Presedential Election

[havok579257]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1325957576' post='2364487']
If an unstable person were walking down the street with a knife or loaded gun, would you not consider it legitimate defense to disarm him?

The traditional concept of "just war" was developed in a time when the weapons were swords, arrows, and boulders being flung by catapults. WMD and global delivery systems were not a factor then; they are now. The traditional "just war" doctrine needs to be updated to include this fact.
[/quote]

disarm him by means of killing him? absolutly not. cause that is what a pre-emptive strike is. striking and killing other before they have the chance to strike at you. its comes back to the old question, if you had a time machine and could go back in time and kill hitler when he was a child , would you do it? you know for a fact that hilter will kill thousands of people, so isn't a pre-emptive strike right then since it would save so many people? and once again it comes down to the catholic teaching on the ends do not justify the means. killing someone or a countryof someone's because you THINK they are going to kill you is immoral plain and simple. can you really argue against that. can you honestly believe that you are justified and in the moral right to kill someone because he MIGHT kill you in the future?

[Amppax]

This seems appropriate, CCC on War:

[quote][b]III. SAFEGUARDING PEACE[/b]
[b]Peace[/b]
[b]2302[/b] By recalling the commandment, "You shall not kill," [Mt. 5:21] our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.
Anger is a desire for revenge. "To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit," but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution "to correct vices and maintain justice." [St. Thomas Aquinas, [i]ST[/i] II-II q158, a1 ad3] If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment." [Mt. 5:22]
[b]2303 [/b]Deliberate hatred is contrary to charity. Hatred of the neighbor is a sin when one deliberately wishes him evil. Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm. "But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven." [Mt. 5:44-45]
[b]2304 [/b]Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity. Peace is "the tranquility of order." [St. Augustine,[i]City of God[/i] 19, 13,1] Peace is the work of justice and the effect of charity. [Cf. Is. 32:17; cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i] #78, 1-2]
[b]2305 [/b]Earthly peace is the image and fruit of the peace of Christ, the messianic "Prince of Peace." [Is. 9:5] By the blood of his Cross, "in his own person he killed the hostility," [Eph. 2:16; cf. Col. 1:20-22] he reconciled men with God and made his Church the sacrament of the unity of the human race and of its union with God. "He is our peace." [Eph. 2:14] He has declared: "Blessed are the peacemakers." [Mt. 5:9]
[b]2306[/b] Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. [Cf. Vatican II,[i]Gaudium et spes[/i] 78, 5]
[b]Avoiding war[/b]
[b]2307[/b] The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. [Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i] 81, 4] All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed." [Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i]79, 4]
[b]2309[/b] The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
- there must be serious prospects of success;
- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
[b]2310[/b] Public authorities, in this case, have the right and duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense.
Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace.[Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i] 79, 5]
[b]2311 [/b]Public authorities should make equitable provision for those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms; these are nonetheless obliged to serve the human community in some other way. [Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i] 79, 3] 2312 The Church and human reason both assert the permanent validity of the moral law during armed conflict. "The mere fact that war has regrettably broken out does not mean that everything becomes licit between the warring parties." [Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i]79, 4]
[b]2313[/b] Non-combatants, wounded soldiers, and prisoners must be respected and treated humanely.
Actions deliberately contrary to the law of nations and to its universal principles are crimes, as are the orders that command such actions. Blind obedience does not suffice to excuse those who carry them out. Thus the extermination of a people, nation, or ethnic minority must be condemned as a mortal sin. One is morally bound to resist orders that command genocide.
[b]2314[/b] "Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation." [Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i] 80, 3]A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons - especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons - to commit such crimes.
[b]2315[/b] The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; [Pope Paul VI, [i]Populorum Progressio[/i] 53] it thwarts the development of peoples. Over- armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.
[b]2316[/b] The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.
[b]2317[/b] Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war:
Insofar as men are sinners, the threat of war hangs over them and will so continue until Christ comes again; but insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: "they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." [Cf. Vatican II, [i]Gaudium et spes[/i]78, 6; cf. Is. 2:4][/quote]

[Sarah147]

I watched some of the Republican debate last night. I wasn't sure which one Rick was, but I thought Newt was doing great!

Was it Romney that said he wouldn't ban contreceptives? He's not Catholic, right? What is Newt's stance on that?

[Amppax]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ltwlw4_qVc[/media]

Edited January 8, 2012 by Amppax

[Ice_nine]

there will never be a ban on contraception. I don't like Romney but they were trying to corner him with a really dumbass question.

Do you believe states should have the right to ban hamburgers?

It's just about that dumb

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326087890' post='2365542']
there will never be a ban on contraception. I don't like Romney but they were trying to corner him with a really dumbass question.

Do you believe states should have the right to ban hamburgers?

It's just about that dumb
[/quote]

a more pertinent example would be pork chops or shrimp, as those are also mentioned explicitly in the bible.

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326087890' post='2365542']
Do you believe states should have the right to ban hamburgers?

It's just about that dumb
[/quote]

Exactly.

[Aloysius]

the great thing about that question is that he all but admitted ignorance on the constitution; he didn't really have an answer for whether it was constitutional or not, he said we'd have to ask our "Constitutionalist"... that was basically an endorsement of Ron Paul in my book.

in any event, I think they got mixed up and meant to ask that question to Rick Santorum, who is the only one who has talked about the idea of banning contraceptives legally, though he wouldn't impose it against the will of the people. I personally don't think that contraceptives should be illegalized by civil law, actually.

[dominicansoul]

Rush Limbaugh said on his show that "Ron Paul should run for president of Iran."

