Author Topic: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'  (Read 2192 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,402
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #75 on: July 11, 2019, 02:26:10 PM »
@HoustonSam

It's good to hear from you again.

Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #76 on: July 11, 2019, 02:32:15 PM »
@GrouchoTex

Thanks.  Stay dry this weekend, and be safe.  I'll be back here tonight with more thoughts.
James 1:20

Offline GrouchoTex

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 5,402
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #77 on: July 11, 2019, 02:47:29 PM »
@GrouchoTex

Thanks.  Stay dry this weekend, and be safe.  I'll be back here tonight with more thoughts.

You, too.
nws/noaa seems to think were out of the woods (for now).

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,409
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #78 on: July 11, 2019, 03:48:20 PM »
----------------------------------------
Indeed you are, yet wealth prior to capitalism was little more than an ornament!
More tomorrow!
-----------------------------------
Sanguine, continuing:

As an opinion forum, all are entitled, yet history is not an opinion.
Repeating, Man's earliest non-tribal cultures/societies emerged in the Fertile
Crescent some 9,000 years ago, being agrarian in substance and temperament.
They chose Responsibility over Rights, because it was a hallmark of maturity that
bettered everyone. Aristotle asserted that our decisions make us what we become.
In contrast, Rights were largely viewed as an appeal to narrow self-interest.
As a consequence Man developed a strong sense of the spiritual manifested in his
Art be it Architecture, Literature, Music, Portraiture, Sculpture; as history affirms.
Then the Enlightenment dawned by mid-18th century fostered by French neurotics
such as Rousseau and Voltaire, birthing the world we have now.
Material betterment and freedom has replaced Spiritual introspection and
responsibility in the psyche of Man; as Capitalism emerged as an economic force.
We hardly need chronic naval gazing to grasp our problem.
We are in the wilderness because we have lost sight of eternal value and virtue.
Redefining the attitude/behavior of conservatism will do nothing to change that
reality as we know from history exactly what it represents.

 
 

« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 09:59:37 PM by Absalom »

Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #79 on: July 11, 2019, 07:13:54 PM »
Thanks @Smokin Joe for the time and thought you've put into this response.  Time is the most valuable thing we have, and you've been generous with it.

However, it has been shown repeatedly, and across a broad spectrum of actions, that laws do not stop people from breaking the basic laws against murder, theft, and corruption, long before those laws intrude into the basic Rights of the law abiding and moral folks out there. Passing laws which intrude on the Civil Rights of Americans which will have little or no effect on the problems they are claimed to alleviate, but worse, have a deleterious effect on the Rights of those who abide by the laws, has only the effect of depriving innocent people of their Rights. That's when the line is crossed, when Government ceases proteting the Rights of its Citizens and starts abridging or infringing on them.

Certainly.  Laws limit the freedom of all of us, usually because of the proclivities of a few of us.  I'd say that's a good reason to have as few laws as possible, and it's one of my personal key arguments against "gun control."

Quote
If someone comes to our doorstep, to ask to come here, become part of this nation by seeking citizenship, that's one thing.
We have an established process for that. We can, through legislation or Executive order establish who, how many, and under what circumstances we will permit them to enter our country.

Again, my question is why does our temporal, human legislation enable us to impede someone else in joining our country when they attempt to do so legally in order to pursue rights which are endowed to them by eternal, almighty, sovereign *God*?  I certainly think our legislation *can* legitimately do that, but it should lead us to serious thought.

Quote
Someone who crashes the gates has already shown contempt for our sovereignty, for our laws and way of life. By their mere presence they have broken our laws (prima facie).

Agreed, we can certainly exclude people who enter illegally.

Quote
In each of the various factions of Conservatism, the fundamental common ground is that we don't want the Government unnecessarily telling us what to do (or not do) in each of those pet purviews. While we do want to legislate a basic morality, against theft, murder, rape, and various other crimes, there is a libertarian aspect well entrenched that, wants to severely limit the degree of that legislation, and there are varying degrees of regulation which people find appropriate. As a rule, Conservatives find that level best if kept low, at levels which only regulate actions which cause others harm (including, more vacuously, harm to the society as a whole), while those who are not Conservative generally find higher levels of constraint desirable, up to and including totalitarian rule, provided (Of course) that those constraints do not apply to them, especially if they find them onerous.

While true enough as a norm, the abortion issue seems to me a clear exception.  We advocate more government there, not less, and they advocate no government.

Quote
Conservatives want the freedom to be responsible for their lot, where Leftists want the freedom from being responsible for theirs.

And I think that is also quite true for the abortion issue.

