[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" "Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk" KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel "Trade should work for America, not rule it" "The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP" "How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap" ‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’ Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible" "Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!" "If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think" "Ending EPA Overreach" Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED! Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing! Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy? Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia) "Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department" Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent "Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail" Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly "Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them" ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson! "The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent" 7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza? What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225 EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start? "Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work" test "Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working" "Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly" "Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home" "The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity" "How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy" Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes Status: Not Logged In; Sign In politics and politicians See other politics and politicians Articles Title: Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are [CBS] Source: Ace Of Spades URL Source: http://ace.mu.nu/#362525 Published: Apr 1, 2016 Author: Ace Post Date: 2016-04-02 09:46:31 by Tooconservative Keywords: None Views: 42950 Comments: 253 Donald Trump: Actually, Now That I Think About It, Let's Leave the Abortion Laws As They Are I'm changing, I'm changing. I'm softening that position. However, he then added that abortion is murder. Asked how he'd like to change the law to further restrict access to abortions, Trump replied, "The laws are set now on abortion and that's the way they're going to remain until they're changed." "I would've preferred states' rights," he added. "I think it would've been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set....At this moment, the laws are set. And I think we have to leave it that way." "Do you think abortion is murder?" Dickerson asked. "I have my opinions on it, but I'd rather not comment on it," Trump replied. "You said you were very pro-life," Dickerson followed up. "Pro-life means that...abortion is murder." "I mean, I do have my opinions on it. I just don't think it's an appropriate forum," said Trump. "But you don't disagree with that proposition, that it's murder?" Dickerson asked. "No, I don't disagree with it," Trump eventually replied. Okay. As long as you're giving the proper amount of thought to these issues. There was once a very intelligent man who said, "The moment Trump gets into trouble, he's going to start pandering like crazy to liberals, because he just doesn't know any better." Here we see Trump finally realizing the damage he caused to himself with Michelle Fields and Heidi Cruz, plus his own goal on abortion, so his response, to get back those women he cherishes so much, is to say "Hey, let's leave the abortion laws as they are. But privately, I think abortion is murder. FYI." I seriously can't think of a worse political position: On one hand, he's telling the pro-life people I'm not changing any abortion laws. Fine, okay, most presidents won't try, but few are as upfront in telling a key part of the conservative movement they're getting the goose-egg. Simultaneously, on the other hand, he pisses off the pro-choice people, by telling them that, while he won't be changing the abortion laws, that abortion is murder. It's lose-lose. With a bonus lose for it being dreadfully obvious that he simply hasn't given the issue a lick of thought and is now just basically button-mashing (as Allah puts it) in hopes that some combination of inputs gets him past the boss on this level. Posted by Ace at 07:27 PM Comments Donald Trump: About That Thing I Just Said A Few Hours Ago-- Nevermind —Ace The woman will, or rather will not be punished, and the laws will not, or rather will, be changed. .@realDonaldTrump spox Hope Hicks walks back Trump abortion comments to CBS. Says Trump WILL change law on abortion pic.twitter.com/1oedertZbC— Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) April 2, 2016 Hey, by ten o'clock we might have another Trump position on abortion, so stay tuned. Posted by Ace at 09:03 PM Comments Poster Comment: The carnival barker executes another double-backflip on abortion. It takes real courage to confuse yourself with all these "hypotheticals" four times in less than four days. But it's only murder. Well, unless it isn't. Who really knows anyway? You keep thinking the rats will realize they're following the Pied Piper but ... Let the Trumpsplaining commence! Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-201) not displayed.       .       .       . #202. To: ConservingFreedom (#201) Quote. "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. At least try. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #203. To: Roscoe (#202) "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." A swing and a miss by you. The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   16:45:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #204. To: ConservingFreedom (#203) The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. Of course it does. "Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914) Now you quote the provision requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. At least try. Don't be such a coward. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:47:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #205. To: misterwhite (#194) The natural state of commerce is free and open. "PIRACY, n. Commerce without its folly-swaddles, just as God made it." --Ambrose Bierce Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   16:49:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #206. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#203) ConservingFreedom (#203) ---- The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary and proper. Of course it does.-- roscoe The authority to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper does not include nor imply the power to declare whether a given law is necessary,proper, and/or CONSTITUTIONAL. As usual, roscoe doesn't have a clue... tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:14:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #207. To: Roscoe (#204) "Congress is empowered to regulate -- that is, to provide the law for the government of interstate commerce; to enact "all appropriate legislation" for its "protection and advancement..." Houston E. & W. Tex. Ry. Co. v. United States 234 U.S. 342 (1914) No help for you there - it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate for the protection and advancement of interstate commerce, either. Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:28:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #208. To: Roscoe (#204) requiring Congress to "establish" an exercise of those explicit powers to your satisfaction. Yet another of your straw men - I never said a word about "to my satisfaction." A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:29:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #209. To: ConservingFreedom (#207) it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate to enact "all appropriate legislation" Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:37:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #210. To: ConservingFreedom (#208) "to my satisfaction." You have failed to identify any other party. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:38:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #211. To: Roscoe (#207) [CF:] Here's just one example of the Court rejecting a government claim of power under the clause: "The Government's first argument is that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. [...] the individual mandate cannot be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an essential component of the insurance reforms." NFIB v Sebelius Which, to chew your food for you, disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" as to what was necessary and proper. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   17:41:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #212. To: ConservingFreedom (#211) disproves your claim that "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions" "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Poor you. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   17:45:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #213. To: Roscoe, Y'ALL (#209) ConservingFreedom (#207 --- it wasn't ruled that Congress had the power to declare whether a given law is appropriate to enact "all appropriate legislation" --- Roscoe To enact 'all constitutionally appropriate legislation'. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-04   17:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #214. To: Roscoe (#212) Cling fiercely to your moronic disinterpretations - maybe you'll fool somebody besides yourself. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   20:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #215. To: ConservingFreedom (#214) The powers in the constituion are delegated powers. Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution. Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America? A K A Stone  posted on  2016-04-04   21:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #216. To: A K A Stone (#215) The powers in the constituion are delegated powers. And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent. Who else was that power delegated to in the constitution. If you think judicial review is constitutionally grounded - do you? - then quite plausibly the Supreme Court has the power to determine whether a law is "necessary and proper." Do you believe the constitution to be the valid basis for all law in the United States of America? No, only of federal law - state laws exist and have their validity independent of the federal constitution (which was ratified by the states). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-04   21:11:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #217. To: ConservingFreedom (#214) moronic disinterpretations Actual language of the Constitution. Of course, you Constitution-haters prefer judicial activism. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-04   23:13:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #218. To: Roscoe (#217) Your moronic disinterpretation is "The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions". A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   11:37:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #219. To: Roscoe (#217) "disinterpretations" Is that a word? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-05   11:41:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #220. To: ConservingFreedom (#216) "And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent." So who should decide their extent? misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-05   11:43:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #221. To: misterwhite (#219) Is that a word? The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   11:55:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #222. To: ConservingFreedom (#218) The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions Yep Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   11:56:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #223. To: misterwhite (#220) So who should decide their extent? That would be ConservingFreedom, silly. Just as the Constitution clearly says in a penumbral emanation. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   11:58:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #224. To: misterwhite (#219) Is that a word? It's a malapoop. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   11:59:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #225. To: misterwhite (#220) "And the point of enumerating delegated powers is nullified if the delegatee gets to decide their extent." So Are we agreed on that point? who should decide their extent? As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   12:01:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #226. To: ConservingFreedom (#225) exercising their checks Quote the "check." [crickets] Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   12:03:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #227. To: Roscoe (#222) [DECEPTIVELY OMIITED BY ROSCOE: Your moronic disinterpretation is "]The power was explicitly given to Congress to make those decisions". Yep For the record, you're a liar and a clumsy stupid one to boot - not that anyone on this forum doesn't already know it. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   12:04:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #228. To: ConservingFreedom (#227) Quote the "check." [crickets] Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   12:06:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #229. To: Roscoe (#226) Quote the "check." "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7 "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. "If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   12:17:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #230. To: ConservingFreedom (#229) 1. "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it" - Article 1 Section 7 2. "If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply." - Marbury v Madison 1. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. Poor you. 2. And the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to determine what the laws should be regarding commerce among the states, and to enact all laws necessary and proper for carrying those laws into execution. Another nice foot shot. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   12:32:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #231. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#229) Article 1 Section 7 Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. Poor you.-- roscoe Poor roscoe, attempting to prove that the legislative power to override a presidential veto negates the checks and balances inherent in our constitution.. Weird fella. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-05   13:05:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #232. To: tpaine (#231) Weird fella. It must be some sort of compulsive behavior - he can't possibly think his posts fool anyone (although his little buddy is at least willing to pretend). A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   13:09:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #233. To: ConservingFreedom (#232) Not only is Congress authorized to determine the laws necessary, it may do so without the President's signature. Another epic fail for CF. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   13:17:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #234. To: ConservingFreedom, roscoe, Y'ALL (#232) It must be some sort of compulsive behavior ---- Obsessive compulsive, as we see in his grandiose 'epic fail' howler. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-05   13:22:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #235. To: ConservingFreedom (#221) "The well-read will catch the parallel with disinfomation - ignoramuses won't." The parallel? They both start with dis-. Other than that, I see no parallel at all. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-05   14:02:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #236. To: misterwhite (#235) Poor you. A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   14:03:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #237. To: misterwhite (#235) The voices in his head all got it. Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   14:14:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #238. To: ConservingFreedom (#225) "Are we agreed on that point?" Not in the least. "As a matter of process, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative." Wrong. Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions. misterwhite  posted on  2016-04-05   14:14:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #239. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#238) ConservingFreedom (#225) ----- "As a matter of proceszs, the other two branches exercising their checks - and as a matter of principle, every Constitutional conservative." Exactly, although majority rule communitarians, like Paulsen/misterwhite, insist that Congress can prohibit damn near anything, using the commerce clause. Unless they're unconstitutional, Congress decides what laws are necessary and proper to implement their Commerce Clause decisions. --- misterwhite There is no power to prohibit in our Constitution. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-05   14:48:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #240. To: misterwhite (#238) Not in the least. Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent? A government strong enough to impose your standards is strong enough to ban them. ConservingFreedom  posted on  2016-04-05   14:56:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #241. To: ConservingFreedom (#240) Then what is the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee gets to decide their extent? You've got it exactly backwards. What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them? Roscoe  posted on  2016-04-05   14:59:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #242. To: Roscoe, --- constitutionally backward (#241) What would be the point of enumerating delegated powers, if the delegatee couldn't decide how to exercise them? Roscoe Poor backward roscoe, can't read or understand the 10th Amendment. tpaine  posted on  2016-04-05   15:36:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (243 - 253) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com