Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
After nearly two decades on the bench, Justice David Souter, widely regarded as a surprise liberal, will retire from the Supreme Court in the summer of 2009. The High Court can have an enormous influence on the everyday lives of Americans, so President Barack Obama's replacement for Souter will be one of the most important decisions of his presidency. Who should the next Supreme Court justice be, and what values should they protect and promote?
I love when the pro-abortionists claim that the opposition is anti-choice.
We offer many choices, from the simple "keep your legs closed" or "use protection" to the choice of adoption .
The only choice they are really concerned with is the killing of an innocent life, mostly for the selfish convience of the mother.
- Glock30Owner
May 30, 2009 12:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Conservative
Only a person can have rights. Potential humans do not have rights. My grandchildren do not have rights because I have not reproduced yet.
Switch it around to gun control . Here's your choice: Register, wait, recieve, be limited OR don't have a gun.
- quantummechanik May 31, 2009 1:54PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Liberal
Potential people do not have rights, this is true. That being said, a being that can think, react to the outside world, and is alive could be defined as a person, and arbitrarily setting a point in it's development such as birth where it gains access to rights seems a bit odd. The debate is hardly over.
Switch it around to gun control . Here's your choice: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, OR piss on the Constitution and face the wrath of We the People. If you choose to piss on the Constitution and come for my weapons, I will shoot you, I will burn you, I will blow you up. I will happily lay down my life for Liberty and bring as many tyrants as I can with me. Taking away our Constitutional rights in the name of safety will not be tolerated, be it disarmament or wiretapping.
- richardsonkr June 2, 2009 2:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
And not have a specific right to life.
"vI will blow you up. I will happily lay down my life for Liberty and bring as many tyrants as I can with me."
So...you're a suicide bomber?
- quantummechanik June 2, 2009 2:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Liberal
But, not all of those things are human.
No. I am not a suicide bomber. Suicide bombers by definition attack innocent people to achieve their goals. This clashes hilariously with someone who dies defending their rights from those who would come to take them away. The use of explosives does not necessarily mean terrorist.
- richardsonkr June 2, 2009 3:06PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
of a suicide bomber is someone who detonates an explosive with the intent to kill himself.
A terrorist is defined as a person who uses terrorism , the tactic of violence with the intent to cause terror for the purpose of exerting pressure on state bodies or other organizations.
And I'm glad you brought up rights, because to move back to the original topic, a fetus, if unwanted, certainly does violate the rights of the mother. You've already alluded to your willingness to kill to protect your rights--shouldn't women have that same option?
- quantummechanik June 3, 2009 12:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Liberal
History has shown that when individuals determine that the breaches against the Constitution made by the government have become so great that it is not only their right but their duty to attempt to supplant it, as per the Declaration of Independence, they invariably are killed. My willingness to die at the hands of government thugs while defending liberty does not express a desire to blow myself up. If they come to take away my rights, starting with the Second Amendment, I will fight. My willingness to use explosives does not mean I am a suicide bomber, it means I am willing to fight my hardest for Liberty even though I know the outcome will be failure and death.
The difference between killing armed thugs coming to take away what is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and killing an innocent child that has been planted in your womb, 99% of the time due to your own irresponsibility is a large one. I would never go out and attack people because of a perceived injustice, but I would defend myself if they came knocking on my door. The fetus/child whatever the hell you want to call it did not attack you. It simply exists. It has not justified its extermination. It did not hold a gun to your head and scream "bear me!" It is the product of your own inability to avoid sex without the proper protection.
- richardsonkr June 3, 2009 6:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
My definition of pro-life is that the person is ALWAYS for life. Not just conveniently when it suits them. Are you a vegan/ vegetarian who opposes abortion , the death penalty , euthanasia in all forms, wars, etc? If not, then you are not really pro-life.
Anti-choice: This means that you are opposed to a woman being afforded the choice of having an abortion. You are limiting her choices, so you are anti-choice. Unless you fit the definition above, then you are only anti-choice. Not pro-life.
Yeah, let's think about your "choices"-
1) Keep your legs closed. Hmm...hope the rape victims get this message.
2) Use protection- besides abstaining from sex, no birth control method is 100% effective. I am sure that some women who get an abortion have had failed birth control. And also, most of the world won't abstain, so as much as I think that it would solve the whole abortion problem, it is not realistic.
3) Adoption- While I agree with you that this is a valid option, many women don't want to use it, and they should have the choice not to.