Quote
Which brings us back to the raw nature of both philosophies. One is based on reason, untwisted, however inconvenient that might be, however heartless it may seem at the surface on occasion, because what doesn't feel good now has profound positive effects in the future.

Leftists seek that which feels good, an emotional basis for decision making, which while it may feel good now, often has unintended, unforeseen, profound, long-term deleterious effects.

I generally agree here.  Certainly the "progressives" are driving a reactive, feelings-based conformity that stifles natural liberties.  However we are not immune to fallacy ourselves.

James 1:20

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33,431
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #80 on: July 11, 2019, 07:25:58 PM »
Quote
While true enough as a norm, the abortion issue seems to me a clear exception.  We advocate more government there, not less, and they advocate no government.

@HoustonSam

If by that you mean the federal government then put me in the no government camp.

The federal government has no dog in that hunt and never has had one.

Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #81 on: July 11, 2019, 07:38:01 PM »
@HoustonSam

If by that you mean the federal government then put me in the no government camp.

The federal government has no dog in that hunt and never has had one.

That's a good catch @Bigun, and I sure overlooked it.  Of course there are plenty of pro-life Conservatives who advocate not just a repeal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion.  That doesn't mean you have to align with them.

But let me ask you, if some state repealed its state law against murder, what do you think would be the proper response, if any, of Conservatives in other states?
James 1:20

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33,431
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #82 on: July 11, 2019, 07:43:51 PM »
That's a good catch @Bigun, and I sure overlooked it.  Of course there are plenty of pro-life Conservatives who advocate not just a repeal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion.  That doesn't mean you have to align with them.

But let me ask you, if some state repealed its state law against murder, what do you think would be the proper response, if any, of Conservatives in other states?

@HoustonSam my wife is calling me to dinner but right off the top of my head I would say that puts us back in the territory of the unalienable rights you started with WAY up thread. 

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,276
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #83 on: July 11, 2019, 08:08:31 PM »
That's a good catch @Bigun, and I sure overlooked it.  Of course there are plenty of pro-life Conservatives who advocate not just a repeal of Roe, but a Constitutional Amendment forbidding abortion.  That doesn't mean you have to align with them.

But let me ask you, if some state repealed its state law against murder, what do you think would be the proper response, if any, of Conservatives in other states?

@HoustonSam
@Bigun is right.

The reason abortion is a national issue is because the right to life is enumerated, and unalienable., and therefore to be protected, according to, and by the Constitution.
There is no place in these United states where !YOUR! life is not equally protected, and the life of any hoomin bean should necessarily be likewise.

It is not so much the protection of life as it is the sanction of death - There are only two ways your life can be legally taken from you - by Just Cause (war) or by Due Process (by criminal trial).

That's it. Under which of those does abortion find it's place, by which the government at any level can sanction it?




Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #84 on: July 11, 2019, 08:25:49 PM »

@Bigun is right.


Good evening @roamer_1, it's a pleasure to see you here tonight.

@Bigun argued in 80 above that he believes in *no federal* laws against abortion.  Bigun, would you leave it up to states to preserve the legality of abortion should Roe be overturned?

While this will likely hijack the thread, it is an example of the concept of unalienable rights and how those rights determine our relationship as individuals with government, particularly in a federal system.
James 1:20

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33,431
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #85 on: July 11, 2019, 08:31:37 PM »
Good evening @roamer_1, it's a pleasure to see you here tonight.

@Bigun argued in 80 above that he believes in *no federal* laws against abortion.  Bigun, would you leave it up to states to preserve the legality of abortion should Roe be overturned?

While this will likely hijack the thread, it is an example of the concept of unalienable rights and how those rights determine our relationship as individuals with government, particularly in a federal system.

@HoustonSam

I believe that the  states are where the question belongs if it is a question at all, because at base, I agree with @ roamer_1 on this 100%.   If the right to life is not unalienable  nothing is.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 08:32:42 PM by Bigun »

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,106
  • Personal text
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #86 on: July 11, 2019, 08:33:26 PM »
-----------------------------------
Sanguine, continuing:

As an opinion forum, all are entitled, yet history is not an opinion.
Repeating, Man's earliest non-tribal cultures/societies emerged in the Fertile
Crescent some 9,000 years ago, being agrarian in substance and temperament.
They chose Responsibility over Rights, because it was a hallmark of maturity that
bettered everyone. Aristotle asserted that our decisions make us what we become.
In contrast, Rights were largely viewed as an appeal to narrow self-interest.
As a consequence Man developed a strong sense of the spiritual manifested in his
Art be it Architecture, Literature, Music, Portraiture, Sculpture; as history affirms.
Then the Enlightenment dawned by mid-18th century fostered by French neurotics
such as Rousseau and Voltaire, birthing the world we have now, where Material
betterment and freedom has replaced Spiritual introspection and responsibility
in the psyche of Man; since Capitalism emerged as an economic force.
We hardly need chronic naval gazing to grasp our problem.
We are in the wilderness because we have lost sight of eternal value and virtue.
Redefining the attitude/behavior of conservatism will do nothing to change that
reality as we know from history exactly what it represents.

