Trajan Octavian Titus said:That's the whole problem with this country people have taken that perfect document and through their manipulation and reinterpretation of it in the guise of progress they have transformed this nation into the socialist monstrosity that we have today a government of, by, and for the government.
A) You are doing the exact same thing-manipulating the wording of a document to suit your own agenda.(A 200 year old document that has no bearing on the laws of this country) You have no clue what their intent was any more than anyone else.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Yes this thread was to prove the intent of the Founding Fathers and to prove that the Liberal Judges interpretation in the case of RVW was not only wrong but in total violation of the Constitution.
ngdawg said:A) You are doing the exact same thing-manipulating the wording of a document to suit your own agenda.(A 200 year old document that has no bearing on the laws of this country) You have no clue what their intent was any more than anyone else.
B) How is protecting the privacy of a person in violation of the Constitution?
................................
John Doe said:Wow that really wasn't that hard was it???
When are you made a citizen? BIRTH!!!doughgirl said:Coffee once again make your mind up.
You said, "“Birth. When a person actually becomes a person. Then they get their rights.” (#13 Founding Fathers Thread)
You are saying here the unborn is nothing. They receive no rights.
Where? Please, show me where it was said that full term abortions should happen?You said, “Last time: I do not agree with abortion. If it were possible for a woman to remove a living child from her body at 9 months, at 1 month, or at 1 day, I would want that child to remain alive. If it is not possible for a woman to remove a living child from her body at 9 months, at 1 month, or at 1 day, she should still have the right to remove the child from her body. If the child dies, I would be saddened by that death, but that sadness does not mandate the enslavement of the woman. If the child could be saved, I would mandate that the woman save the child, but not at the cost of he freedom to dcide what to do with her body. That is my position, and it has never changed.” (#123 Suction Machine Thread)
You allow her to abort a child at full term. You said it.
It's inconsistent, I agree.You said, “However, when the rights of two people are in conflict, we must make a choice; you choose the child's rights, I choose the woman's rights. The only one arguing that some people should have NO rights, is you.”
Since the woman is the one who has been born already her rights are all that matters in your opinion. Therefore the unborn child has none and shouldn’t even be mentioned in any of our laws. Case: Scott Peterson. You probably think he got a bum rap, since he was convicted on two deaths: his wife Lacie and HIS SON CONNOR. Our courts however disagree with you and saw Connor as a person. They saw him as viable. Our courts are not however consistent.
Where did he say that?You also said, “The unborn child has a right to live, but the woman has the right to control her own body. I don't think the death of the child is fine, or all right; I think it is unfortunate, but necessary.” (#102 Suction Machine Thread)
You are saying it is ok to murder the unborn child. You take his/her rights away. You say it is necessary. The death of the unborn is necessary, and you call that which is in the woman a "child".
A woman killing her unborn child at full term is necessary.
galenrox said:When are you made a citizen? BIRTH!!!
Where? Please, show me where it was said that full term abortions should happen?
That's right, it wasn't said, nice little straw man though
What he said was the woman should have the right to have it removed. If it was full term, a removed fetus should be able to survive.
And thus is what I think to be the most logical basis for deciding when a fetus becomes a baby, when it can survive outside of the mother.
It's inconsistent, I agree.
Where did he say that?
Decleration of independence said:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Future Coming said:FALSE!!! BECAUSE WE (AND THEY) HAVE ROUTINELY DENIED THE LAST TWO TO ALL CHILDREN. "No, you cannot have liberty; you must do your chores. No, you cannot go happily play, you must do your homework." See? So, even though such children are as fully different from ordinary animals as are adult humans, nevertheless two--out-of-three items on that list are PROVABLY denied to them, FREQUENTLY. Thus the Founding Fathers MUST have been talking about adults, not children, and ESPECIALLY not fetuses. Which means WE are perfectly free to deny the third item on the list, life, to unborn humans who in all scientific truth are no more special than ordinary animals.
Future Coming said:HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY THAT.
Marx said:From each according to his ability to each according to his means.
U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights said:Amendment X - 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.
Declaration of Independence said:That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Depending on when you believe life begins.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Here's a quote from the Declaration of Independence it bears no legal authority, however, it does bear precedence on the circumstances as to the founding father's intent:
Now whether you believe that god is the creator or that the man and the woman are the creator the fact remains that conception is the act of creation and through that act of creation the creator endows upon the created the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The decleration of independence may not be law but it does bear precedence as to the F.F.'s intent and proof that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution in RVW was wrong.
galenrox said:Depending on when you believe life begins.
I think if it can't survive outside of the mother it's not a human life.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, maybe if you don't like it you should move to Red China.
vergiss said::roll: I live in Australia, dumbarse.
