, it is not theirs to exercise.
I would direct you to Article 3, Sections 1 & 2
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
ie, the judicial authority of the United States stems from the supreme court and other lower courts. It is they who determine the legality of an act, it is they who decide whether or not something is prohibited by the law.
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; - to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls; - to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; - to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; - to Controversies between two or more States; - between a State and Citizens of another State; - between Citizens of different States; - between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
ie, a case must be of significant seriousness to invoke the power of the federal court. I think we can all agree that asking if one can end the life of your unborn child is of appropriate seriousness.
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."
ie, some cases may be brought directly to the supreme court without being heard first in a lower court. The supreme court also exercises appellate review over decisions of lower courts, within regulations set by congress
All of this means that the supreme court was acting in it's consitutionally defined role when determining the legal course of action in the dispute presented to them during RvW.

Except that there was a law to rule on, the constitution. One of the principles of having such a document is that when all else fails, turn to it. In instances when there is no law or the law is vague, the constitution has the final say. Furthermore, laws cannot be enacted by the legislature that contravene the constitution. Therefore, if SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is allowed under the constitution, any law banning abortion enacted by congress is clearly contravening the constitution (irrespective of your personal feeling) and will be ruled void by SCOTUS.
Article 1 says (I assume this is the bit you mean)
"All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
meaning that congress has sole power to determine legislation. Jolly good, the supreme court has ultimate jurisdiction over judicial matters. Each alone does not make the laws of the land, but rather to two of them working together (or occassionally working against each other) do. It is a check on the power of one branch against another. It stops, for example, congress from enacting blatently unjust laws. If congress had the power to overule any decision SCOTUS made which they didn't like, the balance of power within the government would be way off.
Section 5 of the 14th amendment says
"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
presumably you mean they have the power to enforce section 1 of the same
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I would refer you to the word born. Which is bloody inconvenient to yourself and nancyu and the like who insist that abortion is already illegal, but unfortunately until you are born or become a naturalised citizen you are not protected by the consitution. The unborn just don't qualify unfortunately. Of course, if you were to change the text of the contitution...
Except as CP has pointed out, the personhood bill was brought before a sympathetic congress with a pro-life president 7 years ago and didn't even make it out of committee. Now if you were able to get 2/3 of the states to petition for a constitutional amendment, something that a grass-roots movement could achieve, you'd be on your way to protecting the unborn in the most permanent fashion available.
And if FOCA passes, another bill can undo the damage. Just as if a personhood bill passes, an unpersonhood bill can undo that. If a constitutional amendment is hard to achieve, it is hard to undo aswell. This is the principle reason I'm against getting legislation involved in solving this, because whatever legal changes we make can be unmade by the other side, and however much you might not like to hear it, there are a lot more of them than us.
And your last paragraph proves you are indeed CP. You have posted the same untrue crap, and have totaly ignored the facts. You are the one ignoring the fact that congress already has authority to make exceptions, and regulate the court. the court can only rule on what the legislature passes, "scotus" is not the final dictator over all things. They can only rule on what the constitution says, and the legislature passes. there was nothing for the court to rule on. You overly wordy post full of crap, particularly the last paraghraph proves you are the jailhouse wife CP, and just as willinly ignore of truth.
You just hate being proved wrong don't you. You are wrong, you have the proof in front of you. And I would point out if the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to rule on Roe, or Lawrence v Texas for example, don't you think Christian attorneys would have lept into the fight? None did because you are WRONG.
Cp has pointed it out, now a Cracat has posted it. It is like listening to Nancy say abortion is illegal when it is obviously not illegal. GET OVER IT
Carole, would you kindly summarize in your own words, why CP is right and faithman is wrong?

reply from: yoda

Is that so? People aren't capable of feeling empathy for strangers they've never met? People can't feel sorrow over the deaths of Jews in the Holocaust? People can't feel protective of children they never met?
What you said was: "You can care about the issue of abortion and vent your feelings or you can choose to love the people involved in abortion. I choose the relationship over the principle."
So, is a baby a "person involved in the abortion" or not?
There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to reach a mother at an abortion clinic. Yes, appealing to her selfish nature will work sometimes, and if we could offer each one of them a million dollars we could probably save a lot more babies, couldn't we?
But we can't, so we have to use what we have. And one thing we have that does work sometimes is to appeal to the mother's conscience about the killing of her own child. For a certain percentage of mothers, that approach works better than "bribery".