[StMichael]

States, under the formers of this nation, can do whatever they like as long as it is not in direct conflict with the Constitution.

If a state wanted to ban all sales of hamburgers, as well as production of hamburgers. A state in the union could do that. What the citizen has the right to do is leave that state if they don't like it or the people could vote in a new legislative body.

As an example a state cannot declare a state religion as it is in direct violation of the 1st Amendment. Nor can a state ban gun ownership as that is in in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326087890' post='2365542']
there will never be a ban on contraception. I don't like Romney but they were trying to corner him with a really dumbass question.

Do you believe states should have the right to ban hamburgers?

It's just about that dumb
[/quote]

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul suggested a ban on contraceptives would violate the 4th amendment (in its enforcement against use of contraceptives, a violation of the right to privacy) and the interstate commerce clause which is actually intended not to restrict interstate commerce but to enable it. obviously he didn't have much time for a response but I liked the response, even if I think that technically there is a way for a state to constitutionally ban contraceptives... but as Mitt Romney mentioned, it's such an absurd hypothetical because no state is anywhere near thinking about even doing that.

[XIX]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1326087890' post='2365542']
there will never be a ban on contraception. I don't like Romney but they were trying to corner him with a really dumbass question.

Do you believe states should have the right to ban hamburgers?

It's just about that dumb
[/quote]
It's a little less dumb if you considering how many contraceptive pills are abortifacient.

It's also a purely hypothetical question in this case.

Edited January 9, 2012 by XIX

[StMichael]

4th Amendment:

"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."

14th Amendment:

"[b]Section 1.[/b] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
[b]Section 2.[/b] Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
[b]Section 3.[/b] No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
[b]Section 4.[/b] The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
[b]Section 5.[/b] The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

The 4th Amendment is a negative right, meaning what the government can not do. Our Constitution does not grant us rights but we grant limited rights to the government. It does not cover what you can't do or that laws can't be made to stop behavior (meth labs, grow pot, etc).

The 14th amendment was one of the 3 amendments (13, 14 & 15) known as the reconstruction amendments to address the post-civil war landscape.

Paul's argument depends on the abuse of the 14th to power the 4th amendment.

As for the interstate commerce clause, abused to no end by the federal government, it was instituted to because states were issuing their own currency, conducting their own foreign policy, and raising their own armies. Trade disputes among the states and with other countries were hampering commerce and threatening national prosperity.

It took a huge turn in 1942, the Supreme Court ruled in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer growing wheat on his own land and for his own use was still subject to federal production limits, even though none of his wheat ever left the state. The Court “reasoned” that by withholding his wheat from commerce, the farmer was affecting interstate commerce, even though there was no commerce, let alone interstate commerce. This meant that private economic activity conducted for the sole purpose of self-consumption and occurring wholly within a state’s borders would now be subject to federal regulatory authority under the Agricultural Adjustment Act.

Back to privacy, sodomy was a felony up until 2003 in many states. Thomas Jefferson wrote a law for Virginia that punishment would include castration.

In 2003, the Supreme Court used the due process statement to overturn the sodomy laws in all states.

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1326144600' post='2365863']
Ron Paul suggested a ban on contraceptives would violate the 4th amendment (in its enforcement against use of contraceptives, a violation of the right to privacy) and the interstate commerce clause which is actually intended not to restrict interstate commerce but to enable it. obviously he didn't have much time for a response but I liked the response, even if I think that technically there is a way for a state to constitutionally ban contraceptives... but as Mitt Romney mentioned, it's such an absurd hypothetical because no state is anywhere near thinking about even doing that.
[/quote]

Edited January 9, 2012 by StMichael

[PhuturePriest]

I'm a Santorum and Gingrich guy. We absolutely cannot have Romney. He supports legalizing abortion, strict gun laws, and all sorts of crazy ideas that we Catholics cannot support. Also, he wouldn't do as well as Gingrich or Santorum. And as a plus, Gingrich and Santorum are good Catholics. Gingrich was on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Santorum was on there soon. They both go to Mass weekly, and to throw in more points for Santorum, he goes to a Latin Mass weekly. These are not reasons you vote for a candidate, but these two candidates are amazing on life issues, and they both have great ideas to stimulate the economy. Namely, cut spending and lower taxes, but they go a little deeper than that. Thankfully, wellfare will be cut in half, since a lot of the people on wellfare don't need it and can still work.

[StMichael]

I agree on Santorum, but sadly cannot with Gingrich. Gingrich is no different than Romney. He is for bigger government, supports progressive matters (Cap and Trade, etc.) and we can only hope his new found Catholicism (2009) would prevent him from sins against our religion.

Gingrich cites the greatest President as Teddy Roosevelt (who was for population control and created the progressive party), FDR, etc. Between Romney and Gingrich all that is different is their religions, not their ideologies.

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1326149765' post='2365922']
I'm a Santorum and Gingrich guy. We absolutely cannot have Romney. He supports legalizing abortion, strict gun laws, and all sorts of crazy ideas that we Catholics cannot support. Also, he wouldn't do as well as Gingrich or Santorum. And as a plus, Gingrich and Santorum are good Catholics. Gingrich was on The World Over with Raymond Arroyo recently, and I wouldn't be surprised if Rick Santorum was on there soon. They both go to Mass weekly, and to throw in more points for Santorum, he goes to a Latin Mass weekly. These are not reasons you vote for a candidate, but these two candidates are amazing on life issues, and they both have great ideas to stimulate the economy. Namely, cut spending and lower taxes, but they go a little deeper than that. Thankfully, wellfare will be cut in half, since a lot of the people on wellfare don't need it and can still work.
[/quote]