News: GOP takes total power

Can any one explain ........ what is GOP ?
yours, Jon

 

To say that the Roe v Wade decision was not writing new law is a matter of semantics, not substance.

The court basically redefined the whole meaning of the 4th Amendment outside of all rational limits... that is writing law.

An abortion is not a protected private action and, even if it were, it can never supercede the right to life. If a mother took their 1 week old baby into a doctors office and allowed the doctor to dismember it, we would not call that an action protected by our right to privacy.

The court avoided the issue of the beginning of human life so as to achieve an intended liberal activist outcome.

You can call it what you like but it created not only a "law" but a "right" as well. This is not the legitimate function of the Supreme Court.

 

It stands for Grand Ol' Party. A nickname given to the Republicans.

 

Actually, Roe v Wade is what's known as "case law", that is, law that is enacted as a result of a judicial decision. The decision of Roe v Wade did not legalize abortion, and an overturning of Roe v Wade will not make abortion illegal. Roe v Wade, put simply, overturned what was then a State's right to leslate abortion over and above federal levels. In other words, one state could have a law that said it was illegal at 3 months, another at 6 months, etc etc. Roe v Wade makes all States adhere to the federal level, which I believe is illegal after six months.

 

States have a perfectly legitimate right to legislate what constitutes a murder in their state. States can and often do have laws more stringent than federal laws. The decision is still bad.

 

What part of the following statement can be legitimately applied in support of Roe v Wade:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This was obviously never intended to allow someone to take someone else's life. It is distinctly NOT unreasonable to protect an unborn child.

 

Joshua wrote;

I would have to agree with the gentleman from Georgia.

But with that said, I have had experience in government, working as a civil servant for high ranking officials of both parties.
[I have patiently endured the barbs against civil servants that have cropped up from time to time, but most government employees are honest and hard working.] It is a good thing that the wheels of government turn slowly. Some of the staffers for political appointees or elected officials come up with some plumb down right daft ideas. It is up to the civil servant to research the proposals, do the analyses of the ramifications of policy changes, etc. Sometimes the civil servant can persuade the political type of the folly of a particular policy, sometimes not.

WIth one party in power in all three branches of government there may be little incentive to put the brakes on daft ideas. While one party (i.e. the Republicans) may make moral or economic changes, they may not consider the economic/social ramifications of their decisions, The other party (i.e. the Democrats) if in control of all three houses of government, might make environmental decisions without like regards to the costs. I have seen up close and personal those tendencies in the staffers of those respective parties.

Never let yourself be deluded into thinking that elected officials do most of the work--they don't. Staffers, many/most of whom are very young do it, and can and do slant their presentations to their bosses to fit their notions of what is good.

So, division of power, over all is a good thing. It allows time for reflection, consideration of differing points of view.

Sorry for rambling. Longing for the days of bifurcated government already.

 

scott 3 ......thanks for the explanation, it was just beyond tis foreigner in Scotland.
yours, Jon.

 

And I left out the words, per se. It isn't a law, per se. What is the purpose of the Supreme Court if not to interpret the law and rule on its Constitutionality? Yes, such rulings may affect existing laws, perhaps even seeming to effect new laws, but the decisions are not new laws (of the legislative variety). They simply affect laws that already exist. It's hardly a semantic difference.

The fourth amendment doesn't apply to unborn children. The entire issue is the personhood of the fetus, and without that, the fetus has no rights. The issue of Roe and the fourth amendment assumes that the fetus does not qualify as a person, because if it did assume personhood, then the privacy issue would not matter. Because as we all know, committing an illegal act in the privacy of your own home doesn't make it any less illegal. But in order to work, Roe cannot assume personhood of the fetus. Right? With the recognition of personhood of the fetus, the fourth amendment wouldn't apply, because abortion would then be murder, and murder is illegal no matter where you do it.

But back to politics.

Scott, you bring up interesting issues in your post about compassion. I choose to believe that it affirms our humanity when we are allowed to choose for ourselves what we do with our personal lives. It isn't about compassion for me; rather, it's about personal liberty. Statements about certain issues of sexual morality are opinions -- opinions based on authoritative belief, yes, but they are opinions. The government should not have the power to turn personal matters of morality into enforced morality for the masses. It doesn't matter that we may not personally wish to engage in certan activities. What matters is that we are not prohibited by the state from engaging in them if we choose to do so.

