An open question for President Bush...

[Terry_Herrington]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
The problem is that I am not sure that changing the Constitution would solve the problem since the Courts do not follow the Constitution. They merely interpret the Constitution through their own political filter. I think it is quite clear to most of us that the Constitution can be twisted enough to make it say whatever the judge of the day wants it to say. If we want to stop the foolishness, we must change the judges.

Joseph Botwinick

I agree. I imagine that if such an amendment were passed, it would be written in such a manner that eventually the Supreme Court, or some other judiciary, would have it saying the opposite of what the intent was in the first place.

Evil men usually figure out a way to ruin everything.

 

[KenH]

To those Christians poor-mouthing we other Christians working to amend the U.S. Constitution: Maybe we should use the torches and lanterns that God has given us to use before we start complaining that we don't have a Howitzer.

 

[fromtheright]

C4K is absolutely right. This should be a clarion call for a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. It is a shame, though, that we need one to "change" the constitution to protect it from judges. I would add, though, that the constitutional amendment will hopefully be stronger than the Federal Marriage Amendment under consideration, as its own supporters are rather mixed over its strength in protecting marriage.

I'm curious, C4K, what is the state of marriage in the British Isles? Is it also under assault by the radical homosexual movement as it is here in the U.S. and Canada?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Caution.

Amending the constitution for this carries with it the implication that government has the power to "define" marriage. Once that is done, all it takes is political power to re-define it, along with any other fixed moral principle.

It would be much better for Congress to do its job and stop the outlaws who have taken over the court system. If they can pass a constitutional amendment, they can certainly do this.

And...watch..."vote for me, I am working hard to pass a marriage amendment, but it's a tough battle against those evil Democrats" (...spend spend spend...)etc. etc. Again, caution.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by fromtheright:

I'm curious, C4K, what is the state of marriage in the British Isles? Is it also under assault by the radical homosexual movement as it is here in the U.S. and Canada?

FTR,

I am not sure about the UK, but in the Irish Republic there are still STRONG remnants of the days when the Catholic Church was the semi-state religion, homosexuality is rampant and more or less accepted, but marriage has not come up yet. There have been a couple of intial cases which portend change, such as a OAP (old age pensioner) who was given the same right to free bus travel as a spouse because he was a homosexual partner. Maybe Matt or Ulsterman will pop in and tell us more about the UK.

 

[fromtheright]

PA Jim,

Amending the constitution for this carries with it the implication that government has the power to "define" marriage. Once that is done, all it takes is political power to re-define it, along with any other fixed moral principle.

I understand the concern but if this is done through a Constitutional amendment, it's not as easy as Congress passing a law.

It would be much better for Congress to do its job and stop the outlaws who have taken over the court system. If they can pass a constitutional amendment, they can certainly do this.


Except that it's not just Congress that passes a Constitutional amendment, it is 3/4 of the state legislatures. And, I would "agree", I would rather see some type of Constitutional amendment that reigns in the federal judiciary. I'm generally very leery of Constitutional amendments that don't really change the Constitution, they are simply over-riding Supreme Court opinions that are themselves in violation of the Constitution. In the case of a marriage amendment, though, I fear that the homosexual lobby is moving so rapidly to enact its agenda through the Courts, changes that will be simply revolutionary and destructive in their impact on society, that marriage requires shoring up immediately.

And...watch..."vote for me, I am working hard to pass a marriage amendment, but it's a tough battle against those evil Democrats" (...spend spend spend...)etc. etc. Again, caution.

I'll give you this, Jim, you never pass up a chance to bash Republicans, do you?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
The problem is that I am not sure that changing the Constitution would solve the problem since the Courts do not follow the Constitution. They merely interpret the Constitution through their own political filter. I think it is quite clear to most of us that the Constitution can be twisted enough to make it say whatever the judge of the day wants it to say. If we want to stop the foolishness, we must change the judges.

Joseph Botwinick

Exactly Joseph, but how can we do that with a president who is soft on homosexuality? (Obviously my point here is federal judges)

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

So what is the answer? Vote for a president that is firmly against homosexuality who cannot win and end up electing a president who is not only soft on homosexuality, but openly embraces it and will advance its agenda as far as they can in 4 to 8 eight years? To me, it is just like the abortion issue. You have a president who is somewhat pro-life who is trying to incrementally push back the pro-death movement, you have the Constitution Party who is honestly closer (not quite there) to where I believe on the pro-life issue, but cannot get elected. And then there is the radical left Dean who will begin by overturning the PBA ban outright and then move forward the pro death agenda from there. I can:

A. Vote for Bush who will at least try to lead the nation in the right direction, or

B. Vote for the a person who cannot win thereby electing a president who will lead the nation backwards toward the pro death agenda.

I will stick with Bush. He may not be perfect, but he IS better than the alternative.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I wish I knew the answer Joseph - it is something of a catch-22.

 

[Bro. James Reed]

Here's my question:

Why don't these Constitution party candidates that everyone's so fired up about run for office as Republicans and change the party from within? They need to realize that many, many vote strictly down party lines and not for individuals.