reply from: yoda

I wonder, what would happen if the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution actually gave THEM all the power of the federal government, and that they had the power to dismiss and appoint both the president and congress?
Do you suppose congress and the president would just lie down like whipped dogs and submit?

reply from: nancyu

Carole, would you kindly summarize in your own words, why CP is right and faithman is wrong?

reply from: yoda

The only problem with that is that an institution can't give itself power. It must come from a higher power.
The SCOTUS has only the power congress allows it to have. Sadly, congress has allowed it way too much power recently, probably to avoid having to make controversial decisions themselves. They have to stand for re-election, whereas the justices are appointed for life.
I think that's why congress has surrendered much of it's rightful power to the SCOTUS.

reply from: faithman

The only problem with that is that an institution can't give itself power. It must come from a higher power.
The SCOTUS has only the power congress allows it to have. Sadly, congress has allowed it way too much power recently, probably to avoid having to make controversial decisions themselves. They have to stand for re-election, whereas the justices are appointed for life.
I think that's why congress has surrendered much of it's rightful power to the SCOTUS.
Wrong. The Congress does not decide what authority the SCOTUS HAS, the Constitution does, just as it outlines the authority of the legislative and executive branches.
Carole was mistaken in asserting that the SCOTUS gave itself the authority it has. The authority of the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitution was simply reaffirmed by Marbury v Madison. Had they been wrong, it would have been the duty of the other two branches to "check" them. Obviously, that was not the case, so Marbury v Madison stands as a landmark precedent affirming the authority given the SCOTUS in our Constitution. You didn't hear of Marbury or Madison complaining (like Fboy) that the Congress has the authority to over rule the SCOTUS, right? They accepted the legal principle that those who adjudicate must necessarily be authorized to interpret the law.
Res judicata pro veritate accipitur. (A thing adjudicated is received as true.)
But you contradict yourself. The court has authority to interpret law, not legislate it. There was no federal law, nor amendment, nor article, nor section, that said women had the right to murder. The court usurpt the congress and made law where there was none. The congress does, and has in the past, the authority to over turn, make exceptions and regulate the court. The court can onlty rule on federal law, and constitutional fact. There was niether that said a woman could kill. The very language of Roe said that if congress ever established personhood, the complaintants case colapses. Even the very court dicission disagrees with you, and agrees with me. Article one of the constitution gives ALL legislative authority to congress. Section 5 of the 14th amendment coupled with the very language of Roe, says congress has the authority to act. There is enough in the constitution already without an amendment, that gives congress the authority to make abortion on demand an exception, and regulate the court to rule that a womb child is a person, by the life at conception act. An amendmet is unnessisary, and a waste of time and lives.Your very posts prove you wrong, and your willing ignorance says your care more about your puffed up ego driven opinion than costitutional fact that would put a swift end to the injustice of womb child slaughter.

reply from: faithman

Which is what they did, dumbass. They ruled on Texas law, and made (legislated) no law.
No you are the willingly ignorant dumb ass. The Texas law was not in violation of any federal, article, amendment, act of congress, or federal law. They reached way beyond their authority and legisated from the bench which is in direct violation of the constitution amendment 10. Article 1 gives all legislative authority to the congress. article 3 section 2 gives congress the authority to make exceptions and regulate what the court can rule on. section 5 of the 14th amendment coupled with the language of Roe, gives congress all the authority they need to pass the life at conception at which would be the law of the land which the court would have to uphold by regulation of the constitution. The court had not grounds to rule on Texas law as Texas law was not in any violation of federal law, or constitutional amendment section or article. The 10th amendment was violated by the court, and Roe should be over turned simple on those grounds. But because willingly ignorant stupidos like you seem to be running things, these facts are over looked.