You act as though women who get abortions just think: "Hmm... What should I do today? Why don't I go get pregnant and then have an abortion? That sounds like fun!" I am sure it is not that simple. I would imagine that it is a heart wrenching experience that would change the woman permanently.
You also conveniently leave out the role of the man in your little abortion rant. What about the father who takes off after finding out that the woman is pregnant? Is he at fault for refusing to providing the woman who he knocked up with the opportunity to raise her child with a stable income or a safe home? Shouldn't he be forced to put a ring on her finger so that she isn't viewed as the town slut, and stigmatized as a single mother when she has the baby as you would like? Or is that asking too much from men?
- illusion June 10, 2009 12:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Liberal
Your post is the exact tactic I've seen liberal after liberal use. (I was shocked when our President openly mocked those opposed to his ideas - say what you want about our last President but he respected everyone's right to voice their opinion) Instead of debating the issues with facts or well thought out opinion you twist what the others say. Try to make them feel dumb or stupid and attack them.
Now on the issue of Abortion I guess it's simple. If you don't believe people are anything special, if you don't believe in God and that he created people to be something more than an animal. And instead think a random act caused non-living matter and gasses to collide and explode and form molten rocks and that one eventually cooled and spawned life and eventually man was created (just an evolved rock with no special purpose) then why not rip out the growing life form.
But why should some tell others how to live? That was your real issue - right? I think it's a very very sad thing when an abortion occurs. I would like to see it illegal because I do not believe being forced to carry a child to term destroys the mother - it may cause a lot of pain, heart ache, embarrasment and sometimes physical problems including death - oh yeah, so does abortions. But an abortion does destroy the child - every time.
Even if abortion is legal it should not undermine parental rights. If my daughter can't get breast implants or a tummy tuck without my permission why should they be able to get an abortion.
Another problem is with using Tax Payer money for the procedure. It shouldn't be my responsibility to pay for an entirely elective procedure for anyone.
So we need a Supreme Court Justice that is impartial and committed to obeying the constitution as it is written - and let congress make laws within the constitution. The Justice should refrane from making judgements that go along with popular opinion or Europe or what they think the country needs. If congress makes a law they hate but is in the constitution they must leave the law alone.
- free-speech-forever October 12, 2009 8:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
And instead think a random act caused non-living matter and gasses to collide and explode and form molten rocks and that one eventually cooled and spawned life and eventually man was created (just an evolved rock with no special purpose)
I guess that's supposed to be a jab at abiogenesis and evolution but neither theory says life came from a rock.
- Father Time November 11, 2009 11:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
What church and state wall do you refer? You are aware, although maybe not, that no where in the Constitution, is there a mention of the seperation of Church and State? Perhaps you are just being intellectually dishonest? The Constitution forbids the creation of a State sponsored or mandated religion , ie The Church of England. No one portion of the Constitution, other than the 2nd Amendment, is more incorrectly quoted and had it meaning expanded into unbelievable areas. Again the left shows it has no business being in a leadership position when it claims the 1st Amendment directs a seperation of Church and State.
- moby clarke May 30, 2009 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Conservative
James Madison, the main author of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, directly speaks in favor of the *total* separation of church and state . He speaks of the danger of religious intrusion into the affairs of the state. Separation is absolute FACT, as evidenced by Madison's words:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. " (Detached Memoranda)
"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)
I'll take the word of an expert any day over a theocracy apologist. And you can't get any more "expert" than the author of our founding documents.
- aveteran June 9, 2009 2:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Liberal
Yes, what you wrote is correct, yet you fail to understand the founders. They were not anti- religion , nor were they anti-God. In fact, they wanted God to be a part of every facet of society . What they did not want, and what you seem to miss, is they did not want a Theocrasy. They did not want a State, IE National, religion. They never envisioned the complete removal of God or religion from any segment of society, least of all, government. The founders were most all religious men and worshipped God reverently. What has happened today, due to liberals, is the complete removal of any overt "religiousness" from all aspects of public life in society. The founders are rolling over in their graves in shame and embarrassment at what a cesspool our society has become. One of my favorite quotes is "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." And really, theocracy apologist? Please.