History is an opinion. Written by the victors. Capitalism was an ingenious invention, coupled with the industrial revolution, that turned serfs/slaves into masters of their own destiny. So much so I sold my soul to the company store.

We can parse it. All you want. Right to life. Property. Happpppinessss.

Education is the key here. The open availability to access information.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a magnificent document. As western Europeans killed, maimed, and destroyed from coast to coast with those "unalienable rights".

This may be somewhat of a thread hijack. There is a large group of people saying they are going to raid Area 51 to find aliens.

You want to find aliens go to our southern border. Take your guns. Aliens by the millions.

I don't know what the ones in the spacecraft want. But the ones from down south are coming for your gold.

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33,431
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #87 on: July 11, 2019, 08:39:07 PM »
History is an opinion. Written by the victors. Capitalism was an ingenious invention, coupled with the industrial revolution, that turned serfs/slaves into masters of their own destiny. So much so I sold my soul to the company store.

We can parse it. All you want. Right to life. Property. Happpppinessss.

Education is the key here. The open availability to access information.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a magnificent document. As western Europeans killed, maimed, and destroyed from coast to coast with those "unalienable rights".



Very well said @bigheadfred.  True education vs the indoctrination that is increasingly passing for it these days.

Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #88 on: July 11, 2019, 09:14:30 PM »
I believe you answered your own question in that this country was unquestionably established based upon Judeo-Christian principles of faith and is what you refer to as 'grounded' by such.  As the Founders so clearly defined, we are not just a nation but a nation founded upon that heritage.

It is by that authority we created this country, so to diminish it by entailing equal appreciation of other than that credo is incongruous to our establishment.

It is a similar concept as saying all other countries are similar to America.  They are not.

I've had to think about this a lot @IsailedawayfromFR.  I am particularly struck by your argument that we diminish our own tradition when we respect another's.  First of all, I simply don't believe that's true.  It would not diminish my Christian faith to put on a hat to enter a synagogue, or take off my shoes to enter a mosque.  Now granted I would not join in rites or rituals of worship in either place, so maybe that's what you mean by "equal appreciation."

So the larger issue might be what sort of "appreciation", if any, does our government owe to our founding Judeo-Christian tradition, and does it owe some lesser appreciation, if any, for other traditions?  I'm sure we both agree that someone can be a Moslem or Buddhist or Hindu or atheist and still be an American, and that every American should be treated equally by the law.  So whatever appreciation the government might owe to the founding tradition cannot manifest itself as treating law-abiding citizens differently from one another.

In fact I would argue that the whole idea of individual liberty and equality before the law arose distinctly within the Judeo-Christian tradition; the New Testament expression of those ideas is found very clearly in the third chapter of Galatians.  By vigilantly insisting on those principles we respect that tradition, by practicing them casually or paying them mere lip service we disrespect it.

And not only equality before the law, but the starting point of this thread, unalienable rights, and necessarily with those rights an understanding of the relationship of citizen to government, I think comes distinctly from the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Citizens have rights, government has authority; the former should keep the latter in check.  Just as the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath, so governments and philosophies are the tools and servants of men, not their masters.  From that part of the Judeo-Christian tradition I have to believe that you posed the issue backward - the question is not whether we might diminish our philosophy or government, but whether our philosophy or government might diminish us.

When government does pay some symbolic respect to the Judeo-Christian tradition, for example with a Ten Commandments monument outside a courthouse or a Cross memorial on public land, people say they are offended by that.  Does it matter that people are offended by that?  Again, citizens have rights, government has authority.  As individual citizens we certainly have the right to offend, and no one has the right to live free of being offended.  But here the question is whether government has the authority to offend its citizens.  Can government, the servant, legitimately offend tax-paying, law abiding citizens, the masters?  People are always going to claim to be offended by something, so as a practical matter I don't think we can require government, even as our servant, to give absolutely no offense to anyone.  There has to be some practical approach to distinguishing legitimate offense from self-righteousness and self-indulgence.  But if we're going to argue for limited government because that preserves individual liberty, which is itself our Judeo-Christian inheritance, we ought to be careful here.