So, slavery is okay by you, then? I'm sure they intended for that to be legal.
The Australian legal system is based in English common law just like the US legal system.vergiss said::roll: I live in Australia, dumbarse.
So, slavery is okay by you, then? I'm sure they intended for that to be legal.
Felicity said:The Australian legal system is based in English common law just like the US legal system.
Your states have the right to decide--our highest legal court usurped that right.
P.S. "dumbarse" isn't very nice.....:mrgreen:
Amendment X - 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.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Well...I still have hope that the issue can be reverted without overthrow.Trajan Octavian Titus said:I believe this may be the right you're reffering to:
I think that one's been done to death so I like to refer to this one:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:No actually the fourth amendment specifically states that no man shall be relieved of his life, liberty, or property without due process, it took liberal mis-interpretations of the constitution to allow for slavery, just as it took liberal mis-interpretations to allow for abortion and the stealing of private property from the poor to give away to the rich in realestate deals because some asshole mayor deemed it was for the public good. The Founding Fathers did give the people a perfect government but it took us to fu*k it up.
Stace said:Now, wait a minute.....it was mostly Southerners who owned slaves....and Southerners are, for the most part, historically conservative. So explain this one to me again?
Not to mention, it's conservatives that are giving all of the money to the rich man.
Dixiecrat - The term Dixiecrat is a portmanteau of Dixie, referring to the Southern United States, and Democrat, referring to the United States Democratic Party. Initially, it referred to a 1948 splinter from the party: for over a century, white Southerners had overwhelmingly been Democrats, but that year many bolted the party and supported Strom Thurmond's third-party candidacy for president of the United States.
FutureIncoming said:Trajan Octavian Titus quoted: "FALSE!!! BECAUSE WE (AND THEY) HAVE ROUTINELY DENIED THE LAST TWO TO ALL CHILDREN. "No, you cannot have liberty; you must do your chores. No, you cannot go happily play, you must do your homework." See?
--and wrote: "By they you mean the liberals and the progressionists who have continually shredded the original intent of the Constitution almost as soon as it was writen either to allow for slaverY or to allow for child labor"
NOPE. "They" were those Founding Fathers who had children who had chores and homework. Chores and homework existed long before the Constitution OR the Declaration was written --and were not abolished by them, either! And your remark about child labor is inappropriate. That is typically defined as grinding/hard factory-type work. Chores tended to be a wide variety of household-specific activities, seldom detrimental (and possibly actually somewhat helpful) to a child's development. (Yes, I'm sure SOME parents abuse their children as laborers, but it is not common.)
And therefore it is YOU, and those of a similar bent, who are misinterpreting both the Declaration and the Constitution, in a manner designed to permit enslavement of unwilling women to their pregnancies, granting mere animals power over fully adult humans. SHAME ON YOU ALL!!!
Trajan Octavian Titus said:Actually what I said is quit putting your posts in the wrong format making it impossible for me to respond to your load of crap which is somehow making a moral equivalency between making your child take out the trash and killing it.
Really I'm at a loss for words as to how you could possibly interpret that from the constitution, oh wait I forgot, you're a moral relativist.
CoffeeSaint said:The Declaration states there are 3 inalienable rights: the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness --
Yes; like all good writers, Jefferson recognized that lists should start with the least important and end with the most important. Same as David Letterman's Top Ten Lists.Felicity said:Do think the order in which those rights are innumerated has some importance?
CoffeeSaint said:Yes; like all good writers, Jefferson recognized that lists should start with the least important and end with the most important. Same as David Letterman's Top Ten Lists.
Seriously? Your argument against abortion is based on a semantic choice from a Virginian 230 years ago? No; the order of the rights is utterly meaningless. It sounds good, because it moves from the smallest number of syllables to the largest, and it includes that lovely alliteration: life, liberty. It starts on the ground, and leaps to the sky. Proof that Jefferson was a magnificent wordsmith; nothing more.
If they believed that life was more important than liberty, they would not have risked their lives to win freedom from tyranny.
A) I'm not a dude.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Have you ever actually read the constitution or the declaration of independence? Seriously man any laws created after that are with out any bearing if the constitution would have been followed to the letter from the begining as it was intended this country would be perfect because it was a perfect document but instead people like you have been manipulating it and shredding it to pieces almost as soon as it was written, if the constitution would have been followed there would have been no need for the emancipation proclamation, the war powers resolution etc etc because it was already perfect you people just keep ****ing it up through your misinterpretation and people like me have to keep going back to fix it to further clarify what was already self evident. Seriously dude if you don't like the constitution why don't you move to China?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?