Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bill to Snuff Out a Baby's Life During Birth
#1
Virginia House Majority Leader Discusses Democrat Bill to Snuff Out a Baby’s Life During Birth (VIDEO)

One way of quickly bringing an end to this is for the mother to be charged as an accessory to murder, federal law trumps state law.
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#2
(01-31-2019, 02:25 PM)Canuknucklehead Wrote: Virginia House Majority Leader Discusses Democrat Bill to Snuff Out a Baby’s Life During Birth (VIDEO)

One way of quickly bringing an end to this is for the mother to be charged as an accessory to murder, federal law trumps state law.

The Wacky Left never ceases to amaze me over their propensity to carry things to the ultimate extreme. There is no way this will be upheld in any federal court. What it does is create more 'blowback', because Newton's Third Law also holds up under this scenario.

This is going to keep roiling up everyone until an equilibrium is reached. And that equilibrium, i.e. a clear heartbeat, will become the official law eventually. This is necessary to ensure the fetus can survive outside the womb. That's where it is all going to end up, and no matter how much hell and damnation is raised, anyone should be able to see this. I don't know how long Rowe Vs Wade will take to be overturned, but that's going to happen, with the boundary set back to the "heartbeat" point.

Meanwhile, the show must go on. Spiteful
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#3
(01-31-2019, 05:26 PM)John L Wrote:
(01-31-2019, 02:25 PM)Canuknucklehead Wrote: Virginia House Majority Leader Discusses Democrat Bill to Snuff Out a Baby’s Life During Birth (VIDEO)

One way of quickly bringing an end to this is for the mother to be charged as an accessory to murder, federal law trumps state law.

The Wacky Left never ceases to amaze me over their propensity to carry things to the ultimate extreme.  There is no way this will be upheld in any federal court.  What it does is create more 'blowback', because Newton's Third Law also holds up under this scenario.

 This is going to keep roiling up everyone until an equilibrium is reached.  And that equilibrium, i.e. a clear heartbeat, will become the official law eventually.  This is necessary to ensure the fetus can survive outside the womb.  That's where it is all going to end up, and no matter how much hell and damnation is raised, anyone should be able to see this.  I don't know how long Rowe Vs Wade will take to be overturned, but that's going to happen, with the boundary set back to the "heartbeat" point.

Meanwhile, the show must go on.  Spiteful

[Image: rRFRHHk.jpg]
The true purpose of democracy is not to select the best leaders — a clearly debatable obligation — but to facilitate the prompt and peaceful removal of obviously bad ones. 
Reply
#4
(01-31-2019, 02:25 PM)Canuknucklehead Wrote: Virginia House Majority Leader Discusses Democrat Bill to Snuff Out a Baby’s Life During Birth (VIDEO)

One way of quickly bringing an end to this is for the mother to be charged as an accessory to murder, federal law trumps state law.

No, it doesn't. The Constitution limits  Federal Law. State Law is sovereign. Clinton tried to change that and got roasted for it.

Clinton's Executive Order 13083 compared to Reagan's 12612 can be found here.

Check out Sec. 2 (a), 2 (b), 2 © wherein Clinton attempts to raise the Federal government to sovereign status: "The Constitution created a Federal government of SUPREME, but limited, powers. The sovereign powers not granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people or to the States..."

In contrast, Reagan actually said the sovereignty resides with the people who delegated enumerated governmental powers to the national government.

Notice that Reagan's 2 (g) and 2 (i) were deleted.

EO 13083 would have justified federal intervention in any issue for any reason. There is simply no other reasonable way of interpreting it. It would have reduced state and local government to, at best, advisory status. I say, "at best" because Clinton didn't even bother to consult with state and local officials before issuing EO 13083.

Until the political pressure rose, Clinton was even proud of what he had done. Within months, Paul Begala was boasting of how Clinton would step up use of the executive order as a tool of governing, going over the heads of Congress. "Stroke of the pen, law of the land," Begala said. "Kinda cool."

13083 was reversed. The effort to subvert the Constitution via Executive Order was an inspiration to Obama.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)