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

Thousands ATTend aT ... “MandaTe Free Maui” --- AgainsT Tyrannical Governance imposed in The STaTe of Hawaii

AOC’s Policies Hurt the Poor and Help the Rich

After AOCÂ’s Met Gala stunt, IÂ’m officially done with Democrats

I Knew It Would Be a Disaster, But This?

Former Vice-PresidenT WHO European Advisory Group ... “UnvaccinaTed people are noT dangerous --- vaccinaTed people are dangerous – Should be QuaranTined” (Video)

Antifa - unnamed FBI agents would infilTraTe The crowd ... Trigger-happy CapiTol Hill police officers --- would gun down young women.

General Milley Aided BLM During 2020 Riots And Stopped Trump From Invoking Insurrection Act

Gonzalez - announced his reTiremenT ... wiTh anoTher denunciaTion of The presidenT Trump --- calling him ‘a cancer ( cure ) for The counTry.’

Surge of Haitians at the border shows Team Biden really has no clue what to do

New Durham indictment exposes second leg of Hillary Clinton's Russia collusion dirty trick

DEFEATED: Pelosi Suffers Huge Blow After 3 Moderate Dems Revolt Against Drug Pricing Plan

Pandemic of The VaccinaTed ... Covid HospiTalizaTions Up 8-Fold Compared To LasT Year --- in Super-Vaxxed UK

Idaho docTor reporTs a ... ‘20 Times increase’ of cancer --- in vaccinaTed paTienTs

Gavin Newsom wins, but California loses

Japanese STudy — ‘DelTa varianT is poised To acquire ... compleTe resisTance --- To Vaccines’

Dems ... Go InTo Full Panic Mode Over --- LaTesT ElecTion AudiT UpdaTe

Very Concerning Evidence of Vote Fraud in California Recall Election

The Media's Shameless Shielding of Joe Biden

‘He shouldn’t be lecturing anybody!’: Trump blasts Bush over Capitol riot remark on 9/11

Biden’s disastrous handling of Afghanistan cast a cloud over this 9/11 anniversary

Covid’s ... Willing --- ExecuTioners

WATCH - Bill Maher Says ...The Race-Obsessed LefT --- is ‘Embarrassing’ Him

Alaska Airlines ... ChrisTians - Republicans --- are noT welcome

BREAKING HUGE ... President Trump --- “They Are Going To DecerTify This ElecTion!”

Spicer: Removal From Military Board Is Partisan Blacklisting

EXCLUSIVE - Was Rosanne Boyland BeaTen By Female ( federal - feral ) Officer ... Before She Died --- on January 6Th? (Video)

Democrats' Policies Are a Gift to China

BREAKING – HUGE ... ResulTs of Canvassing in Arizona Released --- ELECTION STEAL IS NOW CONFIRMED

Virginia cuts Confederate Gen. Robert Lee statue into pieces

Joe Biden Is a Total Failure

Why most Americans no longer honor unions on Labor Day

Exclusive — True The VoTe ... ConducTing Massive ClandesTine --- VoTer Fraud InvesTigaTion

Things are bad in California and seem to be getting worse for Gov. Newsom

HOUSE PAINTER takes only a minute to prove that ‘COVID-prevention masks’ don’t work!

It’s Time to Put the Right-Wing Zombie Death Cult on Trial

Can Americans still beat Democrat voter fraud?

Joe Biden Is Lying To Americans About Afghanistan

Biden's Job Approval Has Entered Dangerous Territory

The White House Hopes We Can All Forget Afghanistan (And The Press Will Help)

The Radical LefTs War ... on The American --- Middle Class

Conrad Black: Evicting Donald Trump was clearly a catastrophe

The grim rise of anTivax deaTh porn ... Why do people delighT in news sTories abouT --- COVID-deniers dying of COVID?

Joe Biden’s Presidency Has Gone Off The Rails And The Democratic Party Will Pay For It

To survive, we must fire them all

Our military and our allies no longer trust Biden

As Newsom Recall Vote Looms, Corporations Are Fleeing California On The Double

Panicked Democrats switch from 'defund' to 'refund' the police

Enough is Enough: Antifa Attacks Reporter in Portland

The Afghanistan Debacle Is Exposing President Biden’s Descent Into Unreality

The Only Way Back To Deterrence Is Firing Biden’s Entire National Security Team


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Anti Jew Propaganda
See other Anti Jew Propaganda Articles

Title: Tucker Investigates: What is destroying rural America?
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Dec 4, 2019
Author: Tucker Carlson
Post Date: 2019-12-04 13:22:21 by Anthem
Keywords: None
Views: 21728
Comments: 184

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-20) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#21. To: Anthem (#19)

I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did. Catholics hold the majority in the Supreme Court they can end it today. But you dumb Catholics are like Lucy and the football with Charlie Brown. Lukewarm is what you are. An excuse maker for satan's democrats.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-05   11:50:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: Anthem (#19)

A good hearted woman doesn't support murdering children. That is a strange comment you made.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-05   11:53:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

Be very, very careful when dealing out the language of judgment and damnation.