reply from: faithman

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
No the court did not. The court ruled that the constitution was ambiguous, and made law from the bench that did not exist. All legislative authority belongs to the congress by article one of the constitution. Amendment 10 says if there is no federal law at the federal level, then the states have the authority to make and prosicute law. The state was not in violation of the constitution, the court was wrong, and usurped the authority of the congress by making Roe law where therte wasn't any. That is not there job. But the very language of Roe cou[pled with the 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congress all they need to pass a court proof law that the court would be regulated to uphold.

reply from: carolemarie

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....

reply from: faithman

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....
At least I did not deny life to 3 womb children so I could get back to tricks. At least I do not deny the womb child personhood, because it gets in the way of pesonal agenda. At least I do not deny half the bible to pervert justice and give murderers a free walk. And at least I do not deny the truth of the constitution like the 7 justices did to ram Roe down our throats. If anyone on this board suffers from extreme denial, it is your baby killing behind.

reply from: sander

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....
Are you kidding? You suffer from a bad, bad case of hypocrisy.
YOU have YOUR MIND MADE UP THAT NOT ALL babies deserve the chance at life, (exceptions) and the Bible tells lies (God is not interested in justice in THIS LIFE), baby killing mommy gets to walk free.
When you can be 100% prolife you let us know.

reply from: carolemarie

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....
Are you kidding? You suffer from a bad, bad case of hypocrisy.
YOU have YOUR MIND MADE UP THAT NOT ALL babies deserve the chance at life, (exceptions) and the Bible tells lies (God is not interested in justice in THIS LIFE), baby killing mommy gets to walk free.
When you can be 100% prolife you let us know.
1. I said that no bill will pass that doesn't have exceptions, such as rape and incest. What is the good of introducing legislation that can't be voted in? NONE
2. I never said the bible tells lies, I don't agree with YOUR interpretation of it. You are not the Holy Spirit! (I never said God isn't interested in justice, He sent Jesus so we could have mercy, Jesus took the justice. )
3. Condemnation is a justice spirit from hell. You can love that baby and the mom at the same time. We are suppose to love justice, but DO mercy.
4. I advocate justice, banning performing abortions, and doing mercy, not jailing women who are under duress. The biblical mandate.

reply from: faithman

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....
Are you kidding? You suffer from a bad, bad case of hypocrisy.
YOU have YOUR MIND MADE UP THAT NOT ALL babies deserve the chance at life, (exceptions) and the Bible tells lies (God is not interested in justice in THIS LIFE), baby killing mommy gets to walk free.
When you can be 100% prolife you let us know.
Please! Fboy implied that keeping our Constitution intact was more important to him than prohibiting abortion, so he obviously has "exceptions" too! You are a hypocrite for not condemning him on the same grounds as you condemn Carole...
You are a liar and a thief. I never said any such thing. I do not believe the two are mutualy exclusive. You can not outlaw abortion on demand without an intact constitution. to try and amend the constitution takes years longer than a simple act of congress. To advocate an amendment makes us siseptible to a contitutional convention, which would usher in a complete surender of our constitutional republic to world socialism under the UN, which is totally pro-abortion. Both you and CM are deadly enemies to the womb child, and the instrument of our constitutional republic. The 1st article of the constitution gives all legislative authority to the congress. Article 3 states very clearly that the court can only rule on what congress has passed. Article 3 section 2 very clearly states that congress makes exceptions to, and regulates what the court can and can not rule on. The language in Roe coupled with the 5th section of the 14th amendment gives congress all the authority it needs to pass the life at conception act. At that point the court would be constitutionally regulated to rule womb children as persons, and all laws would have to comply to that standard. To destroy the constitution, is to destroy any hope of legally ending abortion on demand.