The government needs to get out of the business of playing God.

 

Whoa, Scott, you're preaching to the choir. I'm not saying I don't side with you. I'm saying that the Court (in a 7-2 decision) stated that restricting abortion violated a person's right to privacy. The "right to privacy" is implied, and has often been interpreted by the courts to be protected in, the First, Third, Fourth Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

BTW - Federal abortion quidelines are broken down as follows:

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

While restrictions could be placed on third trimester abortions, such restrictions can be circumvented due to Doe V Bolton, (Jan 22, 1973), which decided that abortion is constitutionally protected whenever it is necessary to protect a woman's health.

At the time Roe v Wade was enacted, abortion was completely illegal in 33 states except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The remaining 17 states allowed abortion in various circumstances. The most permissive, New York, allowed abortion for any reason up to 24 weeks.

[ November 06, 2002, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Well said!!

 

I am not a dyed-in-the-wool Republican as I voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in this election. But I do have to admit that I am enjoying seeing the aspirations of Tom Dachle, Richard Gephardt, and Terry McAuliffe go down the drain.

The danger now is that they may lose their leadership positions in the national Democrat Party, and, who knows, the national Democrats might find competent leaders by the 2004 elections.

But, on the other hand, this Democrat election debacle might open the door for Hillary Clinton to run for president in 2004. Now, that would be a hoot to watch as the national Democrat Party goes even further down the drain.

[ November 06, 2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Ken Hamilton ]

 

We agree twice in one day. Something ain't right here.

I've disliked McAuliffe for a long time now. Every word that comes out of his mouth makes me cringe. He certainly doesn't excite the base of the Democratic party, he's needlessly divisive (pick and choose your battles!), he's not that good of a strategian, and perhaps most importantly of all to the typical American, he simply looks like and sonds like a jerk.

Daschle I used to think was a great strategian if nothing else. That being said, he's also quite divisive and gives the impression of being a snake of sorts. Even if he does control things behind the scenes, the Democrats need a Leader in the Senate that will be more liked: Biden, Feinstein, or Kerry perhaps. There are many options.

Gephardt I'm neutral on. I think he's getting somewhat of a bad wrap in what has happened. He can't control the tied of other states, and he doesn't seem as sleazy as the other two. Perhaps fresh leadership will be good, but I didn't care whether or not he would step down (which he will).

So, in summary:
McAuliffe out equals YAY
Daschle out equals GOOD
Gephardt out equals EH

[ November 06, 2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Candide ]

 

SORRY, FOLKS, I HAVE BAD NEWS FOR YOU.

The Republicans will do NOTHING to stop abortion.

They will CONTINUE to federalize education.

They will CONTINUE to increase, not decrease government spending.

They will not eliminate ONE SINGLE federal dept. as promised repeatedly (such as the dept. of education or the National Endowment for Pornography, etc.).

IF they do ANYTHING about taxes it will be minor tinkering, just enough to say they did something. And it will be short-lived, because someone will have to pay for their FAT BLOATED BUDGETS including runaway social spending.

Immigration will now be more wildly out of control than before.

Liberalism will flourish as together GW Bush and congress work together to appease the liberal voters to keep their majority.

It would be better if the Dems were still there, at least to throw a wrench in their spokes for partisan reasons, and slow down their looting and destruction of our economy and society.

They got your votes, now they will take us for a real ride.

Write it down, you heard it here first.

 

Having reached the 3rd page I will close this thread at 6:00 am on the 7th or whenever I get up.

Murph

 

Sounds like great news to me. That sounds like code words for tax cuts and keeping domestic spending from going out of control and building up our national defense.

Thank you George W. Bush.

Yeehaa!

 

The reason this is done is because as a news forum it should be fresh. We feel that in most cases that 3 pages are plenty to discuss a current event. In my view this topic like most others has moved from a news item to a republican democrat discussion. I also believe it could pretty easily switch over to a homosexual discussion. I have no problem with anyone beginning a discussion on these topics in their correct forums but in the news forum we would like to move on. Sort of like CNN. Our reasons are not intended to shut down discussion but to keep this forum for current events.
Murph