Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Oct 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: I'm not twisting anything. Let's review... The Constitution's intent is th...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

I'm not twisting anything. Let's review...

The Constitution's intent is that it applies to the United States, and doesn't purport to have jurisdiction anywhere else.

You state that the moral basis of the Constitution is in natural law.

You also stated that "logical application of natural law is that it is universal," and this is the point on which you criticized Ron Paul's position as being at odds with both the Constitution and natural law.

However, the Constitution isn't universal, so by your own previous logic even it isn't in line with natural law. The Constitution does not apply "to all jurisdictions by its very nature," as you stated natural law does.

In your last post, you back-peddle a bit and now claim that only the "logic" of natural law is applied to the Constitution. Fair enough, but that would now make the Constitution a prudential application of natural law rather than some sort of Platonic form of natural law. In this case, you have no basis to criticize Ron Paul, since he's standing by the practical application of the Constitution as it was written.
--hide--


I didn't back peddle at all. My position is solid and in the same place. You chased your own tail and came up empty, Charles. That's what happens when you attempt to defend something indefensible: you resort to twists on words rather than application of the rationale.

Ron Paul should know better than anyone that the constitution, and the intent of the framers of the constitution, as demonstrated by the arguments they made, and the laws in place at the time of our country's origin, were against abortion. If you studied it, you would know it too.

LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new
(Quote) Tom-169708 said: I didn't back peddle at all. My position is solid and in the same place. You chased your own tail and...
(Quote) Tom-169708 said:



I didn't back peddle at all. My position is solid and in the same place. You chased your own tail and came up empty, Charles. That's what happens when you attempt to defend something indefensible: you resort to twists on words rather than application of the rationale.

Ron Paul should know better than anyone that the constitution, and the intent of the framers of the constitution, as demonstrated by the arguments they made, and the laws in place at the time of our country's origin, were against abortion. If you studied it, you would know it too.

--hide--


You're trying to conflate two different things into one. The first being what the founders own beliefs were, and the second being which laws the founders delegated in the Constitution verses leaving at the state level. Only the things expressly delegated in the Constitution were left to the federal government (abortion not being one of them), and all else to the states. Presumably, the founders were all also against murder, yet they didn't include jurisdiction over murder anywhere in the Constitution. Murder has always been handled by the states. Presumably, they were against robbery, yet they didn't include any jurisdiction over robbery anywhere in the Constitution. Robbery has always been handled by the states. And on and on...

In your world, what was the point of the 10th Amendment?
LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Jim-624621 said: Charles, Here are the only VIABLE choices we face on November 6th:....1) Vote for ...
(Quote) Jim-624621 said:

Charles,

Here are the only VIABLE choices we face on November 6th:

....1) Vote for Obama.

....2) Don't vote.

....3) Vote for Romney.
--hide--




Good ol' "Chinese Menu" democracy:

One from Column A or one from Column B. (with #6 you get eggroll)

Then again, this nation is a Republic, not a Democracy, which is not surprising,
given it was essentially started as an exercise in venture capital.

LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Charles-512043 said: You're trying to conflate two different things into one. The first being what the founders...
(Quote) Charles-512043 said:

You're trying to conflate two different things into one. The first being what the founders own beliefs were, and the second being which laws the founders delegated in the Constitution verses leaving at the state level. Only the things expressly delegated in the Constitution were left to the federal government (abortion not being one of them), and all else to the states. Presumably, the founders were all also against murder, yet they didn't include jurisdiction over murder anywhere in the Constitution. Murder has always been handled by the states. Presumably, they were against robbery, yet they didn't include any jurisdiction over robbery anywhere in the Constitution. Robbery has always been handled by the states. And on and on...

In your world, what was the point of the 10th Amendment?
--hide--

This argument falls flat on its face. Under the Constitution the Federal Government does have jurisdiction over murder and robbery on Federal property and the high seas, and when those actions are committed against Federal employees anywhere. And on all those matters has co-jurisdiction with the states in many instances. It also has jurisdiction on any crime or criminal when they cross state lines.

And since the beginning of the United States under the Constitution it has, in fact, had jurisdiction on those matters as I just indicated.

The Constitution says nothing about the Federal Government having jurisdiction over the operation of banking institutions. Yet because only the Federal government has authority, under the Constitution, to regulate money and the value thereof, it has the right to regulate banks.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the right to regulate commerce between the states; it follows that it has a right to regulate a business when that business's interest cross state lines.