reply from: faithman

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....
Are you kidding? You suffer from a bad, bad case of hypocrisy.
YOU have YOUR MIND MADE UP THAT NOT ALL babies deserve the chance at life, (exceptions) and the Bible tells lies (God is not interested in justice in THIS LIFE), baby killing mommy gets to walk free.
When you can be 100% prolife you let us know.
1. I said that no bill will pass that doesn't have exceptions, such as rape and incest. What is the good of introducing legislation that can't be voted in? NONE
2. I never said the bible tells lies, I don't agree with YOUR interpretation of it. You are not the Holy Spirit! (I never said God isn't interested in justice, He sent Jesus so we could have mercy, Jesus took the justice. )
3. Condemnation is a justice spirit from hell. You can love that baby and the mom at the same time. We are suppose to love justice, but DO mercy.
4. I advocate justice, banning performing abortions, and doing mercy, not jailing women who are under duress. The biblical mandate.
You are alying perverter of scipture!! Just name where it is a mandate to allow murderers a free walk? You have yet to post any biblical mandates, and all your posts are a baby killer trying to subvert the truth of scripture to allow other baby killers a free walk. You could actually care less for the womb child, and are still their deadly enemy. Not only are you not the Holy Spirit, but there is nothing Holy about you. So slither back under your rock viper, we know exactly who and what you are.

reply from: faithman

Boy, you just pile it up, don't you? You obviously don't care what you say. What's the matter, did you get tired of your "jailhouse wife" fantasy? I should think someone who believes in "God" would be much more careful about obeying the commandments...But then, you are convinced that, if you just believe, you can do as you like, eh?
At any rate, I'm just flat tired of calling you a liar. It should be obvious to all by now. I'm not even going to be indignant and demand you prove your claims. We both know you can't. I don't see how a single soul on this forum could trust the likes of you... You are truly a pitiful representation of your alleged "faith."
Nice try punk monkey, but all you do is slander twist wordsd and dispence false information. you can't believe the truth when it stares you in the face. I have proven you wrong at every turn, and the only reason you hang onto your false information is because you are an ego maniac who could care less about the womb children. I don't have to prove my claims I all ready have. all you have done is post half truths twisted into lies, and everyone knows it that is what you smartly do not repost them. Yepper, you are a liar and a thief, and the deadly enemy to the womb child.

reply from: yoda

Let me guess..... she like one and hates the other?

reply from: nancyu

Is the evidence I presented not enough to speak for itself? The repeated denials of the village idiot stand on their own merit as well, do they not?
Because I've read your words about 20 times, and what you've said makes no sense to me. Carole seems to have a clear handle on the truth, so I thought maybe she could explain it to me in plain English.
(speaking of constant personal attacks, what about yours on faithman? Is he who you refer to the "village idiot" or are you referring to yourself there?)

reply from: nancyu

Good guess!!
CM you really shouldn't be so hateful.
I'll go first, and tell you why I think faithman is right and CP is wrong. ( I mean besides the fact that I dislike CP--I have my reasons)
Read carefully the 14th amendment. I will bold the sections I find to be important.
First of all. Please don't confuse the word citizen with the word person.
A person does not need to be considered a citizen in order to be protected by laws against murder.
Second. The Congress has the power to enforce this by passing appropriate legislation to do so.
faithman is right. An amendment could do the same thing, but either way, it takes Congress to do it, and this is the simpler, quicker, and safer way for Congress to act.

reply from: carolemarie

The Supreme Court ruled that the 14th amendment didn't apply to the unborn child. (that was the gist of Roe) and the Supreme Court is charged with interputing the constitution. They get to say what it means.
Faithman claims that the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to rule on the Texas abortion law. And they did, because the constitutionality of the law was in questions based on the 9, 11, and 14th amendments. That is in the jurisdiction of the supreme court.
It has nothing to do with disliking him, it is because he is wrong on his facts.

