|
Post by jjas on May 12, 2022 14:20:50 GMT -5
The Court should not make liberal or conservative decisions. They should make constitutional decisions. They have lost that focus. This is because the Executive and Legislative branches place Justices based on their political leanings. You are 100% correct.
|
|
|
Post by SFC (R) B on May 12, 2022 21:43:55 GMT -5
The Court should not make liberal or conservative decisions. They should make constitutional decisions. They have lost that focus. This is because the Executive and Legislative branches place Justices based on their political leanings. I would say that overturning Roe is exactly an affirmation of the Constitution. Correcting a horribly corrupt decision that had lived a disgustingly long life. It is a plain and specific document meant to be applied with direct meaning. The question of abortions and laws related to them are for the legislatures......and the vote in the Senate with a Democrat voting specifically NOT to support codification of Roe show it is a question to be settled state by state at the will of the people. It is NOT something to be mandated to those large sections of the country that find it abhorrent.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 15, 2022 21:46:47 GMT -5
First and foremost, whoever leaked the draft needs to be named, booted, and jailed if possible.
As for the extremely sensitive and divisive topic, I have a question from the cheap seats. What gives us the right to own and carry firearms?
|
|
|
Post by SFC (R) B on May 15, 2022 22:16:18 GMT -5
Do you mean beside the directly enumerated ..... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 16, 2022 10:25:26 GMT -5
Do you mean beside the directly enumerated ..... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ? The 2nd Amendment does not extend the right to own and carry firearms. IF it did, it could be easily removed by another amendment. Prohibition proves that. The 2nd Amendment very clearly states that the Government can not infringe on the People's right to have arms.
|
|
|
Post by SFC (R) B on May 16, 2022 15:07:31 GMT -5
Do you mean beside the directly enumerated ..... "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ? The 2nd Amendment does not extend the right to own and carry firearms. IF it did, it could be easily removed by another amendment. Prohibition proves that. The 2nd Amendment very clearly states that the Government can not infringe on the People's right to have arms.[/qu What you are TRYING to do is to split the finest of semantic hairs. The very clear and established fact is that "to keep and bear" means precisely to own and carry. This right, like ALL rights, is subject to limitation....generally through legislation that is subject to judicial review. A further Amendment could, in fact, limit or eliminate ANY right contained in the constitution. As to comparing the 2nd Amendment and the rights contained within to the absolute mess that was Roe is like comparing bricks to apples......in NO way similar.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 16, 2022 17:10:53 GMT -5
The 2nd Amendment does not extend the right to own and carry firearms. IF it did, it could be easily removed by another amendment. Prohibition proves that. The 2nd Amendment very clearly states that the Government can not infringe on the People's right to have arms.[/qu What you are TRYING to do is to split the finest of semantic hairs. The very clear and established fact is that "to keep and bear" means precisely to own and carry. This right, like ALL rights, is subject to limitation....generally through legislation that is subject to judicial review. A further Amendment could, in fact, limit or eliminate ANY right contained in the constitution. As to comparing the 2nd Amendment and the rights contained within to the absolute mess that was Roe is like comparing bricks to apples......in NO way similar. Do you support social law being based on religious beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by SFC (R) B on May 16, 2022 22:59:06 GMT -5
Do you support social law being based on religious beliefs? All Western law is based largely on the Judeo-Christian view of morality and justice. Laws in our system come from agreement of our citizens. Some of them I agree with, some of them I find laughable. That being said, if you are speaking about abortion, my problem with it is scientific and humanist in nature beyond any form of religious constraint. The instant that an egg is fertilized a distinct being with distinct DNA is formed. That being is at it's most vulnerable during gestation. The idea that we as a society see fit to protect all other forms of animal life under punishment of law while allowing the grotesque destruction of the most vulnerable overwhelmingly for convenience sake is shameful. The most vile of the hypocrites when it comes to the issue are those who speak of any other issue (take gun control for instance) under the guise of child welfare while supporting abortion.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 17, 2022 8:56:18 GMT -5
All Western law is based largely on the Judeo-Christian view of morality and justice. Laws in our system come from agreement of our citizens. Some of them I agree with, some of them I find laughable. That being said, if you are speaking about abortion, my problem with it is scientific and humanist in nature beyond any form of religious constraint. The instant that an egg is fertilized a distinct being with distinct DNA is formed. That being is at it's most vulnerable during gestation. The idea that we as a society see fit to protect all other forms of animal life under punishment of law while allowing the grotesque destruction of the most vulnerable overwhelmingly for convenience sake is shameful. The most vile of the hypocrites when it comes to the issue are those who speak of any other issue (take gun control for instance) under the guise of child welfare while supporting abortion. Not a direct answer to the question posed, but okay. With your response, I can infer that you do support social law based in religious beliefs. With that mindset, will you support those laws if or when a different religion becomes the majority in government and changes the laws to mirror that religion's beliefs? The point I'm getting at is every single politician should check their personal views and religious beliefs at the door. Who's interests should they be serving? Their own, the minority group of people who elected them, or the entirety of the constituents of whom the represent?
