the empire strikes back

[little2add]

 

Abortion is legal in the US

Slavery was legal at one time in the US

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT SLAVERY WAS NOT FUNDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OR CONGRESS

do you get my gist, sweetheart 

[Papist]

13 hours ago, Peace said:

You may start here.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

I think you send this to the wrong party involved in the taking of money.

[Peace]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

Abortion is legal in the US

Slavery was legal at one time in the US

THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT SLAVERY WAS NOT FUNDED BY EXECUTIVE ORDER OR CONGRESS

Sure it was. The Fugitive Slave Act is one obvious example.

And the Constitution itself had a Fugitive Slave clause.

Quote

do you get my gist, sweetheart 

Not really. If the Federal Government wants to use money to fund abortion or any other type of "health care" (sarcasm) I don't think anyone believes that it would violate the constitution. The constitution allows for the government to take action that we consider immoral, unfortunately.

Edited December 22, 2016 by Peace

[little2add]

Some people might argue that the tenth amendment applies to the regulation of abortion

X - Rights of the States under Constitution

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.

peace 

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

Sure it was. The Fugitive Slave Act is one obvious example.

And the Constitution itself had a Fugitive Slave clause.

The Fugitive Slave Act was more like a (bad) fine

not really the same, the Federal Government did not: pay for, promote, condone, encourage or provide slave labor like it does for abortion service industry.

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by little2add

[Peace]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

The Fugitive Slave Act was more like a (bad) fine .

A bad fine? Heh. I wonder what any person being forced back into slavery because of the law would have thought of that assessment.

1 hour ago, little2add said:

not really the same, the Federal Government did not: pay for, promote, condone, encourage or provide slave labor like it does for abortion service industry.

 

Well. If a slave escapes from a slave state into a free state, the fugitive slave act would require the state to return the person to the slave state, thus putting him back into a state of slavery.  I am pretty sure that a slave would have considered that encouragement.

Besides, I am not really sure how it relates to initial conversation. If you don't mind, exactly what is the basis for your assertion that the Federal Government's support of abortion would be unconstitutional? The Federal Government does all sorts of things that disagree with the moral teaching of the Church, so I am not quite sure why abortion in particular would be unconstitutional. . .

[little2add]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

 

Besides, I am not really sure how it relates to initial conversation. If you don't mind, exactly what is the basis for your assertion that the Federal Government's support of abortion would be unconstitutional? . . .

The 10th  amendment  delegates the power to states 

 Pay attention

[Peace]

6 minutes ago, little2add said:

The 10th  amendment  delegates the power to states 

 Pay attention

Oh that? I didn't think you were being serious.

Do you also believe that social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, medicaid, disability pay, food stamps, minimum wage laws, etc. are unconstitutional? The constitution does not mention any of these things either. They all come in under the general welfare clause. 

I suppose you can try to overturn a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent if you want to. Good luck with that.

[Socrates]

22 hours ago, Peace said:

How is your Dear Leader Trump doing? Still "grabbing women by the p****" and doing the other things that led you to vote for him?

The rule is not in the form of an executive order, it is an agency rule. Congress allocates the money to the agency. The statute likely grants the agency a certain scope to make rules. I don't have time to pull up the title and analyze whether the rule in is within the scope authorized by the statute, but assuming that it is then the rule is constitutional. 

Have any of the people who do most of your thinking for you over at the conservative review asserted that the rule violates the constitution? I would be interested in hearing from someone who actually knows what he is talking about.

And a very Merry Christmas to you too, sir!

 

The HHS is a cabinet agency led by presidential appointees.  And I, as well as other conservatives, regard the increasing abdication of Congress's legislative powers to faceless, bureaucratic bodies such as the HHS, EPA, etc.-- which spit out millions of rules and regulations to which others must conform, yet do not have the accountability to the states and their people which Congressmen and Senators have--to be one of the great travesties of modern American government.  It was certainly not what the framers had in mind when crafting the separation of powers of the different branches to act as checks and balances against one another.

If you're genuinely interested in educating yourself, rather than just spouting off silly insults, Mark Levin, editor-in-chief of CR, has spoken and written extensively about that topic.  You can look him up on Amazon, but I'd recommend starting with Liberty and Tyranny.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

Oh that? I didn't think you were being serious.