Are there some tangible, specific ways that government might demonstrate its debt to Judeo-Christian culture?  I bet you and I agree it's absurd for the Federal Courts to forbid monuments to the Ten Commandments outside courthouses.  That's a specific way that I think our government could respect and uphold the Judeo-Christian heritage.  And I would argue that those monuments could be created at government expense, so long as that total expense were a small proportion of an overall budget.  Some will screw themselves into high dudgeon over the idea, but "snowflakism" is *not* part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

But this is a slippery slope.  I was happy to see recently that a court in Maryland ruled that a memorial Cross could remain on public property.  But that Cross doesn't fit into the "Judeo" part of our founding tradition.  So this can get pretty tricky pretty fast.  And obviously, what if tax-paying, law abiding citizens who come from a different faith tradition want to see some of their tax dollars paying respect to their faith?  What if a group of Somalis in Minneapolis wanted to raise some sort of Moslem monument in a public park?  Should they be able to?  And at whose expense?  Honestly I don't think it would bother me to see monuments to other faiths on public land, but my personal sensitivities are not the basis of public policy here.  And again it's a slippery slope.  "Pastafarians" practice a farce faith where they wear collanders on their heads and worship "the flying spaghetti monster"; I want no such monuments on public land where I pay any share of the taxes.  So the best way I can distinguish that is to say that our Judeo-Christian heritage includes sincere respect for sincere faiths, but does not compel us to participate in farce.

My bottom line is that I would like to see greater open acknowledgement of the philosophical debt everyone in this country owes to the Judeo-Christian tradition.  Expressing that debt through the actions of government is going to be difficult; not impossible, but fraught with peril.  And while the philosophical principles we inherit from the Judeo-Christian tradition obviously are powerful and legitimate bases for specific laws, the Scriptures themselves cannot be.
James 1:20

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,276
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #89 on: July 11, 2019, 09:17:20 PM »
Good evening @roamer_1, it's a pleasure to see you here tonight.

@Bigun argued in 80 above that he believes in *no federal* laws against abortion.  Bigun, would you leave it up to states to preserve the legality of abortion should Roe be overturned?

While this will likely hijack the thread, it is an example of the concept of unalienable rights and how those rights determine our relationship as individuals with government, particularly in a federal system.

@HoustonSam
That's a pretty weird question as it turns out, because prior to around WWII, the feds didn't do much in due process... The rights secured by the Constitution filtered down into state constitutions, as approved by the fed upon admittance. So @Bigun is more right than wrong.

The question at the federal level should only be as to whether the state (constitution) is standing at fault with the US Constitution.

But now, with the fed having granted itself LEO powers, I guess it figures it can enforce them too, blurring a line that used to be there... The high court is no longer used as it should be... Which to me is a separation of powers issue.
How to resolve that first would be difficult... But by rights, enforcement (due process) should be in the bailiwick of the states respectively.

However, the question itself is a Constitutional issue. I would prefer the SCOTUS had ruled the Constitutional issue correctly, which would be an order to the states involved to enforce their own Constitution correctly. A formality, I suppose, but proper.


« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 09:19:15 PM by roamer_1 »

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,106
  • Personal text
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #90 on: July 11, 2019, 09:31:59 PM »
@HoustonSam .

Good post.

The government doesn't have any rights. The government doesn't have any authority. Only the people do.

And I disagree that the unalienable rights issue is distinctly Judeo-Christian.  Being a major factor, yes.


Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #91 on: July 11, 2019, 09:34:44 PM »
@HoustonSam
That's a pretty weird question as it turns out, because prior to around WWII, the feds didn't do much in due process... The rights secured by the Constitution filtered down into state constitutions, as approved by the fed upon admittance. So @Bigun is more right than wrong.

The question at the federal level should only be as to whether the state (constitution) is standing at fault with the US Constitution.

But now, with the fed having granted itself LEO powers, I guess it figures it can enforce them too, blurring a line that used to be there... The high court is no longer used as it should be... Which to me is a separation of powers issue.
How to resolve that first would be difficult... But by rights, enforcement (due process) should be in the bailiwick of the states respectively.

However, the question itself is a Constitutional issue. I would prefer the SCOTUS had ruled the Constitutional issue correctly, which would be an order to the states involved to enforce their own Constitution correctly. A formality, I suppose, but proper.

I had not thought of that approach.  Leave it as an Article IV "Republican form of government" issue, and say no more.

But I can't line that up with what you said above in 83 :

Quote
It is not so much the protection of life as it is the sanction of death - There are only two ways your life can be legally taken from you - by Just Cause (war) or by Due Process (by criminal trial).

That's it. Under which of those does abortion find it's place, by which the government at any level can sanction it?