- moby clarke June 9, 2009 11:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Conservative
People claiming that religion wasn't a big thing really underestimate the power of spirituality. It can literally control nations. Morals are a great thing and people are generally good natured. But religion turns ugly when words get twisted, or are planted in the historical text to condemn a heretical event. Yes, Christianity is in our past. So is atheism. So is paganism. The latter two have grown over the years. We have moved away from the one religion ruling over all. Society evolved for the better thanks to one simple thing -- freedom of religion. You can not have freedom of religion without one other thing -- a government free of direct religious direction. While I don't agree we need to dismantle anything historical, we shouldn't be aggressively promoting the Bible, the Commandments, or the hate mongering anti-gay nonsense that leads to violence. Keep that stuff between family and friends where it belongs. We don't need a Salem, Massachusetts known for a homosexual massacre. We don't need a violent extremist group aimed at killing gays, lesbians, or transgenders. We're better off without that reality. Remember, spirituality is powerful. Mix it with violence and you've got yourself a problem.
- Starlon June 12, 2009 6:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Those on "the right" want to deny rights to the people who do things they don't like. Those on "the left" feel the same about those whom they don't like. Only (REAL) libertarians support and defend ALL rights for EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE for ALL times. As long as your behavior is not harming any other person, no one has any authority to prohibit you from pursuing your happiness in whatever way you choose, no matter who may be offended.
- KentMcManigal May 27, 2009 11:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Other
What a strange, strange argument from Lambda! Across the board, Lambda openly advocates special interest groups and somehow equates this as being "freedom for all Americans". Would Lambda object if the best person for the job were a straight, white male, without AIDS ? That appears to be its position.
The simple fact of the matter is the Constitution is quite possibly the most unambiguous, plain language, body of law ever written. It should be virtually impossible for a competent Supreme Court to produce anything other than 9-0 decisions ON EVERY SINGLE CASE.
The problem isn't protecting the rights of special interests, but the court's power to chip away the rights of the people, one special interest group at a time, one split decision at a time. The end result is a never ending shift from liberty to tyranny as more power is usurped one split decision at a time.
Is there any reason a competent English professor, who knows the meaning of words, would not make an excellent Supreme Court justice, as opposed to an attorney, turned judge, who has made a name for themselves through handing down controversial decisions?
The only thing even vaguely mysterious about law is the perception that it's possible to interpret it more than one way. True justice never has more than one right answer. Injustice is the causing of harm to one who has done nothing to deserve harm. A court's sole duty is to balance injustice by finding that one right answer which will result in justice.
So forget the special interests, whether it's gay, racial, religious, or whatever. A justice with the ability to find the one right answer will automatically ensure the liberty of all Americans.
- Don Earl May 30, 2009 4:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Other
As a Christian and a American the only choice I see would be a libertarian.
We the people of the United States of America must not let any more of are freedoms to be taken away.And I dont care about your little likes and dont likes.We have choices in the USA and we must live with the choice's we make.And the American people made some bad choice's.
Lets give America back to the people.
As a JESUS loving conservative Christian I may not like your choices. But I would not want to take yours way.Just like I would not want my choices taken away.
- zman June 2, 2009 6:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
You hear: "Activist... Judge"
Translation: "Any judge that makes a judgement that is contrary to what I already believe should be the outcome of the case"
A judgement that sides with gay rights is not automatically "activism". 1st and 4th ammendments are the basis for granting gay rights... How is that not constitutional. It sounds to me like you just want a judge that will side with your religious demands. Oh but wait! We have a secular government that requires secular reasoning, so I guess your religious reasons don't freaking matter when trying to decide wether or not someone who doesn't agree with your religion should have rights your religion doesn't want them to have.
It's funny watching religious people pretend their bigotry is supported by the constitution . I mean seriously... you people are always overrulled because you can't seem to get over the fact that not everyone lives by the rules of your religion, or will ever submit themselves to it.
Thank you Mister Jefferson, for building such a beautiful wall!
- Rice klowN May 14, 2009 7:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(3)
Side: Liberal
Her stance on the 2nd amendment is what has me concerned. What's next? States can take our freedom of speech away too? That would thrill the Islamic regimes. You see they want it to be illegal for anyone to take the name of Islam in vein. It passed at the UN level. You can bet they're going to try and get it passed here in the states as well. But the theoretical aside, my rights to protect myself are not negotiable. Take that away I might as well end my life because I'm not going to jail for refusing to relinquish my rights to personal protection.
- Starlon June 11, 2009 4:53AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
Conservatives like to toss the term "activist judge" around whenever a well-educated, thoughtful and reasoned person looks at the constitution and the evidence and doesn't side with them.