It appears you fail to look at what follows naturally and of necessity from the words as written and insist that only the simple meaning of the words has sway.

Now if you want to argue that the Supreme Court has improperly allowed the Federal Government to take on more and more powers under the commerce clause and the health and welfare clause, I could agree with you. However, until the Court says no, that argument has no leg to stand on.

And that comes back to the crux of the whole discussion here, or at least one of them, refusing to vote or voting for someone who has no chance to win can deny one of the primary candidates the opportunity to name members of the Court who might be more conducive to the view of a more strict interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution.

And we are at one of those key points in our History. Whoever is elected this November will, in the next 4 years, name at least two Justices to the Court. Unless Obamacare is gutted within the next 4 years, it will become so entrenched that it will be virtually impossible to do anything about it afterward.

Just like Social Security and Medicare. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, they have been a ponzi scheme from day one. Any private person or entity that put together a scheme like these, would find themselves in Prison with Bernie Madoff (sp). Both programs should have been designed like any pension plan where the participants actually had ownership and not just a promise. You are too young to remember that when SS was passed the American people were promised that any payments they received from the program would never be taxed or means tested. That promise has been broken since before you were born.

And you can go down a list of many similar things. This election is that critical.

LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new
What we know about Obama....

www.youtube.com

Facts about Obama that you will never hear in the mainstream media.
LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new

(Quote) Paul-866591 said: (Quote) Charles-512043 said: You're trying to conflate two different t...
(Quote) Paul-866591 said:

Quote:
Charles-512043 said:

You're trying to conflate two different things into one. The first being what the founders own beliefs were, and the second being which laws the founders delegated in the Constitution verses leaving at the state level. Only the things expressly delegated in the Constitution were left to the federal government (abortion not being one of them), and all else to the states. Presumably, the founders were all also against murder, yet they didn't include jurisdiction over murder anywhere in the Constitution. Murder has always been handled by the states. Presumably, they were against robbery, yet they didn't include any jurisdiction over robbery anywhere in the Constitution. Robbery has always been handled by the states. And on and on...

In your world, what was the point of the 10th Amendment?

This argument falls flat on its face. Under the Constitution the Federal Government does have jurisdiction over murder and robbery on Federal property and the high seas, and when those actions are committed against Federal employees anywhere. And on all those matters has co-jurisdiction with the states in many instances. It also has jurisdiction on any crime or criminal when they cross state lines.

And since the beginning of the United States under the Constitution it has, in fact, had jurisdiction on those matters as I just indicated.

The Constitution says nothing about the Federal Government having jurisdiction over the operation of banking institutions. Yet because only the Federal government has authority, under the Constitution, to regulate money and the value thereof, it has the right to regulate banks.

Under the Constitution, Congress has the right to regulate commerce between the states; it follows that it has a right to regulate a business when that business's interest cross state lines.

It appears you fail to look at what follows naturally and of necessity from the words as written and insist that only the simple meaning of the words has sway.

Now if you want to argue that the Supreme Court has improperly allowed the Federal Government to take on more and more powers under the commerce clause and the health and welfare clause, I could agree with you. However, until the Court says no, that argument has no leg to stand on.

And that comes back to the crux of the whole discussion here, or at least one of them, refusing to vote or voting for someone who has no chance to win can deny one of the primary candidates the opportunity to name members of the Court who might be more conducive to the view of a more strict interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution.

And we are at one of those key points in our History. Whoever is elected this November will, in the next 4 years, name at least two Justices to the Court. Unless Obamacare is gutted within the next 4 years, it will become so entrenched that it will be virtually impossible to do anything about it afterward.

Just like Social Security and Medicare. Despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, they have been a ponzi scheme from day one. Any private person or entity that put together a scheme like these, would find themselves in Prison with Bernie Madoff (sp). Both programs should have been designed like any pension plan where the participants actually had ownership and not just a promise. You are too young to remember that when SS was passed the American people were promised that any payments they received from the program would never be taxed or means tested. That promise has been broken since before you were born.

And you can go down a list of many similar things. This election is that critical.

--hide--



Well stated Paul! You get a Gold Star!