Vic, the judgment I refer to will affect us all.

(I'm not referring to the final judgment that will come to those who reject God...that will come later).

In fact, my family knows that we will certainly perish in the immediate judgments that signal the beginning of the Great Tribulation.

The Trib judgments will begin when a New World Order/One World Government is solidified...it's on its way.

watchman  posted on  2019-12-05   11:57:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: A K A Stone (#21)

I also hate that Catholics are liars like you just did.

Kindly specify my error.

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-05   12:04:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: Anthem (#24)

Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-05   12:09:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: A K A Stone (#25)

Yes, it's true.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-05   14:16:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: A K A Stone (#9)

You're a covetous little bastard. You are a thief at heart. You support abortionists like Bloomburg. That is why he is your favorite.

You are with the human garbage on this one weirdo.

(1)

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-05   14:16:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: A K A Stone (#10)

Vic is s thief at heart. He is very covetous.

(2)

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-05   14:16:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: A K A Stone (#11)

Vic said that he wanted to raise our taxes here so we can have a global welfare system. The guy is a communist. Little Vic is a dick commie.

(3)

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-05   14:17:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: All (#29) (Edited)

Summary: 'I disagree with Person X, therefore he's a bastard, a piece of garbage and a Communist.' - A K A Stone

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-05   14:22:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: All (#30)

"Waa! Waa! Waa! Why can't we get any young supporters to uphold our beliefs anymore?" - Old Republicans.

Gee, I wonder.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-05   14:25:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: A K A Stone, Anthem, Vicomte13 (#25)

Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Opinion of the Court 7-2; 5D, 2R

Blackmun (R) delivered the Opinion of the court joined by 6 more.
Burger (R)
Marshall (D)
Powell (D)
Douglas (D) filed a concurring opinion.
Brennan (D) filed a concurring opinion.
Stewart (R) filed a concurring opinion.

Dissenting justices: 1D, 1R

White (D) filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist joined.
Rehnquist (R) filed a dissenting opinion.

The Court contained 6 nominees by Republican presidents Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.

It contained 3 nominees by Democrat presidents FDR, JFK, and LBJ.

Justice Powell was a Democrat nominated by Republican Nixon.

Justice Brennan was a Democrat nominated by Republican Eisenhower.

The Court contained 5 Democrat justices and 4 Republican justices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun
(R) Eisenhower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_E._Burger
(R) Nixon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
(D) LBJ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_F._Powell,_Jr.
(D) Nixon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_O._Douglas
(D) FDR

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan,_Jr.
(D) Eisenhower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart
(R) Eisenhower

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White
(D) JFK

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist
(R) Reagan

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-05   14:41:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: nolu chan (#32)

So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?

Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by Republican nominees since Nixon, please tell us the date after which the Republican nominees were nominally Republican. I believe that occurred under Reagan.

O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Roberts - these are Republican nominees who are nominally Republican. And they've provided the bulwark to prevent the Republican majority Court from overturning Roe.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-05   16:56:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#33)

So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?

LOL! If the facts are inconvenient, just make something up...

Willie Green  posted on  2019-12-05   18:55:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

So, we're going to count judges nominated by Republican Presidents as "Democrat" judges?

No, I advocated for no such conclusion. I only reposted my years old recitation of the party of the justices and the presidents who nominated them.

I find the entire argument absurd. Lo these many years, I have never found the abortion clause of the Constitution. I do not find it to be a constitutional matter at all.

Whether a judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew or other, he or she should decide based on United States law, not some personal perception of God's law. Finding something morally repugnant or acceptable does nothing to determine it to be either constitutional or unconstitutional.

The first law citing murder was in 1790 and only applied to places under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. Murder elsewhere was not a Federal matter. Even if abortion were considered infanticide, it would not have been a crime against the United States.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/2nd_Session/Chapter_9

SEC. 3. And be it [further] enacted, That if any person or persons shall, within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country, under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, commit the crime of wilful murder, such person or persons on being thereof convicted shall suffer death.

The argument over Roe proceeds from the false choice of Roe, or a reversal of Roe prohibiting all abortion. I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction. Roe should be overturned for lack of jurisdiction, and the matter returned to the States.

