Gosnell case

[racrguy]

Not convoluted at all. The document is clear. Prove to me, using the writings of the Founders, I'm wrong.

Fine, I'll even use your own post.

Once again, you're wrong. That "all cases" as in every time the Founders wrote federal authority, actually took the time to list what "all cases" mean and include.



The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Roe V Wade. Roe being Norma McCorvey, and Wade being Dallas DA Henry Wade. There was a law in Texas at the time that made it a crime to assist women in having an abortion. Thereby making it between the STATE AND THE CITIZENS THEREOF. It was also appealed up through the lower courts to reach the SCOTUS. More specifically, it was filed in the US District court in 1970, and reached the SCOUTS for an appeal the same year. Originally arguments were heard on December 13 1971, then REARGUED on October 11 1972, with a final decision January 22 1973.

You're merely taking the dissenting opinion of justices White and Rehnquist without fully understanding what you're talking about.


Go ahead and tell me again how they don't have authority.

I would also like to add that in 1989 Chief Justice Rehnquist upheld RvW in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, but did change the trimester framework a bit.

[564826]

No dude, it really is not. Further, your argument is so infantile, it's baffling. Jefferson's suit of clothes argument comes to mind when you put your ridiculous theses forward. You seem to be supremely unconcerned about the practicalities of government function, and solely concerned with making all scenarios fit your own personal legal constructs that are as arbitrary as they are imaginary. We aren't under secular sharia, Nebuchadnezzar. The laws of this country were intended to change with the society they serve, and so they do. Don't like it? Nut the fuck up, and deal with your own bad self.

Get the fu@k out of here with your sound reasoning and logic. This is DFWmustangs and we will have none of that.

[Forever_frost]

Not convoluted at all. The document is clear. Prove to me, using the writings of the Founders, I'm wrong.

[racrguy]

Ah but I did that for him. They lack constitutional authority, thus they have no authority

No, you didn't, either. You came up with some convoluted bullshit that only applies in your head, you cherry picked the constitution and you interpreted it in a manner not consistent with what the founding fathers said.

The constitution is not the bible. You can't pick and choose what applies and what doesn't.

[Forever_frost]

Seventy-two members of Congress on Wednesday sent letters to executives at three major networks — ABC, CBS, NBC — expressing outrage at their blatant avoidance of Kermit Gosnell’s grisly abortion trial.
Calling it a purposeful blackout, the legislators said they were “profoundly appalled” at the networks’ bias, The Daily Caller reported.
SEE RELATED: Liberal commentator admits the left is avoiding Kermit Gosnell trial to protect abortion rights
“The broadcasters’ blackout of the Planned Parenthood infanticide lobbying scandal and the Gosnell ‘House of Horrors’ murder trial are the biggest and most politically motivated media cover-ups in our nation’s history,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, as reported by The Daily Caller. “Censorship and media bias allows the corrupt abortion industry to profit at the expense of innocent women and children. The mainstream media has a responsibility to report the truth, not turn a blind eye to the biggest civil rights issue of our time.”
Witnesses at the trial have said that Mr. Gosnell instructed them on the best way to cut babies’ necks to ensure death. Mr. Gosnell is charged with killing seven babies and one adult woman, and testimony as his trial enters its fifth week has been gruesome at times.
The lawmakers also wrote, The Daily Caller reported: “Surely … [the details of the trial] meet your threshold criteria for a national news segment. Yet, despite this obvious fact, coverage of these stories has eluded your news divisions. … We see no excuse for your failure to report these stories other than blatant media bias.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2QsFTeFeP
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Forever_frost]

Ah but I did that for him. They lack constitutional authority, thus they have no authority

[racrguy]

Answer me this racrguy . If you're the president of the US, and previously a constitutional lawyer, and you wanted to pass something that you had no authority to get passed by Supreme court judges , would you or would you NOT call it something else like a TAX INSTEAD ?

SEEMS LIKE PPL A FUCK LOAD SMARTER THAN YOU HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION!

now go back to your libtardedness and 'choice' in murder. You have no fucking rebuttal for that , because you are WRONG

Just like you are wrong about roe vs wade , the authority the supreme court did not have on this, and numerous scholars have debated this for decades. It just seems like you are hella late to the game

I think you've got me, and my positions confused. You should keep track of the stances of people you're questioning before you attempt to form a straw man, or say that I'm wrong before I even answer a question. You keep screaming they didn't have authority, yet have offered no explanation as to why they didn't. I await your explanation. Try not to get spittle all over your keyboard. It tends to make a mess and short out electronic devices, it's already hard enough to decipher your incoherent ramblings.

[futant]

Answer me this racrguy . If you're the president of the US, and previously a constitutional lawyer, and you wanted to pass something that you had no authority to get passed by Supreme court judges , would you or would you NOT call it something else like a TAX INSTEAD ?

SEEMS LIKE PPL A FUCK LOAD SMARTER THAN YOU HAVE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT QUESTION!

now go back to your libtardedness and 'choice' in murder. You have no fucking rebuttal for that , because you are WRONG

Just like you are wrong about roe vs wade , the authority the supreme court did not have on this, and numerous scholars have debated this for decades. It just seems like you are hella late to the game

[Forever_frost]

Yep, when you have nothing to contribute, nothing to back up your point of view, out comes the pictures. Predictable as Obama bitching

[Forever_frost]

NO NO NO
they have limited powers they were vested.
when they decided they had powers that were not explicitly defined, they were working outside the law of the land.

You can't just hear cases you have NO FUCKING AUTHORITY ON.
This so reminds me of some asshats craming through a bill about healthcare, then calling it a tax, and just basically deciding it's going to be a law.

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. You can even call things like government healthcare a tax. You can even try to enforce it later. But it doesn't mean you ever had the authority to do so. EVER.
They have continuously tried to assert more authority where there isn't any, and never has been. An amendment is required in that case, and they have indisputably side stepped that process on purpose. AM I RIGHT ? that is what happened, and that is what is still CURRENTLY HAPPENING.

You can say that the milk is already spilled , but it doesn't make it legally right or the fight over.

Good to see someone gets it

[racrguy]

NO NO NO
they have limited powers they were vested.
when they decided they had powers that were not explicitly defined, they were working outside the law of the land.

You can't just hear cases you have NO FUCKING AUTHORITY ON.
This so reminds me of some asshats craming through a bill about healthcare, then calling it a tax, and just basically deciding it's going to be a law.

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. You can even call things like government healthcare a tax. You can even try to enforce it later. But it doesn't mean you ever had the authority to do so. EVER.
They have continuously tried to assert more authority where there isn't any, and never has been. An amendment is required in that case, and they have indisputably side stepped that process on purpose. AM I RIGHT ? that is what happened, and that is what is still CURRENTLY HAPPENING.

You can say that the milk is already spilled , but it doesn't make it legally right or the fight over.

[futant]

You just ignored everything he said....

NO NO NO
they have limited powers they were vested.
when they decided they had powers that were not explicitly defined, they were working outside the law of the land.

You can't just hear cases you have NO FUCKING AUTHORITY ON.
This so reminds me of some asshats craming through a bill about healthcare, then calling it a tax, and just basically deciding it's going to be a law.

You can believe whatever the fuck you want. You can even call things like government healthcare a tax. You can even try to enforce it later. But it doesn't mean you ever had the authority to do so. EVER.
They have continuously tried to assert more authority where there isn't any, and never has been. An amendment is required in that case, and they have indisputably side stepped that process on purpose. AM I RIGHT ? that is what happened, and that is what is still CURRENTLY HAPPENING.

You can say that the milk is already spilled , but it doesn't make it legally right or the fight over.

[exlude]

But a would be perp has the same choice

Seriously? There are plenty of legitimate arguments and that's what you go with?

[Sean88gt]

I have not read this entire thread. I'll catch up in the morning on the plane.

I do have a question though:


Why is a fetus considered disposable, not alive, un-viable, etc when it's an abortion case but it's considered a living person when the mother dies also?




So violence at the hand of a vacuum and scissor wielding dr ≠ violence at the hand of a mugger with a knife or gun? Somehow a life is less valuable when a mother wishes to discard it?


Forgive any insinuation in the wording of my question... it's a serious question and a serious double standard that bothers me regardless of anyone's stance on abortion.

It pays to jail someone.

[Tx Redneck]

That's the reason why one is murder and the other is not. Choice.

But a would be perp has the same "choice".

Reminds me of "Depends on what the definition of is is."

Saved and Texan by the Grace of God, Redneck by choice.