reply from: carolemarie

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....
Are you kidding? You suffer from a bad, bad case of hypocrisy.
YOU have YOUR MIND MADE UP THAT NOT ALL babies deserve the chance at life, (exceptions) and the Bible tells lies (God is not interested in justice in THIS LIFE), baby killing mommy gets to walk free.
When you can be 100% prolife you let us know.
1. I said that no bill will pass that doesn't have exceptions, such as rape and incest. What is the good of introducing legislation that can't be voted in? NONE
2. I never said the bible tells lies, I don't agree with YOUR interpretation of it. You are not the Holy Spirit! (I never said God isn't interested in justice, He sent Jesus so we could have mercy, Jesus took the justice. )
3. Condemnation is a justice spirit from hell. You can love that baby and the mom at the same time. We are suppose to love justice, but DO mercy.
4. I advocate justice, banning performing abortions, and doing mercy, not jailing women who are under duress. The biblical mandate.
You are alying perverter of scipture!! Just name where it is a mandate to allow murderers a free walk? You have yet to post any biblical mandates, and all your posts are a baby killer trying to subvert the truth of scripture to allow other baby killers a free walk. You could actually care less for the womb child, and are still their deadly enemy. Not only are you not the Holy Spirit, but there is nothing Holy about you. So slither back under your rock viper, we know exactly who and what you are.
Right Fboy...I stand in front of abortion clinics to help women chose life because I hate babies.....get a grip dude!
Your view of scripture is totally warped. You believe a man who gunned down an abortion provider is a hero and dump your anger and bitterness at anyone who advocates for mercy....

reply from: faithman

The SCOTUS says it was! Who does the Constitution say gets to decide? You and I, or the SCOTUS?
Faithman suffers from denial.
He just doesn't care what the facts are, he has his mind made up.....
Are you kidding? You suffer from a bad, bad case of hypocrisy.
YOU have YOUR MIND MADE UP THAT NOT ALL babies deserve the chance at life, (exceptions) and the Bible tells lies (God is not interested in justice in THIS LIFE), baby killing mommy gets to walk free.
When you can be 100% prolife you let us know.
1. I said that no bill will pass that doesn't have exceptions, such as rape and incest. What is the good of introducing legislation that can't be voted in? NONE
2. I never said the bible tells lies, I don't agree with YOUR interpretation of it. You are not the Holy Spirit! (I never said God isn't interested in justice, He sent Jesus so we could have mercy, Jesus took the justice. )
3. Condemnation is a justice spirit from hell. You can love that baby and the mom at the same time. We are suppose to love justice, but DO mercy.
4. I advocate justice, banning performing abortions, and doing mercy, not jailing women who are under duress. The biblical mandate.
You are alying perverter of scipture!! Just name where it is a mandate to allow murderers a free walk? You have yet to post any biblical mandates, and all your posts are a baby killer trying to subvert the truth of scripture to allow other baby killers a free walk. You could actually care less for the womb child, and are still their deadly enemy. Not only are you not the Holy Spirit, but there is nothing Holy about you. So slither back under your rock viper, we know exactly who and what you are.
Right Fboy...I stand in front of abortion clinics to help women chose life because I hate babies.....get a grip dude!
Your view of scripture is totally warped. You believe a man who gunned down an abortion provider is a hero and dump your anger and bitterness at anyone who advocates for mercy....
Once again you take a half truth and make a general statement out of it. Show one post where I even come close to being against mercy? I have a far better grip on what mercy is than you. You are the one who is out of ballance and ignores half of the scripture you don't like.

reply from: nancyu

Congress CAN make laws that will overturn Roe Vs Wade. He is not wrong about that fact, is he.

reply from: carolemarie

UMMMMM, I am pretty sure they are not allowed to pass an ilegal law.
Because of Miller, when we write bills regulating the sex industry and lets say strip clubs, it can't be done with an eye to shut them down because the Supreme Court has ruled they have a right to exist.
Any legislation has to have the intent to do something else, like protect churches and daycares and property values or regulate those who habitutally break the laws, such as prostitutes, or drug dealers. That is in the best interest of the community, so that can be your reason.
So if that is the fact on a state level, I am sure it applies in the Congress. We can write a partial birth abortion ban, because that is limiting one type of procedure. We can mandate ultrasounds, or fetal pain information, but we can't ban it.
Now a state can ban it and challenge the SCOTUS ruling. Because then it is state rights v the federal rights.

reply from: yoda

There is no one to stop them from doing that.
AFTER they pass a law, the SCOTUS has the right to voice their verdict on it, but no one can prevent any legislature from passing any law it wants to.

reply from: carolemarie

I say you major on the Law. That makes you legalistic and condemning.
We are not under the Law and people can't do what it requires. That is why Jesus came. We are under grace....grace is not getting what you deserve. Legalistic people hate grace.