Whether a judge is Dem or GOP should not determine how he rules. Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.

At the time of Roe, it was entirely possible for a conservative Southern Democrat to be much more conservative than what was then a moderate Northeastern moderate Republican. A party indicator from nearly 50 years ago provides no indicator of that justice's legal leanings. Even a current party indicator does not identify how one would interpret the Constitution.

The party indicator of the nominating official provides less than nothing.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-05   22:23:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: Vicomte13 (#30)

Summary: 'I disagree with Person X, therefore he's a bastard, a piece of garbage and a Communist.' - A K A Stone

Your summary is inaccurate.

It is more like this.

Person X holds an evil act as a good act. So person X is a piece of shit or a communist in your case. In your case because you espouse communist ideology in some manners.

You can disagree and think people that support murdering children are admirable and not pieces of shit. But according to Stones rules if you admire a piece of shit you are a piece of shit.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-05   23:30:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: nolu chan (#35)

Jonathan Turley just proved that it is possible for a Democrat attorney to interpret the law independent of the general political leanings of his party.

Yes he did. He is still a bad person though.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-05   23:33:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#33)

So, we're going to count judges

By their political party.

Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to. They must not want to. Which makes sense you being a supporter of an abortion candidate Bloomdork.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-05   23:36:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: nolu chan (#35)

I believe it should be a matter of state jurisdiction.

Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-05   23:39:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: A K A Stone (#39)

Should states be allowed to make it legal to murder adults or just innocent never hurt anyone babies?

Where should the power lie?

Should the Supreme Court have the power to make it legal to murder adults or anyone's babies?

Should the Supreme Court have such power in the absence of any decision by the Federal political branch (the Legislature) in the form of a law? There was no Federal law at issue in Roe. No Federal law prevented a State from banning abortion. Roe relied on constitutional interpretation to strike down a Texas State law. In doing so, it made that interpretation applicable to all the States, striking down all conflicting State law.

Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-06   1:24:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#41. To: nolu chan (#40)

Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

But you didn't answer the question.

You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.

So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Why ok for babies but not adults?

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-06   7:47:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#42. To: A K A Stone (#38)

Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to. They must not want to.

True.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-06   9:52:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#43. To: A K A Stone (#41)

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

Marbury was decided by the Founders. The Founders also manned Congress, the state legislatures and the White House. They did not move to strike down the Marbury decision. Instead, they accepted it, thereby ratifying it.

The Founders, by their decision in Marbury and their ratification of Marbury by their non-reaction to it, demonstrated that Supreme Court review WAS the "original intent" of the Constitution.

The Founders gave us the Constitution, and they gave us Washington's presidential precedents, and they gave us Marbury v. Madison - the Marbury Supremes were Founding Fathers too, and the President Jefferson and Marybury Congress were Founders too. Marbury is part of the "original intent" of the Constitution - it is part of the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

Vicomte13  posted on  2019-12-06   9:57:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#44. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#43) (Edited)

The Founders also...

...had a moral compass.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
--President George Washington, in his Farewell Address

Now it's not even PC to articulate what the Washington Monument represented...

www.google.com/search?&q=washington+monument+compass

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   10:10:47 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#45. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#42) (Edited)

Still the Catholics could end abortion if they wanted to.

The subject of abortion is rapidly becoming a moot point in the context of the next level of moral challenge rendered by our self-worshiping technocracy...

www.google.com/search?&q=Designer+Babies+in+ukraine

Got CRISPR?

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   10:16:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#33)

Well then, given that the Supreme Court has been continuously controlled by...

Human Nature?

"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"

What did Jefferson have in mind and how did that work in the context of the Tyranny of the Majority that was subsequently observed by De Tocqueville?

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   10:24:50 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#47. To: A K A Stone (#41) (Edited)

Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Only if they're on private property. /sarc.

BTW - Jeffrey Epstein's island was private. How'd that work out?

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   10:29:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Anthem (#5) (Edited)

My understanding is that it's a nationalist (Trump, Netanyahoo) vs. globalist.

Trump and Netanyahoo's playmates are Tribal, Organized Criminal, Oligarchs.  They are not operating under the constraint of a lawful republic - constituted to have TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS as its specified purpose.

The original article “Bratva” (“Bros,” a slang term for “mob”) is abridged and re-structured for the Western readers not familiar with the intricate details of Russian politics and the history of organized crime. I have also inserted links to my research showing the longterm ties between the Russian organized crime bosses and Trump and his immediate environment...

https://web.archive.org/web/20191120173349/https://medium.com/@ZarinaZabrisky/putinism-introduction-7167f6a6ec9d

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   10:38:24 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: A K A Stone (#25)

Put in place by Republicans. Sorry for calling you a liar but that isn't really true.