Do you also believe that social security, medicare, unemployment benefits, medicaid, disability pay, food stamps, minimum wage laws, etc. are unconstitutional? The constitution does not mention any of these things either. They all come in under the general welfare clause. 

 

The truth is that much of what the federal government now does is unconstitutional.

It pretty much shat all over the Tenth Amendment and flushed it down the toilet some time ago.

Quote

I suppose you can try to overturn a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent if you want to. Good luck with that.

What's needed is an Article V Convention of the States.

http://www.conventionofstates.com/

[Luigi]

The US federal government no longer serves the people who elect it or pay for it. 

The US federal government is now a dictatorship in all but name. 

[little2add]

the General Welfare Clause or the Spending Power Clause, does not grant Congress the power to legislate for the general welfare of the country; that is a power reserved to the states through the Tenth Amendment.

Rather, it merely allows Congress to spend federal money for the general welfare.

[Peace]

7 hours ago, Luigi said:

The US federal government no longer serves the people who elect it or pay for it. 

Rather nostalgic are we? When did it ever? The constitution itself recognizes slavery.

I know you aren't naive enough to think that the founding fathers intended the government to work fairly for all Americans.

7 hours ago, Luigi said:

The US federal government is now a dictatorship in all but name. 

I suppose that is why you have so many Americans risking life and limb to escape the oppressive regime and live in Canada and Norway?

I suggest that you go live in North Korea for a few years and reevaluate your opinion after that.

[Anomaly]

Unfortunately for many, we have a participative form of government.   People with differing opinions in what and how to do things get to participate.  As do you.   It's messy, contradictions are the norm, but certainly interesting.   Of course there will be people upset and disappointed.  

The challenge is how to constructively disagree and compromise while also participating.  Usually, Taxes pay for many things the majority want or is willing to tolerate.  

The US is not a dictatorship, which is why my family escaped from elsewhere to live here.

There are many good things that public money finances.  The problem with PP and abortion is that society sees it as healthcare for women and doesn't see a fetus as a person.  Change the non-entity status of the fetal person, you change the game. 

Roe v Wade recognized the right of privacy and personal integrity for women and balanced it against personal rights of fetuses, starting at assumed "viability".  The States have the power to legislate and enforce those principles.

This abortion issue wasn't just determined by Presidential or Judicial dictatorial decree.  It was lobbied and debated in the public forum and effected through the framework of our government institutions. 

No need to demonize past, current, or future Presidents. They're only a small part of the problem and solution within the larger framework of our government. Sorry, but the populi have to work over a period of time to participate positively and effectively.  The majority usually wins out. 

[Luigi]

"The majority usually wins out. "

Thirty-eight states voted, by a majority plebiscite, to define marriage as between one man and one woman. A few federal courts overturned the majority votes of thirty-eight states. The courts dictated to the populi.

The federal Department of Education sent out a Deaf Colleague notification (http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/pregnancy.pdf) three years ago requiring that pregnant and parenting students be given special treatment in high school and college classes (no points off for absences due to doctor's appointments for the mother, the father, or the baby, or absence due to nursing; provide room for students to nurse their babies on campus; no points off for submitting work late; lots of other stuff). The Department of Education is dictating to educational institutions that are supposedly locally-controlled.

The federal government has placed thousands of immigrants in cities and towns across America without asking the local residents - St. Cloud, MN is a clear example. They simply "placed" the immigrants there. The federal government dictated to the populi.

 Obamacare "requires" all citizens to buy insurance. If you don't buy it, the federal government fines you. This bill did receive Congressional approval, on the "pass it and then we'll see what's it in" argument - what you might call Pig-in-a-Poke Legislation. In essence, the federal government dictated that.

Religious institutions which oppose abortion on religious grounds are nonetheless required by the federal government to provide birth control and abortion coverage in the insurance packages they offer their employees. A consortium of religious organizations is currently fighting that dictate in the court system.

The list is actually quite endless.

[Anomaly]

I didn't say it was perfect or easy and had "usually" as a qualifier.   The President did not dictate those things, nor can the new President rescind them by decree nor are they completely arbitrary. 

You can't have states say that black men can only marry black women.  The states can choose or not to enforce immigration laws nor is border control with other countries solely the responsibility of the particular border state.  Nor can religious choice allow you to choose not to provide medical care to children.   

It's messy and there are conflicting opinions about how to apply principles and effects of certain laws.  Just like all institutions, including the Catholic Church.