|
|
|
Post by SFC (R) B on May 17, 2022 10:35:38 GMT -5
Politicians are meant to be representatives of THEIR constituents and vote based on the desires of those folks. No matter what anyone says, they can never completely divorce themselves from their personal views. While I may not agree with laws (whether they are based on religious beliefs or not), if they are passed within the framework of the Constitution and a valid process I will/do abide by them. Good examples of things I disagree with but abide by is governmental involvement in marriage and continued criminalization of marijuana usage.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 17, 2022 10:41:46 GMT -5
Please define "THEIR constituents"
Marriage has always been a government institution.
Pot was outlawed because of big business lobbying to get their way.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 17, 2022 11:02:08 GMT -5
Please define "THEIR constituents" Marriage has always been a government institution. Pot was outlawed because of big business lobbying to get their way. I always thought that "Marriage" began as a religious joining together of a man and a woman to become one? I see it more as a government intrusion that an institution. Matthew 19:4-6, “And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’” No mention of the government.
|
|
|
Post by Mack Apiary Bees on May 17, 2022 11:15:52 GMT -5
Please define "THEIR constituents" Marriage has always been a government institution. Pot was outlawed because of big business lobbying to get their way. I always thought that "Marriage" began as a religious joining together of a man and a woman to become one? I see it more as a government intrusion that an institution. Matthew 19:4-6, “And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’” No mention of the government. It's great to see more young couples getting married in the Church and skipping the State. State and Feds should not be in marriage.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 17, 2022 11:57:46 GMT -5
In the U.S. can anyone get married without the government's permission? Where can people get married without a marriage license? Where can people exit a marriage with government approval?
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on May 17, 2022 12:34:06 GMT -5
In the U.S. can anyone get married without the government's permission? Where can people get married without a marriage license? Where can people exit a marriage with government approval? Rob, Just like so many other things the government wants control and apiece of the pie.
|
|
|
Post by Mack Apiary Bees on May 17, 2022 12:39:46 GMT -5
In the U.S. can anyone get married without the government's permission? Where can people get married without a marriage license? Where can people exit a marriage with government approval? Rob, Just like so many other things the government wants control and apiece of the pie. There is another thing is not getting a Social Security number. That's getting more and more traction.
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 17, 2022 13:36:39 GMT -5
Please define "THEIR constituents" Marriage has always been a government institution. Pot was outlawed because of big business lobbying to get their way. I always thought that "Marriage" began as a religious joining together of a man and a woman to become one? I see it more as a government intrusion that an institution. Matthew 19:4-6, “And He answered and said, ‘Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.’” No mention of the government. It probably did until some started inbreeding then the state/govt got involved. Back in the day you took blood test before marriage if I remember right www.citizen-times.com/story/opinion/contributors/2015/09/18/marriage-us-religious-issue/72404380/
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on May 17, 2022 13:39:04 GMT -5
In the U.S. can anyone get married without the government's permission? Where can people get married without a marriage license? Where can people exit a marriage with government approval? Wayne’s World …
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 17, 2022 13:59:27 GMT -5
In the U.S. can anyone get married without the government's permission? Where can people get married without a marriage license? Where can people exit a marriage with government approval? Wayne’s World … Should that mean something?
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on May 17, 2022 14:03:41 GMT -5
In the U.S. can anyone get married without the government's permission? Where can people get married without a marriage license? Where can people exit a marriage with government approval? Rob, Just like so many other things the government wants control and apiece of the pie. With the line of thinking that marriage is a religious contract then only religious people, and more specifically only those with whome one shares the same religious beliefs, can be married.
|
|