And Charles, you are ignoring what I said. I didn't conflate anything, but stated the founders' intents. As Paul stated and even you conceded, states and federal laws existed (or soon came into existence) at the time. It certainly was the intent of the founding fathers for the federal government to make laws that did not cover situations the states themselves could/would not. For Ron Paul to oppose the legislation he did on the grounds that he did was contrary to that premise.


I have no intention of watching you take these points in circles anymore, Charles. You have a pattern of taking points far away from the issue at hand. I am satisfied in resting with the intent of the founding fathers. I believe it's regrettable and gravely flawed that people look back and misinterpret the constitution and either enact laws or abolish them based on flawed logic. Our nation suffers greatly for this reason, and innocent lives are aborted for this reason as well. Ron Paul was wrong in this case. And it plays favorably into the hands of Obama and any who continue to support the democrats evil platform stance on the abortion issue, regardless of whether the support is direct or indirect (active or, in your case, passive).


LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new

My response to Charles was not a judgement of Charles. I simply mirrored back to Charles the sentiments that he expressed in his previous email, as I interpreted it. I was commenting on the defeatist attitude contained within his message. I was displaying to Charles how his own comments were being received. I was commenting that this sort of attitude will not lead to a successful life. In what way was I judgemental?


Charles was the one who "responded with such negativity and hopelessness" (as you just wrote). I am trying to convey that responding to the current political choices with such negativity and hopelessness displays a defeatist attitude, and that will not improve anything. It will not be a successful tactic to improve the country, and it will not be a successful tactic for approaching any of life's issues. We must make the best of the choices that we do have. I believe that someone cannot seriously form the view that of all of the viable presidential candidates are equally bad. There are serious differences between them..... Really!? .... How can somewhat come to such a conclusion?


The majority of people in this world will never have the choices or freedoms that we now possess. If we don't exercise our freedoms and responsibilities to make our best choices (no matter the substantial flaws of each candidate), then they can most certainly be taken away. There are many examples of this happening throughout history. Many thousands of people have fought and died so that we will be free to vote in a free country. To not exercise that freedom and responsibility to vote is to disrespect all those who fought and died. To complain that the choices are not better, and to not vote because of this, is to also disrespect all those who fought and died.

Ed

LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new

(Quote) ED-20630 said: My response to Charles was not a judgement of Charles. I simply mirrored back to Charles the sentimen...
(Quote) ED-20630 said:

My response to Charles was not a judgement of Charles. I simply mirrored back to Charles the sentiments that he expressed in his previous email, as I interpreted it. I was commenting on the defeatist attitude contained within his message. I was displaying to Charles how his own comments were being received. I was commenting that this sort of attitude will not lead to a successful life. In what way was I judgemental?


Charles was the one who "responded with such negativity and hopelessness" (as you just wrote). I am trying to convey that responding to the current political choices with such negativity and hopelessness displays a defeatist attitude, and that will not improve anything. It will not be a successful tactic to improve the country, and it will not be a successful tactic for approaching any of life's issues. We must make the best of the choices that we do have. I believe that someone cannot seriously form the view that of all of the viable presidential candidates are equally bad. There are serious differences between them..... Really!? .... How can somewhat come to such a conclusion?


The majority of people in this world will never have the choices or freedoms that we now possess. If we don't exercise our freedoms and responsibilities to make our best choices (no matter the substantial flaws of each candidate), then they can most certainly be taken away. There are many examples of this happening throughout history. Many thousands of people have fought and died so that we will be free to vote in a free country. To not exercise that freedom and responsibility to vote is to disrespect all those who fought and died. To complain that the choices are not better, and to not vote because of this, is to also disrespect all those who fought and died.

Ed

--hide--

Well said ED!

Unfortunately, Jesus Christ is not running personally as a candidate in this election.

Until he does, we will always have to choose between flawed human beings.



LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new

If Jesus Christ were running as a presidential candidate.... Can you just imagine the negative TV ads against Him? And if people could not find fault with Him, they would say that he appears so perfect that He must have skeletons in His closet.


Ed

LOCKED
Oct 13th 2012 new

I was just chastisedfor stating on the prayers for Romney site. That I was from Massachusetts and lived through the devastation Romney created it could have been worse. I am glad I became aware of this site. If any one wants examples I will be happy to respond. Medicaid reform under Romney listed Prosthetic device as a luxury.

LOCKED
Posts 111 - 120 of 200