Kerry is looking good

Re: Amnesty

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2004/jan04/psrjan04.html

Kerry didn't look like a pumpkin or a ghost tonight. His makeup artist finally got it right.

 

You really should post the rest of his statement where he says that marriage should be between one man and one woman and he supported a Constitutional ammendment that said so because he was afraid of activist judges shoving the the gay rights agenda down the throats of everyone in America.</font>[/QUOTE]As did Kerry say that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Bush supports a Federal Marriage Amendment that has died in both the House and the Senate, and will never pass. Both Bush and Kerry support "civil unions" with full benefits.

And Peroutka will wave his magical Constitutional wand and poof, no more abortions in America. </font>[/QUOTE]Peroutka may not have a magic wand, but he would treat abortion as the American holocaust that it is, and not just a small social issue that we need to reduce, and only speak about during presidential debates.

Funny. I thought the CPer's were wanting a supreme court that interprets the Constitution and not legistlate from the bench. Which is it, guys? Do you wants judges who will interpret the Constitution, or do you want a litmus test for judges who will legistlate from the bench?

Joseph Botwinick </font>[/QUOTE]We want judges that will interpret the Constitution, and will acknowledge that the Constitution's 5th Amendment should protect the life of the unborn child.

Bush has nominated and appointed both pro-life and pro-abortion judges, both as Govenor of Texas and as President.

 

Gina, I think the term "amnesty" came into play back when (1986, I think it was) President Ronald Reagan granted "amnesty" to several million illegal aliens who were here in the US at the time. That's where the broad definition came from, if not mistaken, and it seemed to stick. Someone correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

Flip Flop. You want an activist judicial system. I am not saying that is a bad thing in this case (because, of course, I agree with you on this issue), but let's at least be honest about what we want.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No, an activist judge will twist the Constitution to create new law, or create new rights. A good judge will interpret the Constitution as it is written, regardless of what the majority of America wants.

 

He must not have seen this news story today:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/32/2351.html

 

You see, but there is really the problem. Not all judges interpret the Constitution to say that abortion should be illegal and there is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that. Only if you have a litmus test will you get a judge who will rule the way you want them to (legistlate from the bench). I am not necessarily against this, but let's be honest. We want someone who will be an activist judge to throw our interpretation into the Constitution.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The Constitution says that all life will be protected, God says that life begins at conception. A good judge will uphold the Constitution's protection of all life.

 

Not all judges agree that a fetus (the unborn baby) is a life. Further, there is nothing in the Constitution itself that defines a fetus as such. Therefore, you have to find an activist judge who will interpret it the way we want it interpreted if you are going to make that a litmus test. Again, I am not necessarily against that, but let's be honest about it.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Okay, I conceed I would support a litmus test that all judges acknowledge God and would support the 5th Amendment protection of all life. If you notice I put the fact that Bush is NOT using a litmus test in bold, he could have reached out to the pro-life crowd, but instead had to keep his pro-abortion supporters happy.

I don't consider using a litmus test that a judge will properly interpret the US Constitution, selecting activist judges. It's just selecting the type of judges our founders intended to be in the third branch of our government.

We have the judicial problems we have today, because of a lack of Constitutional litmus tests being used when selecting the judges we have across the country.

 

Tanslation: Properly interpret = Interpreting it the way I want it interpreted.

selecting activist judges. It's just selecting the type of judges our founders intended to be in the third branch of our government.[/QUOTE]

Admittedly, I have not read everything the founding fathers have to say. But, can you find for me where the founding fathers ever specifically mentioned the unborn fetus in relation to the 5th or any ammendment.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Their are three documents our nation was founded on, The Declaration of Independence, the US Constititon and the Bible. God says that the unborn child is a life, the founding fathers wrote our nations founding documents based on God's Word. I'm sure they would have acknowledge that the unborn child was a precious life, formed by God in the mother's womb, and that life was to be protected.

 

Can you prove that the Constitution was founded on the Bible. I seem to have a problem with a few of its provisions for slave trade. But, perhaps, I am just not interpreting it properly.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Do you have a problem with Paul telling slaves to obey their masters in the Bible. What about the issue of polygamy, do you have a problem with "heros of the faith" having multiple wives in the Bible, I believe some of them may have had slaves or servants as well.

There are some issues from history that are hard for us to comprehend in our modern times. I agree, as did many of the founders that slavery was wrong, but I can't judge them, or those in the Bible, based on my modern day understanding.

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

The Declaration of Independence appeals to God no less than three times. Four to those who can see His Name in the phrase "protection of divine providence". Five to those who can admit the phrase "created equal" means created by God, not evolved from chaos.

"The Jubilee of the Constitution" by John Quincy Adams explains the Constitution as dependent upon the virtues proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. That's why the Ten Commandments are inscribed in stone on the Supreme Court building. Those men saw the law of God as the basis of all law for all men always, never to be changed!

The Supreme Court declared in 1897, the Constitution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Hear the words of the preamble, a Constitution for "ourselves and our Posterity."

Posterity = unborn.

 

The Washington Times summed up the third debate very well....

The presidential contenders last night provided a prime-time rerun of their previous encounters, trading scripted barbs, citing competing statistics and basically calling one another a liar in their third and final debate.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041014-121508-7191r.htm

 

The rate of pay of security guards working for Pinkerton and other similar companies that guard our nations defense plants, including those plants working on top-secret projects, is close to and proportional to the minimum wage, and these guards receive no paid health insurance. For such people, a blown head gasket in the engine of their only car or a sick child needing to see a doctor can be immediately devastating, and therefore these people are extremely vulnerable to temptation to procure additional income at the risk of the security of the United States. Bush knows all about this, but he would rather be able to buy a BigMac for $2.49 instead of $2.69 than raise the minimum wage to protect the country that he and his family lives in. From my point of view, the United States is worth at least twenty cents, and maybe a whole quarter!

The Bible says that a man is worth of his hire. Every legal resident in the United States has a basic human right of a wage that he or she can live on and a basic human right to health care. The United States in the ONLY industrial country in the entire world that denies that health care is a basic human right. A minimum wage of $5.15 an hour is NOT enough to pay for housing, food, and clothing, let alone a safe automobile to drive and health insurance. Bush says that education is the answer, but how is a college degree going to pay for health insurance for those people who work at fast-food restaurants, Wal-Mart, theaters, security companies, etc., etc. Bush suggests that all Americans should go to at least a community college and get a high-paid job. Who does he think will then make the BigMacs, work at the Wal-Mart stores, theaters, security companies, etc., etc.
The answer is that his doesn’t think—not past first base, and in Bush’s plan, there are no homeruns.

Kerry is a creep, but at least we will be able to eat our BigMacs knowing that the people who made them were fairly compensated for their work and Pinkerton Security guards won’t have to sell the United States to terrorists so that their sick child can be treated by a doctor.

 

Where is the "none of the above" block?

The last debate was another session of mostly unverifiable point-counter point half-truths from the "rich and famous." Both candidates seem a bit "counterfeit."

We have a moral decay in this country which is bigger than any one person can resolve. It is a grassroots situation which cannot be remedied at the Whitehouse--but rather at the throne of grace--in real repentence towards God rather than ourselves.
We need to "flush" everything inside the beltway --including the special interest lobbyists. No I am not an anarchist--we could do it at the polls--if we would.

See you at the polls.

Bro. James

[ October 14, 2004, 07:01 AM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]

 

Their ties were similar, too.