Remember! SCOTUS has ruled that ALL laws repugnant to the Constitution are automatically NULL AND VOID! Make this go viral!
(media.patriots.win)
W W G 1 W G A
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Thank you for posting this. With Crazy Bernie and other Dems running around parroting “codify Roe” there are people who might believe it is possible. A law that codifies Roe is just as repugnant to the Constitution as Roe.
Whatever codify Roe actually means. I don't know what that might be.
Well, cod roe (mentaiko) is used in many Japanese recipes, including some rather delicious Japanese-style pasta sauces. I'm all for cod roe. Codifying Roe, however, sounds like commie word salad.
Roe is already partly codified in the 10th amendment. The monstrosity the SCOTUS made is ..... repugnant.
5th Amendment protects the life of all innocent persons, including the unborn. The 14th Amendment incorporated this right against states passing/enforcing any law that aimed to deny said right. In accordance with the provision in the 14th for Congress to make law necessary for its enforcement, federal statute (Unborn Victims of Violence Act 2003) codified the protection of the unborn. The abortion exemption of section (c) will be voided once SCOTUS overturns the Roe Court claim that abortion is a "constitutional right", as the exemption only exists on the basis of the wrongly allegedly constitutional right of abortion.
Bye bye baby killers.
Let me preface this by a couple of remarks:
5th amendment is about criminal procedure where a capital punishment is meted out, and protects against double jeopardy ( state and federal)
Your reasoning would entail a prohibition on waging war for whatever reason, including a revolutionary war to abolish a government that has become detrimental to the rights of the people. Would you be on the receiving end of the abolishment?
I am sure you did not intend to argue such, yet that is where your warping of the reasoning comes down to.
And that's where you lost me. But alas, I'll respond to the subsequent drivel anyway...
There is no "care" involved to preserve the health of the unborn living, developing baby. An abortion procedure does the exact opposite. It terminates a life. This would be like calling "euthanasia" (assisted suicide) "healthcare."
Doctors told my mother she should have "terminated" me because of expected birth complications. Aside from being born extremely early and spending my first 2 weeks out of the womb hooked up to machines, I turned out just fine. As a survivor of a coerced abortion attempt, I'd have very much liked to have had my opinion on the value of MY life. Luckily my mother told my wannabe murderer to go fuck himself. Notice how the baby is never asked for their judgment on the decision whether or not they should be murdered. As to this general line of reasoning, it's utterly fallacious. So if you've never experienced _____ then you can't make a judgement on _____? I've never murdered nor have been murdered, so I can't make a judgement about murder? Haven't had kids yet, so that means I can't make a judgement about whether or not raping your daughter is ok? I've not gone sky diving before, so that means I cannot make a judgement that it's incredibly risky? I've not eaten crayons before like you apparently have, so I can't make a judgement that crayons aren't intended to be consumed? Get that clown "logic" outta here...
Liberty is the freedom to do good, as differentiated from licentiousness, which is unrestrained, self-indulgence. For instance, you do not have the freedom or liberty to murder me, nor I you. Nor does any woman have the liberty to murder or give permission to murder her unborn baby.
Law literally exists for this purpose. Hence why for instance, theft and murder are outlawed. Why? Because they are immoral actions. Or should I be permitted to rob you, rape your wife and burn your house down with both of you still in it?
Says the guy who conflates liberty with licentiousness... I suggest you take your own advice.
It's about the protection of the rights of the accused. The taking of one's life against their will is only permissible in the instance of being duly tried and convicted for a capital crime. Abortion is a death sentence for an unborn child who is accused of the crime of merely existing.
Who, waging war against whom, and for what purpose? How does this reasoning that unborn persons are innocent persons, that their natural rights to life of are protected by the Constitution, require that war is never permissible? Non sequitur argument is fallacious.
The American Revolution was in the hearts and minds of the people and completely bloodless. The War of Independence was defense of the liberties of a free people. There's no such thing as a "revolutionary war." Abolish a government? No. Our form of government isn't the problem. Those wielding political power to undermine our government for evil, is the problem. I support any and all means of ethical resistance against tyrannical abuses, within the doctrine of the lesser magistrate framework.
Killing unborn babies is murder. If you support such crimes, you are complicit in evil and it would do your soul well to repent.
hahahahaha ...... man, can you write some more? You would be a good fit for not the head-in-my-ass-bee for being so blind. You do not even know what a non-sequitur is. Your post drips non-sequitur.
Life, is not protected by the Constitution. YOU protect life or you do not. And If there is one thing USA INC is not interested in life for its own sake. People are.
Yeah ... that got you wondering, for sure. You, and I for that matter, have a vested interest in life. Why? Because we are alive! And we decide how we go living. Not one amendment will tell you HOW to live, and neither does the CONSTITUTION. (capitallized because that is the name of the document). You are responsible for how you live. And whether that is virtuous as per the description of George Washington's farewell address of 1793 or not, that is for you to decide. And yes, in liberty indeed you may encounter people living and thinking in a way that is totally alien to you. Nonya business.