reply from: yoda

Say what? Was that to me?

reply from: nancyu

WHAT!!!!!!???????
A law that says that an unborn child is a person. You would call that an illegal law.
And a law protecting the life of an unborn child isn't a good enough reason to make a law? HMMMM.
And the right to an abortion isn't an illegal law pulled out of thin air, (or some unknown orifice)?
And abortion is legal???
And she can't figure out why I think she is pro abortion...

reply from: nancyu

And how many times have you said that you want abortion outlawed, and you want Tiller jailed?
How many times? How are you any better than we are?

reply from: nancyu

You have a very logical mind, and I think your logic has led you around in circles. You need to mix in a little faith with your understanding.
(this is only my very humble opinion)

reply from: faithman

It is the logic of a secular humanist fool who hasn't the foggest as to how the constitution is suppose to work. Article one of the constitution gives all authority to congress to legislate. Article 3 very clearly states that the cour does not set its own jurisdiction. It is set by congress thru the passage of law. The congress makes exceptions anf regulates the court, not the other way around. The 5th section of the 14th amendment, coupled with the very language in Roe, gives congress all the authority it needs to pass the life at conception act. Once passed the court would be regulated to make sure all laws atributed personhood to the womb child. That is not circular, that is a straight constitutional line.

reply from: carolemarie

WHAT!!!!!!???????
A law that says that an unborn child is a person. You would call that an illegal law.
And a law protecting the life of an unborn child isn't a good enough reason to make a law? HMMMM.
And the right to an abortion isn't an illegal law pulled out of thin air, (or some unknown orifice)?
And abortion is legal???
And she can't figure out why I think she is pro abortion...
Try to follow:
It would be an illegal law, because it would be in direct violation of a SCOTUS ruling and that is why the judical committee reviews the bills introduced, to make sure that Congress doesn't violate the existing laws.
The right to an abortion is a crazy ruling and I believe that the justices just made it up. However, they have the right to say what the constitution means. Nobody else does. So even if they make it up, we are stuck with it until we pass a constitutional amendment or the court reverses itself.
I am not pro abortion.....and your saying so doesn't make it true, anymore than saying abortion is against the law makes it true.

reply from: nancyu

No. You try to follow.
A law that says that an unborn child is a person. You would call that an illegal law?
And a law protecting the life of an unborn child isn't a good enough reason to make a law? HMMMM.
And the right to an abortion isn't an illegal law pulled out of thin air, (or some unknown orifice)?
And abortion is legal???
And she can't figure out why I think she is pro abortion...

reply from: Faramir

Why doesn't one of nancyu's friends tell her that abortion is legal? I don't get why they let her continue to make a complete arse out of herself daily on this forum.

reply from: faithman

WHAT!!!!!!???????
A law that says that an unborn child is a person. You would call that an illegal law.
And a law protecting the life of an unborn child isn't a good enough reason to make a law? HMMMM.
And the right to an abortion isn't an illegal law pulled out of thin air, (or some unknown orifice)?
And abortion is legal???
Article one of the constitution gives all authority to congress to legislate. Article 3 very clearly states that the cour does not set its own jurisdiction. It is set by congress thru the passage of law. The congress makes exceptions anf regulates the court, not the other way around. The 5th section of the 14th amendment, coupled with the very language in Roe, gives congress all the authority it needs to pass the life at conception act. Once passed the court would be regulated to make sure all laws atributed personhood to the womb child. That is not circular, that is a straight constitutional line.
And she can't figure out why I think she is pro abortion...
Try to follow:
It would be an illegal law, because it would be in direct violation of a SCOTUS ruling and that is why the judical committee reviews the bills introduced, to make sure that Congress doesn't violate the existing laws.
The right to an abortion is a crazy ruling and I believe that the justices just made it up. However, they have the right to say what the constitution means. Nobody else does. So even if they make it up, we are stuck with it until we pass a constitutional amendment or the court reverses itself.
I am not pro abortion.....and your saying so doesn't make it true, anymore than saying abortion is against the law makes it true.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics