drbrumley
Well-known member
Did you say something?
toldailytopic: Barack Hussein Obama. Will he serve another 4 year term? Or will he be
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Did you say something?
The Graphite
New member
Uhm.... what? When did I say that? I was asking a True or False question.
True or false: a state has the right (biblically or constitutionally) to decriminalize murder.
elohiym
Well-known member
That doesn't mean murder is decriminalized in those states.
Any law repugnant to the constitution is void. Marbury v. Madison.
People are just too dumb to realize that abortion is already illegal in the U.S.
The Roe v. Wade decision addressed personhood. The Court's opinion was that if a fetus was declared a person by law, then abortion would indeed be illegal.
Since that time, both state and federal law has defined an unborn child at any stage of development as a person.
Roe v. Wade is bad law and void...NOW. People need to wake up to that fact.
WizardofOz
New member
Would you support a worldwide ban on abortion mandated by the United Nations or some other global government? Why or why not?
elohiym
Well-known member
Unequivocally false.
Oh no... it's Sozo
New member
You said:
A state does have the right to decriminalize murder.
As you said:
The Graphite
New member
AMEN!
Because the federal Constitution overrules states in this regard, but more importantly, God's law supercedes all federal laws!
CALVARY\CALVIN
New member
im lost in this confusing maze; my feeble mind feels like jello in outer space.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Wait a minute. You believe abortion is legal, right now. At the Federal level. Do you not?
The Graphite
New member
Let's not equivocate. On paper, they have "decriminalized" murder at both state and federal levels.
However, no government at any level has the authority (much less the "right") to do so. Such laws are lawless and invalid. We rightly held not only gov't officials but even lawyers and judges accountable to charges of murder at the Nuremberg Trials. We sentenced men to life in prison or even death for ... what? For upholding the law, following legal precedent and acceding to the authority of the higher court.
What those judges should have done was rule that killing an innocent Jew is murder, and anyone who does it is guilty of murder. And if they lose their job, so be it. If they are arrested, so be it. If they are executed, so be it. That is what you do if you are a judge. You don't say "Well, the law says you can kill a Jew just for being a Jew, so I'm going to rule based on that." As a judge, you have no authority to do that, and you should be held accountable on earth (as we did at Nuremberg) and you will be held accountable before God on the day of your judgment.
Abortion is murder. The legal prohibition of murder is mandatory under the 5th and 14th amendments of the Constitution. Any law or ruling that contradicts that is invalid. But we do live in a nation where, on paper, they have made these invalid laws where they have endeavored to legalize murder at the state and federal level.
Sozo, your logic is bizarre. You argue that just because someone does something, that proves logically that they have a right to do so. If I kill an innocent person, does that prove I have a right to do so? Obviously not. How, then, do you logically conclude that if a state passes a law saying that some kinds of murder are legal, that this somehow proves that they have the authority or the "right" to do so? Just because they did it doesn't mean they have a right to.
Btw, I'm still eagerly waiting for someone to point to the section in the Constitution that refers to the "rights" of states.
The Graphite
New member
No. Please pay attention.
Any law (or ruling) that contradicts God's law (first) and the U.S. Constitution (second) is invalid and not worth the paper it's printed on.
- Abortion is murder. TRUE.
- The Constitution mandates that murder cannot be decriminalized. TRUE.
NO PERSON shall be deprived of life without due process of law. (ie. by being convicted as a criminal.)
I just have to point out that the people you are referring to voted for Alan Keyes in the last election. Do you know who that is?
PlastikBuddha
New member
Too early to tell. 3 years is an eternity in politics.
drbrumley
Well-known member
So Graphite agrees with Lincoln that "no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union." What a crock! Again, when the term "states rights" are used, it refers to the people of certain real estate. The Constitution doesn't have to say explicitly "states rights." The facts are evident from our founding that the respective nations (namely the colonies) formed the United States. Here is the peace treaty from the Revolutionary War:
"That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do" (emphasis in original).
It is plain and obvious what is meant in this Declaration.
So when did the States stop being FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES Graphite? When?
The United States Constitution is a treaty. It was ratified as such. The Constitution would have never passed the nation/states if the 9th and 10th amendments were not inserted.
Memento Mori
New member
:rotfl:
drbrumley
Well-known member
Why is that funny?
I never understood that argument. :nono: What does scripture have to do with the power structure of our country? If you keep that argument going then we should just have a world government, right? :idunno:
Memento Mori
New member
What? You don't like due process, equal protection, or extending citizenship?
Or are you just angry over the way the Confederacy was treated?
- Status