And it just so happens, that is the ruling of Roe v Wade. Although I have to add that it also introduces state interest making the woman a ward of the state, which is exactly against all liberty amendments. And that turned into the monstrosity you are concerned about.
Damn, hahahaha, it is quite fitting to repeat the question: How do you read? Not 5:5 but eh .... lot of your own bias.
And then, please, get your head out of your ass. If there is one country loving to wage war, and bomb people, it is the USA INC. Now, I am not saying that applies to you. Your choices may be different. I do hope you' re going to ask me for proof. In anticipation of that, read: War is a racket by Smedley Butler. Empire thanks to USA INC.
Try this link for size. https://fivebooks.com/best-books/american-imperialism-ag-hopkins/
It would behoove you to rail against the FED as they are single handedly responsible for facilitating it. IF, the USA INC had abided by the Constitution, which would cause only gold and silver to be money in use, you would not have seen Planned Parenthood, and neither would you have seen Billy Gates' s role.
So why do you support baby murder?
Why do you support bullshit?
Tirany has many forms. Yours is one form, as you still have to grasp the meaning of liberty.
You do remember the Declaration of Independence, do you not? Do you find yourself in agreement with it?
If so, your position towards another is simply one on an equal plane. Your views and sensibilities are just that: yours.
As I have said: the money machine has turned a perfectly sensibel idea into a monstrosity it has become. That money machine is the single item that allows all you see playing out.
The empire and the bull shit wars. The meddling in other countries and regime change, the crony form of capitalism, the morally depraved way people are used for profit and power, blackmail, the totally inept legislators, the omnibus bills and the sneaking in of laws that are repugnant to liberty, the mass immigration, the mass influx of drugs, the detoriation of the social fabric of society, the deverythingetoriation of the fabric of civil society die to forfeiture, foreclosure, government handouts, you see it always comes back to one issue: follow the money.
It is amazing how all these so called well intentioned measure always turn sour and cause effects detrimental to liberty.
A nation of laws is a corrupt nation. Liberty does not require laws, it requires virtue. That is why you hear Ron Paul often say: let's try liberty for a change. And he is branded as a cook.
It is the world inverted into Davy Jones Locker. It fosters the export of a culture that is decadent, corrupt, pernicious, unnatural.
As to the topic at hand, in Roe v Wade, which most people still refuse to read, it is clearly demonstrated the relationship between liberty and choice under common law. Failing to see that, is also denying the essence of what liberty actually is.
Does the choice belong to the fed-government? No. That would put the fed-government out of its bounds.
If we allow government to proscribe what should be the outcome of a personal choice, what you end up with is a government proscribing and forcing you to take the jab, or anything else really under the guise of State-interest.
It fosters the idea that government has a higher claim to your life, your energy, your thinking, your acting, instead of where these issues truly are and should be: with each individual. It fosters the idea that you need supervision. It fosters the idea that you are incapable. It fosters the idea that you ARE a person instead of a human. In essence, thát is at stake.
And depending on how the current constellation of the Scotus rules, and from what I have read, I am not very thrilled, it will destroy the last remnants of the free exercise of your rights.
I do however consider a reverting back to the states of the abortion issue as a matter now embedded with the fed government to be a good thing. The reasoning however, determines wether that is so.
See a previous post of mine on here regarding this issue and analysis of the Roe v Wade ruling. There you will find links to searchvoat with the corresponding posts.
So, instead of framing this issue like you do, I am looking at it from a totally different perspective, a higher perspective. The perspective from the highest authority, the highest jurisdiction on this Earth: the individual human.
And only thinking humans can make moral choices in line with the law of Nature.
Don't pay income tax, end up in prison, appeal to SCOTUS, they refuse to hear.
Many such cases.
Dump that crazy tax law too.
The 16th Amendment was never ratified. That's what the patriots say.
we're not under the law of the land, we are under emergency maritime law because there is no recognized court of law. the courts are all emergency admiralty courts with gold fringed admiralty flags. law of the sea.. BAR.. British Accreditation Registry. they serve the crown.
Good Luck fighting it in court... it'll cost you many thousands of dollars and years of legal mumbo jumbo. ~It'll cost them nothing.
Oh you extremist!!!
When thinking 'outside the box' one still needs to get it on paper. ___ Chariman Meow
Take a very close look at international treaties ..... these may totally invalidate the Constitution as they supersede the Constitution as per the Constitution of 1871.
Constitution of 1871???
Good morning. Your screen name reminds me of:
Wilst du bist der Tot euch scheidet treu sein zu allen Tagen .....
.......
NEIN!
Du hast - Rammstein.
Without further much a do, here is your primer:
Constitution of the United States of America
vs
CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Happy hunting!
A feel good post about this SC ruling. However the DS by its very nature is lawless and ignores any law or ruling if they can get away with it. AND they do this bc most people in the US are ignorant and asleep. Making this go viral does help wake up the sheep.
Definitely works for me!!
Carl Miller is my dewd!