As for me, I put much more weight on a Republican candidate because I know what the party AS A WHOLE stands for. Would I vote for all so-called Republicans? No. Would I vote for anyone at all who's a Democrat? Never. But, I know that the Republican party is a whole lot better than the Democratic party, so I will vote for a Republican if for no other reason than to keep the Republican majority; unless of course the candidate's a dummy who's way out in left field.

Another thing, in regards to the judiciary redefining the true intent of Constitutional wording, is what do we do when one day a judge says that "between aman and a woman" can mean a person who's had a sex-change to become a woman? Of course, 200 yrs. from the Amendment, liberals will say that it was passed by legislators who recognized the Constitution as a living document ever changing with the times. Kinda like the libs are saying nowadays.

It's really sick the way they take the intent of the founding fathers in the Constitution and stretch and skew it to fit the liberal agenda.

I believe there's a "vast left-wing conspiracy" afoot.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
And then there is the radical left Dean who will begin by overturning the PBA ban outright and then move forward the pro death agenda from there.

I guess you assume that the Republicans in Congress won't fight to keep the ban? Perhaps you may be right. But if they did fight to keep the ban it might actually work since a President Dean can't overturn the ban without Congress passing a bill to do so first.

But you may be correct that with the Republican Party becoming more and more liberal, it might not fight to keep the ban.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:
Why don't these Constitution party candidates that everyone's so fired up about run for office as Republicans and change the party from within?

Just look at all the money and time and effort that conservative Christians have already put into the Republican Party during the past 20 years, and yet year by year it becomes more liberal, more accomodating to homosexuality, more in line with socialist big spending government, etc.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
And then there is the radical left Dean who will begin by overturning the PBA ban outright and then move forward the pro death agenda from there.

I guess you assume that the Republicans in Congress won't fight to keep the ban? Perhaps you may be right. But if they did fight to keep the ban it might actually work since a President Dean can't overturn the ban without Congress passing a bill to do so first.

But you may be correct that with the Republican Party becoming more and more liberal, it might not fight to keep the ban. </font>[/QUOTE]I figure that both the Republicans and the few moderate to conservative Democrats would fight to keep the ban. I wonder if there is still the power of executive orders in the Presidency anymore though. You seem to think it doesn't exist. I also wonder how many liberal judges Dean might appoint who would be more than happy to advance the pro-death agenda.

Also, are you now acknowledging that we would more than likely have President Dean if we were to throw away our vote on the Constitution Party? How does that make you feel? Or, maybe you might be happy with Howard Dean? I can't see how you think that would be a good thing.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Also, are you now acknowledging that we would more than likely have President Dean if we were to throw away our vote on the Constitution Party?

First, I am not aware that an executive order can overturn a law passed by Congress. If this is true, perhaps you can provide me with a link to that info. Thanks.

Second, let me make it perfectly clear that I find very little difference between a second George W. Bush administration and a prospective first Howard Dean administration. I doubt that a President Dean would be any more accomodating to homosexuals and to the Muslim religion than President Bush is - after all President stated today that Muslims worship the same God as Christians.

Third, for the record, I do hope that President Bush loses to "whomever" in 2004 because he lied to get me to support his foreign adventurism in Iraq.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
Third, for the record, I do hope that President Bush loses to "whomever" in 2004 because he lied to get me to support his foreign adventurism in Iraq.

Ken,

You spout the Democratic line so fluently and with so little remorse, I have a real hard time believing you are not a Democrat. Truthfully, I have a hard time believing you are anything but a Democrat. I have a hard time believing that a guy who now claims to know soooooo much about politics was politically ignorant about a month or two ago when you were supporting the pro-death, pro-homosexual, pro-tax and spend, pro-UN candidacy of Liberal General Wesley Clark. You didn't switch partie in an attempt to give the liberal agenda legitimacy so that a Democrat could be elected, did you? It sure looks that way to me. Truthfully, your hatred of Bush and misrepresentations and exxagerations and constant rantings give you very little credibility in my eyes. Maybe you should spend a little less time bad mouthing our president and telling why you hate him and tell us why we should vote for someone else and why you think they will win.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
tell us why we should vote for someone else and why you think they will win.

www.constitutionparty.org

Winning isn't important. Fidelity to God and His Word are important. God takes care of the results of elections according to His will.

If Christians vote for evil men like George W. Bush(remember you said he was the lesser of two evils) then evil is what God may continue to allow them to have according to His permissive will.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
tell us why we should vote for someone else and why you think they will win.

www.constitutionparty.org

Winning isn't important. Fidelity to God and His Word are important. God takes care of the results of elections according to His will.

If Christians vote for evil men like George W. Bush(remember you said he was the lesser of two evils) then evil is what God may continue to allow them to have according to His permissive will. </font>[/QUOTE]The same would be true to a greater extent for those, like you, who will vote for Howard Dean to be the President.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
like you, who will vote for Howard Dean to be the President.

I could call you a liar, buster, but I won't - not yet anyway. I guarantee you I will not vote for Howard Dean. Period.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Yes you will, Ken. When you vote for a Constitution Party candidate who you know has no chance of winning, you ARE voting for Howard Dean. Just keep that in mind when the pro-death machine rolls into Washington once again because of you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
you ARE voting for Howard Dean.

You, sir, are a liar!