Supreme Court To Review Obamas Citizenship

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by jbushart

I think that the tens of millions of Americans who voted for Obama did it for one reason and one reason only....We did it to impress Jodie Foster.

You too? If it wasn't for the fact that she is a lesbian... and that damn restraining order, I'd be at her house right now.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Is Panama Red back in town? The only way to change the Constitution is through a ratification process by the states, there is no other way.

Unless of course you find rights in the emanations and penumbras of the text itself.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Unless of course you find rights in the emanations and penumbras of the text itself.

Pulleeze... Provide an example where it was changed by the emanations and penumbras of the text itself?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Pulleeze... Provide an example where it was changed by the emanations and penumbras of the text itself?

Roe v. Wade in effect if not letter changed the constitution by finding explicit rights that were not in the document.

[relliott]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

You too? If it wasn't for the fact that she is a lesbian... and that damn restraining order, I'd be at her house right now.

I was crushed to find out she is a Lesbian.
Of course if I was a woman ,I would be one too.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Roe v. Wade in effect if not letter changed the constitution by finding explicit rights that were not in the document.

So... then the Constitution was never really changed, I mean there is no Rowe Vs. Wade amendment, right? The court simply reiterated a (women's) right that was always in effect but was simply being denied by state law. The court merely refused to allow states to determine who owns a women's body and how that women can pursue her own particular happiness guaranteed under the Constitution, good call if you ask me.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

So... then the Constitution was never really changed, I mean there is no Rowe Vs. Wade amendment, right? The court simply reiterated a (women's) right that was always in effect but was simply being denied by state law. The court merely refused to allow states to determine who owns a women's body and how that women can pursue her own particular happiness guaranteed under the Constitution, good call if you ask me.

But apparently had no issue with the ownership of the unborn infant.

That unborn infant has more rights to live than gays have to marry their own sex.

I guess the right to pursue happiness does not extend to the unborn infant.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

But apparently had no issue with the ownership of the unborn infant.

That unborn infant has more rights to live than gays have to marry their own sex.

I guess the right to pursue happiness does not extend to the unborn infant.

If a women can be denied the ownership and control of her body by the state, what other constitutionally guaranteed rights can the state simply assume they own & control? Marriage for instance?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

If a women can be denied the ownership and control of her body by the state, what other constitutionally guaranteed rights can the state simply assume they own & control? Marriage for instance?

You have never once in my recollection admitted that the unborn infant has rights until it has been delivered.

I will ask you point blank.

Does the unborn infant have any right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

[acox]

Originally Posted by mlarson

You have never once in my recollection admitted that the unborn infant has rights until it has been delivered.

I will ask you point blank.

Does the unborn infant have any right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Apparently not. One time, back when John Ashcroft was Governor of the Great State of Missouri, he made a public statement that life begins at conception, and a fetus had those rights of life, liberty and it was the obligation of the State to protect those rights. This was at the time when the Missouri courts ruled that a pregnant woman's fetus was murdered as a result of an assault on the woman. Her attacker was charged and convicted of murder of the fetus.
The next day, dozens of pregnant inmates in the Missouri Dept of Corrections filed charges against the State of Missouri, claiming assault, kidnapping, and illegal detention of their unborn children!
Their cases were summarily dismissed as frivolous, but the definition of murder of an unborn fetus remains.
I guess it matters whose unborn infant it is, but to my knowledge, Gov (later US Atty-General) Ashcroft never made that statement again.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Does the unborn infant have any right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

This question is above my pay-grade and thankfully one I will never have to answer in real-time, furthermore for the record I am not a proponent of abortion, I support freedom. So, in theory based on my limited understanding of the law I would answer... The a fetus has no rights which supersede the rights of the women's body where it currently resides.

Anything else would require a women to lose rights to some other third-party entity that may or may not convey those stolen rights back to the fetus. Individual rights are not a privilege but are a constitutional guarantee that must be upheld, if freedom & liberty are to be maintained then the decision must always rest on the individual.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

This question is above my pay-grade and thankfully one I will never have to answer in real-time, furthermore for the record I am not a proponent of abortion, I support freedom. So, in theory based on my limited understanding of the law I would answer... The a fetus has no rights which supersede the rights of the women's body where it currently resides.

Anything else would require a women to lose rights to some other third-party entity that may or may not convey those stolen rights back to the fetus. Individual rights are not a privilege but are a constitutional guarantee that must be upheld, if freedom & liberty are to be maintained then the decision must always rest on the individual.

A simple answer of no would have been sufficient.

1 minute prior to exiting the birth canal equals no rights.

1 minute after exiting the birth canal equals full rights.

Very interesting differentiation there Joe.

[Joseph Burkeson, CMI]

Originally Posted by mlarson

A simple answer of no would have been sufficient.

1 minute prior to exiting the birth canal equals no rights.

1 minute after exiting the birth canal equals full rights.

Very interesting differentiation there Joe.

Listen, I don't make the friggin' rules WTF is your problem? The only simple answer I have is you are a certified moron.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jburkeson1

Listen, I don't make the friggin' rules WTF is your problem? The only simple answer I have is you are a certified moron.

Thankfully no you don't.

But you are content to have the court make the rules in stead of the government of the people, by the people and for the people as has been done in 30 states.

If you need to see a moron please go by a new mirror.

[James H. Bushart]

I oppose legalized abortion and believe that life begins at the moment of conception.

I also oppose government intervention in my personal life to the fullest extent possible.

These two positions are the basis for the following question:

Supposing that abortion should somehow become illegal, how would the following be addressed?

- If a woman has conceived a child, but it unaware of it, and takes a birth control pill which causes her to abort...would her charge be negligent homicide, murder, or manslaughter?