Get this: the Supreme Court judges are supposed to be activist. They're at the top because they're reasoned and logical people and capable of interpreting what the Constitution does not tell us directly. As Lambda Legal pointed out, there was nothing in the Constitution explicit about segregation. It was the principles in it that guided the decisions to end it.
And the principles in the Constitution are unanimously in support of as much individual freedom as possible. That is undeniable.
- Blue Linchpin May 14, 2009 11:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Liberal
Every time some loon decides he (she) has the wisdom to decide what another person REALLY meant by writing some rules or regulations, anarchy is the result. Most people have never heard of the Federalist papers and fewer have read them. They give insight to what the authors wanted when they wrote the Constitution. The Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution because the founding fathers wanted ABSOLUTE assurances that the Federal government could NOT encroach on civil and moral rights that their creator gave them and that pre-dated the Constitution. (See Magna Carta.). Two-faced politicians and slimy judges have spent the last century doing everything they could to twist and distort these rights. Supreme court judges are NOT supposed to be activists, they are supposed to decide whether laws passed by congress are constitutional (checks and balances), and whether lower courts have ruled correctly on constitutional issues. The very thought that a judge leans one way or another is anathema to a justice system.
- Robb375 May 27, 2009 5:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
So we should go back to the way things were?
Take the vote away from women and put blacks back into slavery.
Notice they said Creator not God. The fight to restrict Gay rights is purely a religious one. For the government to step in and ban Gay marriage or otherwise restrict Gay rights plainly violates the 1st amendment as they are taking the side of specific religious groups over others who support Gay rights.
NO INTERPRETATION REQUIRED!
I think the whole opposition to Gay rights is just a scapegoat to scare parishioners into donating money and voting for church approved candidates. Money & Power is what it's all about.
Just listen to the crap they use to scare people:
Defence of marriage. If Gays are allowed to marry it will some how ruin all marriages. (They never explain how though)
Children will be taught in school how to be Gay. Really? Come on?
Churches will forced to perform same sex marriages. Not possible! Remember 1st Amendment.
God will visit his wrath upon America with hurricanes and earthquakes. Didn't happen in Canada and it's been six years since we've had same sex marriage .
Society will somehow break down and and the economy will fail. Oh wait that already happened under the Republicans. We're better off here in Canada with our Gay marriage. Society is still intact and the economy is not so bad as the US. (But let me thank GW et all. for having my pay cut in half. Good work there.)
Gay Agenda! The implied conspiracy that once they get their equal rights they will go on to do other things? Usually what the Gay Agenda is is left unspecified, But I've heard some real whacko stuff. Personally, I think the next step after equal rights is to throw one great party. Those guys can really throw a party. If you don't believe me come to Toronto first weekend in July for pride week. I'm going and I'm taking the wife and kids .
Anything in the above list sound like clear reasoned arguments or just fear mongering? Any supreme court justice that uses one of the above to deny rights to gays isn't worth their gavel.
- BCReason
May 27, 2009 10:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Liberal
My right to defend myself is there in the constitution but this activist judge doesn't view it that way. That's the kind of activism people are always talking about. The real deal.
- Starlon June 11, 2009 5:01AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
About 1 1/2 centuries ago the supreme court felt a black man was worth less than a white man. Today we know this is not true, but didn't someone had reinterpret the popular beliefs about the Constitution for this change to take place. Change did not just magically appear, someone had to think, propose,and approve it.
- oneoldman July 30, 2009 2:07PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Liberal
The best and brightest man won the job fair and square. Hats off to Obama. It is just too bad that the Bush Adminsitration left him with a mess that no single president could fix in two terms.
I would hate to see what destruction would be caused if McCain won the election . One thing is for sure, we would be at war with half dozen middle eastern countries if McCain or another Bush got in there.
You Go Obama, clean this place up
- hulkofaman August 23, 2009 3:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
The newly Hispanic justice appointed to the bench is just another poor choice made for America. I am so displeased with her appointment I can not even remember her name at this time "Mrs. Sonja".
I am only pushing fourty years old and for the past ten years I have been syaing that the biggest problem with America is our Supreme Court. I say this because the proof is in the pudding.
The final decisions of controversy rest with the Federal Supreme Court.
It is our Supreme Court that allowed foreigners to eliminate "God" from the public pledge of allegence.
It is our supreme court that allowed foreigners to stop the national anthem from being played at the beginning of every public school day.
It is our Supreme Court that allows tax dollars to educate illegal aliens.
It is our Supreme Court that says it would be unconstitutional to stop illegal aliens from getting welfare.