We could go back to the eugenics movement and find lots of Republicans. Eugenics, birth control (population control), and abortion are tightly linked.

I am going to start with Prescott Bush, who was Finance Chairman of the Birth Control League.

Peggy Goldwater (Barry's wife) helped fund Planned Parenthood.

The California legislature had near parity between R's and D's, yet passed an abortion legalization bill in 1967. Reagan was told that they would override his veto (requiring 2/3). He signed the bill.

George "Rubbers" Bush introduced Family Planning Services Act in 1970. George's main interest in Congress was population control. He supported Planned Parenthood, and he advocated family planning as a way to protect a woman's health & to combat poverty. In those days, family-planning advocates spoke openly of contraception, and legal abortion was the goal of many, including Bush. "He was most definitely pro-choice--then," said former Rep. James Scheuer (D-NY). "He was very supportive until he became Reagan's VP. Then he had to adopt Reagan's backward position. After that, when George would see me in the House, he'd say, 'Jim, don't break my cover.' And I never did--until now. George couldn't have continued supporting family planning and still made the national ticket."

Republican National Committee co-chair Mary Dent Crisp, a former Goldwater supporter and the highest-ranking woman in the party, believed that abortion was a woman's individual right.

These are just a few of the mucky mucks that set the stage for Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton which struck down Texas and Georgia abortion prohibition laws in 1973. They were authored by Republican SC Justice Harry Blackmun and joined by 3 other Republican Justices to form a 7-2 majority.

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-06   10:49:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#50. To: A K A Stone, watchman, vicomte13 (#11)

Vic said that he wanted to raise our taxes here so we can have a global welfare system. The guy is a communist. Little Vic is a dick commie.


1. What is the velocity of money?
2. How does derivative a$$paper, denominated in Quadrillion, reflect the actual state of the global economy VS the concept of "supply and demand"?
3. To what degree are Organized Criminals profiting from control over the Military Industrial Complex and the economy?
4. What alternatives are there to the Military Industrial / Organized Criminal Complex's selfish manipulation of the velocity of money?


Maybe it's time for a HUMANE Industrial Complex.

If the system is going to run on the velocity of bullshyte anyhow, then the humane thing to do is to have it benefit all of our species - instead of just the apex predators perched atop the pyramid.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   11:02:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: nolu chan (#32)

Powell was a Republican corporate lawyer (tobacco), and anti-communist, anti-socialist. He falls within the population control crowd of Rockefeller Republicans.

The Powell Memorandum thus became the blueprint for the rise of the American conservative movement and the formation of a network of influential right-wing think tanks and lobbying organizations, such as The Heritage Foundation and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as well as inspiring the US Chamber of Commerce to become far more politically active.[16][17] CUNY professor David Harvey traces the rise of neoliberalism in the US to this memo.[18][19]

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-06   11:08:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: Anthem (#49)

mucky mucks that set the stage for Roe v Wade

Technology set the stage for a hedonistic attempt to alter the consequences of behavior rendered by 1.2 billion years of sexual reproduction.

Human culture is still figuring out how to balance those technological "benefits" against the moral cost of them.

The apex predators perched atop post-modern culture are not the first to figure out that "Sex Sells".

Romans Chapter 1. RTFM.

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   11:11:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#53. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#48)

Thanks for the link. Putin came up through the system. He appears to be doing good things for his country now. Trump did business wherever he could. I am more interested in what they are doing now than in some hysterical hit piece.

Anthem  posted on  2019-12-06   11:23:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: Anthem (#53) (Edited)

Putin came up through the system. He appears to be doing good things for his country now.

My impression of Putin is that his ideological affinity with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn appears to be legitimate and is consistent with his support of/by the Russian Orthodox Christian Church.

Putin also appears to be a pragmatist who understands the historical relationships between the Organized Criminals who ran the Soviet Gulag system - and their present-day successors. Ie: Cut off one cockroach head and 6 grow back in its place.

IMHO, the dots connecting Trump (in the role of Useful Idiot) to Simeon Mogilevich's Odessa Mafia are much more self-evident than those connecting Putin to Mogilevich... but YMMV.

"COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS DESPOTISM"
--Thomas Jefferson

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   12:13:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#55. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#41)

Remember, vesting such power in the Supreme Court can, and did, result in Roe v. Wade, striking down all laws contrary to that vision of the Constitution.

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

But you didn't answer the question.

You seem to be ok with allowing states to determine if you can murder a child.

So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Why ok for babies but not adults?

