The Equal Protection for Posterity Resolution America's Party Platform (Includes the Resolution) America's Party Leadership Pledge (Includes the Resolution) Tom Hoefling: I Believe (Includes the Resolution) Add Comment Tom Hoefling for President 2012: Mitt Romney Rejects the Reagan Republican Pro-Life Platform05/20/2012 One of the primary planks of the Republican Platform is the party's commitment to recognizing the Fourteenth Amendment protection of unborn children. In this video clip, Mitt Romney states his opposition to that commitment. Mitt Romney is not a prolife candidate. Vote for life in 2012. Vote for Tom Hoefling. tomhoefling.com Tom Hoefling I wrote the following in response to an Orange County Register piece that was posted at FreeRepublic.com, and it bears repeating here: ----- Not a single sitting justice of the Supreme Court recognizes the personhood of the child in the womb and their protection by the explicit, imperative requirements of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. "No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law." "No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Not even one of the majority of the justices who were picked by Republican presidents, members of a party whose platform HAS recognized the personhood of the chld and their protection by our Constitution for the last 28 years. So, what do you think are the chances that a "president Romney" (it makes me sick just typing that) would pick a judge who is more conservative than Thomas or Scalia? I say the chances of that are for all intents and purposes ZERO. Especially since Mitt Romney himself is a pro-choice democrat. He thinks God-given rights can be decided by a majority vote. He thinks courts make our laws, and that only they get to decide what is constitutional. In other words, he supports the abortion on demand status quo, the destruction of the checks and balances that make our form of government possible, and the erasure of the legitimate lines of authority granted to the various branches and departments of our government. He thinks states can alienate unalienable rights if they want. A Stephen A. Douglas Democrat position if there ever was one. In other words, even in this shape-shifter’s current incarnation, his views are anti-republican. No matter how you cut it, Obama or Romney, all the babies continue to die, and so does the republic whose founding premise was the equal protection of the rights of all. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..." Frankly, at this point in history, all the Romney Republican fear-mongering about judges does is disgust and anger me. Scene from the movie 'Amistad.' Free the First Amendment Committee Supreme Court delivers a knockout punch to the White House Fox News Peter Johnson Jr. Wednesday the United States Supreme Court delivered a knockout blow to the White House in the cause of religious liberty. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a unanimous court swatted away the government’s claim that the Lutheran Church did not have the right to fire a “minister of religion” who, after six years of Lutheran religious training had been commissioned as a minister, upon election by her congregation. The fired minister -- who also taught secular subjects -- claimed discrimination in employment. The Obama administration, always looking for opportunities to undermine the bedrock of First Amendment religious liberty, eagerly agreed. There was just one big problem standing in the way of the government's plan: the U.S. Constitution. For a long time American courts have recognized the existence of a "ministerial exemption" which keeps government’s hands off the employment relationship between a religious institution and its ministers or clergy. Here, in this case, the Department of Justice had the nerve to not only challenge the exemption’s application but also its very existence. But, Chief Justice Roberts pushed back hard, telling the government essentially to butt out: “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs. By imposing an unwanted minister, the state infringes the free exercise clause, which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments. According the state the power to determine which individuals will minister to the faithful also violates the establishment clause, which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” Read this story at foxnews.com ... | America's Party
National Committee Introduction
|
RSS Feed