It is our supreme court that says the US Consitution must apply to illegal aliens.
It is our Supreme Courts that allowed restrictions on where and when a public entity can fly the American flag.
There is much more that is not coming to mind right now but we Americans need to wake up and realize that we are creating our own demise in this Country and it is being lead by the Supreme Court.
We have already destroyed the American values before putting a female hispanic justice in the Federal Supreme Court.
I love President Obamma and I thank god every day that MCCain was not voted in. I honestly think that Mr. Obama made a very poor decision here, but as stated above I honsetly believe that our own federal court system had caused so much destruction that it will not even matter at this point who replaces who on the bench.
The sad thing is that millions of Americans actually wonder 'how could this happen to this counrty? The really sad thing is that our Federal Supreme Court sold us to Mexico and other Countries and we as Americans have no say in who replaces them.
I have one question that most Americans really need to ask themselves everytime our courts alter our constitution at the request of foreigners.
What would Mexico, Middle Eastern Countries, China and japan say to an American if we went to thier Country and made discrimination complaints about thier constitution?
The answer is that Americans love it to much here to go there and do that. The true answer is that if they did not eliminate your existance, they would certianly put you on a one way flight back home.
But here in America, just cry and yell loud enough for a foreiners complaint to be heard by our Supreme Court and our lovely justices will alter which ever part of the constitution you wish. Oh and yes, you can ask our Justices to alter the constitution even if you are here illegally.
Before closing I would like to point out that my Grandfather was in world war 2, 2 times, and is still with us and his response to the current state of America is "I am glad I am on my way out"
- hulkofaman August 23, 2009 3:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
I know exactly how your Grandfather feels.
I think any Supreme Court Justices appointed and confirmed under the present administration would make Marx and Engels look like radical conservatives and capitalists.
- pl21224
September 2, 2009 1:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Conservative
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Who Should be the Next Supreme Court Justice?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
After reading over this site
I've seen litmus issues described very, very oddly. A pro-choice stance is an attack on Truth, Justice and the American Way. Supporting same-sex marriage is an Attack on Freedom.
Therefore, the next Supreme Court Justice should be Superman.
- quantummechanik
May 15, 2009 12:42PM
Reply to this Recommend
(1)
Side: Liberal
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A LIBERTARIAN
The only true choice is a libertarian.We the people of the USA can not set around and let any more of your freedoms to be taken away.
- zman
June 2, 2009 6:14PM
Reply to this Recommend
(3)
Side: Other
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One of Gods Deputies that's Who
According to how America was framed a person that is deeply rooted in the Word of God should be the one appointed to our Supreme Court System. Let me refer to the Frame of Government of Pennyslavania May 5 1682. 327 years ago our frame of government was being erected. Look this up and get educated.
"When the great and wise God had made the world, and all his creatures, it pleased him to chuse man his Deputy to rule it: and to fit himfor so great a charge and trust, he did notonly qualify him with skill and power, but with intregrity to use them justly. This native goodness was equally his honor and his happiness, and whilst he stood here, all went well; there was no need of coercive or compulsive means; the precept of divine love and truth, in his bosom, was the guide and keeper of his innocency. But lust prevailing against duty, made a lamentable breach upon it; and the law , that before had no power over him, took place upon him, and his disobedient posterity, that such as would not live comformable to the holy law within, should fall under the reproof and correction of the JUST LAW, in a Judical administration.
This the Apostle teaches in divers of his epistles: "The law (says He)was added because of transgression: "in another place, "Knowing that the law was not made for the righteous man; but for the disobedient and ungodly, for sinners, for unholy and prophane, for murderers, for whoremongers, for them that DEFILE THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND, and for man stealers, for lyers, for prejured persons,"&c., but this is not all, he opens and carries the matter of government a little further. " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God; whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil: wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." He is the minister of God to thee for good." Wherefore ye must needs be SUBJECT, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake."