Yours is an inapplicable question and I will walk you through why that is so.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

ALL power resides in either:

  • The United States, or
  • The States, or
  • The people

Unless you strike down the Constitution, those are your three choices for who has the power to decide whether abortion is constitutional or unconstitutional, lawful or unlawful.

Either the Federal government or the States must be empowered to decide whether to prohibit abortion, or it is left to the people to decide. You must pick one, and only one.

If you choose the Federal government, then you choose to

  • permit the Congress to pass a law making abortion a crime, or prohibiting States from making abortion a crime, or

  • permit the Supreme Court to preempt Congress and all States by issuing an opinion based on an interpretation of the Constitution

  • do nothing, leaving it to the States

If you choose the States, then you choose to

  • empower the State government to pass a law making abortion a crime

  • do nothing, leaving it to the people

If you choose the People, then you choose to

  • render all abortion legal until the People exercise their sovereign power to amend the Constitution to state, for example, "Abortion is a felony punishable by death."

Nothing is murder, or any crime at all, until there is a law stating that it is murder or a crime. It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder.

Whoever is empowered is empowered to decide abortion is a crime by passing a law so stating. Should they not pass such a law, then abortion is not a crime within that jurisdiction. Whoever is empowered is empowered to pass a law making interference with lawful abortion a crime, or to regulate abortion in the manner of its choosing.

As you seem to support Federal jurisdiction, where the power now resides, States cannot decide whether to make abortion a crime.

So I will ask again. Should states be allowed to pass laws making it lawful to kill adults?

Why ok for babies but not adults?

The inapplicability of your question is shown by the fact that States have no power to declare abortion lawful or unlawful. The Federal government has declared that it is empowered to decide the matter and it has decided it by declaring to all 50 States that abortion is not unlawful, much less murder, and that it is a constitutional right.

Everything is legal unless there is a law stating it is illegal. Whoever is empowered makes something legal by doing nothing. They make something lawful by not passing a law making it unlawful.

No one vested such power in the Supreme court. They usurped it in Marbury vs Madison.

As a matter of law, you are simply wrong about Marbury. However, assume arguendo that you are correct.

You appear perfectly happy to support an activist Supreme Court deciding the legality of abortion, just as long as the majority agrees with you in exercising jurisdiction you alternately appear to deny exists.

Marbury actually resolved whether the Federal courts could strike down a Federal law as repugnant to the Constitution. In Roe, there was no Federal law involved. Had there been an inconsistent Federal law, the Federal law would have prevailed pursuant to Article 6.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-06   12:31:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#56. To: nolu chan, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#55)

It is an absolute fact that abortion, at this time, is not murder.

The birth control pill is, in effect, abortion. Most folks just don't understand how it works -- how it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb.

And the subject of abortion will be moot in the context of...

www.google.com/search?&q=designer+babies+in+ukraine

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   12:39:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#57. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#43)

The Founders gave us the Constitution, and they gave us Washington's presidential precedents, and they gave us Marbury v. Madison - the Marbury Supremes were Founding Fathers too, and the President Jefferson and Marybury Congress were Founders too. Marbury is part of the "original intent" of the Constitution - it is part of the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

While what you state is absolutely correct, it may also be worth observing that the Constitution and Washington created a Supreme Court that was packed with 100% Federalists. Never since those early days has the court been packed so one-sidedly.

Comparing the Federal government as founded, to the Federal government of today, reveals that something has gone askew.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-06   12:52:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#56)

And the subject of abortion will be moot in the context of...

www.google.com/search?&q=designer+babies+in+ukraine

Abortion has always been moot in the context of strongly desired pregnancies.

Aspiring baby mamas can always find a way to get knocked up the old fashioned way, and subsequently invoke a lady's prerogative to change her mind.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-06   13:02:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: nolu chan (#58) (Edited)

Abortion has always been moot in the context of strongly desired pregnancies.

Will it still be abortion/murder if the zygote is vaporized after a scan detects an undesirable trait in its genome?

Judas Goat  posted on  2019-12-06   13:49:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#60. To: Peromischievous leucopus (#59)

Will it still be abortion/murder if the zygote is vaporized after a scan detects an undesirable trait in its genome?

Abortion is not murder. It is not any crime. Aborting a zygote will not be murder.

Nothing is a crime unless a law says it is. Do you have a law in mind that says vaporizing a zygote is murder? Cite the statute.

nolu chan  posted on  2019-12-06   14:34:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: nolu chan (#55)

Abortion is also clearly a violation of the 9th amendment.

A K A Stone  posted on  2019-12-06   16:32:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (62 - 184) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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