What am I missing?
James 1:20

Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #92 on: July 11, 2019, 09:37:08 PM »
@HoustonSam .

Good post.

The government doesn't have any rights. The government doesn't have any authority. Only the people do.

And I disagree that the unalienable rights issue is distinctly Judeo-Christian.  Being a major factor, yes.

Thanks @bigheadfred.  I am open to further education on the origins of unalienable rights.
James 1:20

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,106
  • Personal text
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #93 on: July 11, 2019, 09:38:25 PM »
I had not thought of that approach.  Leave it as an Article IV "Republican form of government" issue, and say no more.

But I can't line that up with what you said above in 83 :

What am I missing?

The definition of what Constitutes Human Life.

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,106
  • Personal text
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #94 on: July 11, 2019, 09:56:43 PM »
Thanks @bigheadfred.  I am open to further education on the origins of unalienable rights.

Perhaps the origin lies not in the unalienable part, but that a person had any rights at all. The Code of Urukagina for a start.

Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #95 on: July 11, 2019, 10:02:23 PM »
Perhaps the origin lies not in the unalienable part, but that a person had any rights at all. The Code of Urukagina for a start.

Hat tip; I was completely ignorant.  Seems like Urukagina was not *a* start, but *the* start.

Thanks for the information.
James 1:20

Offline bigheadfred

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11,106
  • Personal text
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #96 on: July 11, 2019, 10:07:25 PM »
Hat tip; I was completely ignorant.  Seems like Urukagina was not *a* start, but *the* start.

Thanks for the information.

The real key here is that, for the most part, it is about Reforms.

Online roamer_1

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 16,276
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #97 on: July 11, 2019, 10:16:22 PM »
I had not thought of that approach.  Leave it as an Article IV "Republican form of government" issue, and say no more.

But I can't line that up with what you said above in 83 :

What am I missing?

I am sorry @HoustonSam , perhaps I was not concise.
All there is, properly, is an Article IV issue, in the sense that @Bigun eluded to - It is, as I said, a 'sanctioning death' issue, rather than a protection of life issue, since protection of life goes without saying, as an enumerated right.

There are only two legal means of relieving someone of their right to life... Just cause and due process.
It is obviously not a matter of just cause, or war, as it were, so that eliminates the entire war process, to include military courts, and etc, as a matter of course.

Since it is not a war issue, it must be a due process issue, which is, or at least was, within the state's bailiwick, for general purposes. The question from the federal courts for the state would be, "How do you sanction abortion within your state law as a due process issue, which is the only apparent means at your disposal?"

And since there is no answer to that, there must be a violation of the state's declared constitution, the basis of its laws, which must be remedied. And the federal court has the power to instruct the state to perform that remedy, to come into line with the Constitution and specifically Article IV.

The only remedy would be to stop sanctioning those deaths, IOW, remove law and licensing for the abortion process.

« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 10:24:55 PM by roamer_1 »

Online Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 33,431
  • The income tax: Root of all evil!
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #98 on: July 11, 2019, 10:31:26 PM »
@HoustonSam @IsailedawayfromFR

If you go to a Muslim country to live they will make it perfectly clear to you that the basis of their law is the Koran.  That does not require you to change your religion. ( If you want to become a citizen the story is quite different )  It only requires that you respect the law in that land.

I am unalterably convinced that the  basis of OUR law is indeed te Bible and see no reason why we shouldn't acknowledge that and require those who come here to do so as well.

Doesn't require that anyone have a religion or change any they might have nor does it "establish" a state religion.

BTW:  I am enjoying this thread immensely!
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 10:38:19 PM by Bigun »

Online HoustonSam

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 887
  • old times there are not forgotten
Re: Mike Pompeo unveils panel to examine 'unalienable rights'
« Reply #99 on: July 11, 2019, 10:32:51 PM »
The only remedy would be to stop sanctioning those deaths, IOW, remove law and licensing for the abortion process.

Ah, so your sense is that Article IV naturally and inevitably causes the states to prohibit abortion.  Interesting.  And I appreciate the lesson in Constitutional mechanics.

Most people believe there are exceptional cases which *do* merit the legal availability of abortion.  My personal opinion would limit those cases severely, only to a situation where a woman's life was jeopardized by a pregnancy.  Assuming that you envision any circumstances which might merit the legal availability of abortion, would you see that those circumstances should be determined through due process, or simply through medical judgment?  Stated perhaps more clearly, given that life can only be taken by due process or just cause, and abortion cannot be the latter, if a woman's life were jeopardized by a pregnancy should due process be required to procure an abortion?  Would approval by both Doctors *and* Lawyers be required, or only Doctors?
James 1:20


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf