The myth of the "pro-life" Democrat

[sirs]

Add deflection to misrpresentation now

[BT]

And still no constitutional reference to back up your assertion. Must be that living breathing document school of thought.

[sirs]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[BT]

So you equate defense with protection?

And you equate securing the blessings of liberty with protection.

I guess that would qualify as a liberal interpretation.

Thank goodness for the second amendment so we can throw the rascals out if they don't take this protection thing seriously.

[sirs]

I equate protection with protection.  Simple as that.  How the hell you think protection isn't defense & vice versa....well, perhaps ignorance?  When one protects their home, they're not defending it??

[BT]

Speaking of ignorance.

You quote the preamble to the constitution as your proof of the codification of this alleged primary function of government to protect its citizens yet the preamble has no legal significance per SCOTUS

In terms of the Preamble to the Constitution, however, Jacobson v. Massachusetts had a different effect. The Preamble does not have any legal power within the Constitution; it is an introduction to the document as a whole and does not, in and of itself, allow the exercise of any kind of legal power. This was confirmed and established in the Syllabus of the decision for Jacobson V. Massachusetts. The syllabus opened up with a statement on the fact that the Preamble did not confer any powers to the Government or to citizens, and the only power that can arise from the Constitution must come from elsewhere, not the Preamble.

http://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905

So is there an article of the constitution that enumerates this power you allege?

[Plane]

Abortions are not murders.

Are too!



I think your debate skills are improveing.

[Plane]

Speaking of ignorance.

You quote the preamble to the constitution as your proof of the codification of this alleged primary function of government to protect its citizens yet the preamble has no legal significance per SCOTUS

In terms of the Preamble to the Constitution, however, Jacobson v. Massachusetts had a different effect. The Preamble does not have any legal power within the Constitution; it is an introduction to the document as a whole and does not, in and of itself, allow the exercise of any kind of legal power. This was confirmed and established in the Syllabus of the decision for Jacobson V. Massachusetts. The syllabus opened up with a statement on the fact that the Preamble did not confer any powers to the Government or to citizens, and the only power that can arise from the Constitution must come from elsewhere, not the Preamble.

http://constitution.laws.com/preamble/jacobson-v-massachusetts-1905

So is there an article of the constitution that enumerates this power you allege?

The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.

The government does promise police protection, but not proactively in all cases!

Retroactive protection is supposed to be a deterant before the deed , and when it works it works. Too bad there is nothing we can do that will work much better. Most murders are defined and punished in State law, not federal anyway.

[BT]

The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.

One would expect a primary function of government to be codified in one of the articles of the constitution. Not vaguely, and subject to wide interpretation, in the introduction.

[Plane]

The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.

One would expect a primary function of government to be codified in one of the articles of the constitution. Not vaguely, and subject to wide interpretation, in the introduction.

     No as far as I know the broud purpose of the document and the government it establishes is the Preamble , the articles get more technical and specific , but in the articles it does not say what the point of the whole thing is as it does in the Preamble.

      Laws contrary to the preamble might be perfectly workable as laws within the system , but the public support of such law could be attacked.

       I think you and I took the same oath to defend the constitution, do you remember saying "except" because I don't. The statement of purpose is important even if it isn't specific enough to stand alone as law.

[sirs]

The Preamble the the Cponstitution is the most read and best understood part in the public, this counts, it is the explanation of the purpose of the rest of the document , the rest of it gets more technical and usefull to lawyers , but the preamble helps earn the consent of the governed, this really counts.

The government does promise police protection, but not proactively in all cases!

Retroactive protection is supposed to be a deterant before the deed , and when it works it works. Too bad there is nothing we can do that will work much better. Most murders are defined and punished in State law, not federal anyway.

*golf clap*  Someone who actually gets it

[BT]

     No as far as I know the broud purpose of the document and the government it establishes is the Preamble , the articles get more technical and specific , but in the articles it does not say what the point of the whole thing is as it does in the Preamble.

The preamble has no legal significance per scotus. But lets say they and i am wrong.

How could any conservative with an ounce of respect for the founding fathers and their desire to protect the citizenry and promote the general welfare have the nerve to say Obamacare is unconstitutional, when the authority of the preamble clearly says it is.

[sirs]

Clearly....it doesn't.  Promote is NOT Provide

[BT]

Clearly....it doesn't.  Promote is NOT Provide

And provide for the common defense is not protect individual citizens, viable or not.

[sirs]

Defense is protection....as best as the Government can provide.  Especially those who can't