SwiftVets.com

hleone · Seaman Apprentice Joined: 07 Aug 2004 Posts: 81

When asked about Roe v. Wade last night, President Bush said he would appoint Supreme Court judges who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution, no litmus test on abortion or anything else.

Then Kerry said:

Anker-Klanker · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:19 pm Post subject:

Kerry's words from the 2nd debate:

CTW · Rear Admiral Joined: 10 Sep 2004 Posts: 691

Make no mistake Kerry is all for the courts and lawyers telling us what our rights are. He does not put the Constitution first.
He does not understand or believe that our rights and feedoms are God given and that We the People give our representatives Their rights to over see the country.
He wants to be KING not president.

Know why you are a liberal or a conservative.

This is a major difference in liberal and conservatives. This is so serious and many people don't have a clue to the consequences. CTW

Never Ever Kerry

92g · Seaman Recruit Joined: 08 Sep 2004 Posts: 15

This is an excellent point. I often make the case that Kerry, and liberals in general, are not fit for Federal Office because they cannot take an oath to defend the Constitution, with full intent to subvert it by means of appointing activiates judges that legislate from the bench at the same time.

That comment really stuck in my craw.

Terry

scotty61 · LCDR Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 419 Location: Glyndon MN

I said this in another thread, but the Constitution is a document outlining the LIMITED powers that we the people give the government. The founding fathers were afraid of a strong central government so they added the Bill of Rights, outlining some but not all of our rights. The Constitution gives us nothing, through it we give certain powers to the government.

Judges who understand this are call strict constructionalist. Kerry wants judges who believe that rights are granted to the people by the government.

Thus we have a right to privacy even though it isn't found in the Constitution. The Supreme Court found that a woman has the right to an abortion even though it isn't found in the Constitution. The problem is does the fetus have rights, at what point does it accrue them and do they supercede the rights of the mother. This aspect of the issue creates the bone of contention with which we have to deal.

julsmith · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:18 am Post subject:

Notice at the third debate how Kerry used the word "allow" when he referred to not allowing Roe V. Wade to be overturned, he would not "allow" anyone to veto our security, he would "allow" us to buy Medicare early, and he will "allow" us to use his "planned" health care if we want, but don't have to, except he says we'll all want to buy into his "plan". What are we, children that need to be taken care of by Big Daddy up in Washington? Question

If he says he'll "allow" me to do something that's part of his "plan" one more time, I'm just going to turn off the TV and take a long walk in the rain.
Exclamation

rb325th · Admiral Joined: 21 Aug 2004 Posts: 1334

Keerys remark epitomises what is wrong wiht our Court System today. Instead of the Appeals Courts upholding the Constitution, they opt to reinterpet it.
There very few "Guaranteed Rights" in this Nation, the rest are all "entitlements" given by the Government. Unfortunately the Benches of the Courts are loaded with far left leaning Judges who Legislate from the Bench, and "Lawmakers" in State Houses and Congress who have abdicated their responsibility to these judges.
Look at the 9th "Circus" in California, the most overturned Court in the land. They deal in a huge number of cases there, because the attornies know where to file if they want a favorable decision. The fact most of those Decisions are overturned is no big deal, because they just got the attention they were looking for.
Yeah Kerry would be great for the far left, lousy for the rest of the moderates and conservatives of this Nation.
_________________
U.S. Army 1983-1995, 11C1P/11H2P NBTDT

rikkoshay · Seaman Recruit Joined: 22 Aug 2004 Posts: 37

rikkoshay · Seaman Recruit Joined: 22 Aug 2004 Posts: 37

George F. Thompson · Posted: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:10 am Post subject: Constitutional rights

If you would believe Kerry, all of the Supreme court decisions are infallible. It would appear the supreme court's decision on Dred Scott was a constitutional right in 1857 or perhaps the court was right in interning American citizens of Japanese ancestery in concentration camps during World War II. Perhaps the supreme courts judgement might be driven by what they percieve to be popular opinion or their abilility to impose their will on us. I believe they are a bunch of elitist's who think the average person needs their intellectual insights to guide us in the right direction. The supreme court in it's infintely more liberal slant always knows what's best for us and will do for us, what they think we are incapable of doing for ourselves. It's a matter of attitude, just like Clinton, the reason they do what they want to do, is because they can. As for Roe v Wade, even though the majority of Americans disagree with there decision, it will be a cold day in hell before it's overturned.

George F. Thompson