This settles the DIVINE right OF GOVERNMENT beyond expectation, and that for two ends: first to TERRIFY the evil doers; secondly to CHERISH those that do well; which gives government A LEFE BEYOND CORRUPTION, and makes it as durable in the world, as good men should be. So that government seems to me a part of religion itself, a filing sacred in its instution and end. For, if it does notdirectly remove the cause, it CRUSHES the effects of evil, and is as such, (though a lower, yet) an emanation of the same Divine Power, that is both author and object of PURE RELIGION;the difference lying here, that the one is more free and mental, the other more corporal and compulsive in its operations: but that is ONLY TO evil doers; government itself being otherwise as capable of kindness, goodness, and charity, as a more private society . They weakly err, that think there is no other use of government, than corruption, which is the coarsest part of it: daily experience tells us, that the care and regulation of many other affairs, more soft, and daily necessary, makes up the GREATEST PART OF GOVERNMENT; and which must have followed the peopling of the world, had Adam never fell, and will continue among men on earth, under the highest attainments they may arrive at, by the coming of the blessed Second Adam, The Lord from heaven. Thus much of government in general, as to its rise and end.
This is part of the Preface of the FRAME of Government of Pennsylanvia. These people who lived in 1682 framed our government for the advancement of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the "Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England; May 1643".
We lack History education . These are true and pure facts. According to these documents-- Our next Supreme Court Justice should be a person who would make all just decisions based on and according to the rules of God.
- lyntel
June 3, 2009 8:52AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not the law of the land
You are pointing back to treaties that were put in place nearly 400 years ago... While I am sure that they are historically relevant they are not the basis for current US law , the central document for that is the Constitution.
One could just as easily argue that we are still bound by the Magna Carta.
- MrBook
June 5, 2009 7:15AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Moderate
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This spurious "God" has no business in the affairs of man
According to the Constitution, the government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. NOT from any " god ". I didn't serve in the military to be subjugated to a treasonous theocracy.
- aveteran
June 9, 2009 2:24AM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Liberal
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just powers
And what is "Just Powers" aveteran? Do you know the meaning to the word "just"? Let me give you the meaning to that word. Ignorance is the lack of knowledge, education , and experience.
Just means righteous. Righteous is acting in a just, upright manner; doing what is right; virtuous. Righteous also means morally right; doing right or justifiable. My dictionary says see moral.
Moral pertains to manners or customs. It is relating to, dealing with, or capable of making the distinction between right and wrong in conduct. Moral implies conformity with generally accepted standards of goodness or rightness in conduct or character.
I present to you all the facts and truths about America's History in the framing of our government and you all want to question these truths that are written. I am 62 yrs old--and I can say that within the last 50 years our countries morals and values has fallen greatly because of people like you trying to get God out of our history books. Our forefathers framed our government. They framed it by the abstract of the Kingdom of our LORD Jesus Christ. Heaven is an abstract of purety. Laws were set up to protect the righteous people of the land and righteous WAYS. They weren't set up to protect people like you who did not believe in Good. Our country was called "Divine Providence" in many of our historic documents. Do you not like that word either? Divine means of or like God or a god . It means given or inspired by God; holy; sacred. It means supremely great, good, etc..
The setting up of a Divine Providence was inspired by the word of God. The framing of Pennsylvania explains very clearly what these people's aim was and what the end result would be. Their aim was to live a life according to the word of God--Not a religion. Each person had their own religion--but they all used the Word of God as their instruction book or guide to set up DIVINE laws to protect the good people who tried to live their lives right. Each and every LAW protected every single person's right equally. If you steal--you go to jail no matter if you are religious or an atheist. You have a right to live a good life, but if you break that right way of living--you go to jail and suffer the consequesces of the choice you chose.
Our Supreme Court Justices are chosen to serve for life. Their WAYS of life and their WAYS of thinking affect each and everyone of us. If their WAYS are evil or unmoral--we pay by them passing LAWS against keeping the good blood from flowing in our country. What keeps good blood flowing? A book called, "The Bible" or The Word of God does that. I did not say religions-- I said a BOOK. This book was the book that FRAMED our government whether you like it or not. These are the TRUE FACTS and one day these true facts will rebuild America again once the regeneration begins. Atheists need to learn what the book is all about. It is about the good and right CUSTOMS, MANNERS, AND WAYS of life. This book teaches people how to be good and right. You don't have to let GOD teach you anything if you don't believe in God. Just let the BOOK teach you--A BOOK can't hurt you atheist can it? The book is full of PROVEN TRUTHS about life itself. You atheist are so concerned about proving that there is no GOD that you don't even want to look at the historic papers as to HOW the people FRAMED Pennsylvania. Nobody can teach people like you anything. With the truth stareing you in the face you will still try to argue it. Whether you like it or not--God's Word helped in the framing of this Divine Providence called America. Final arguement.
- lyntel
June 9, 2009 12:37PM
Reply to this Recommend
(0)
Side: Other
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.