Breakdown of Government Roles I believe that some people do not understand the difference in federal, state and local governments. I know that I have had to explain this alot during the campaign. Please see the link below: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/abtamerica/state.htm When I first discussed issues that I thought were of vital interest to our district I was told by local citizens and Fred that some of those issues were not state issues. Fred stated that schools were 100% local issues. He said this more than once during a speech. If people understand the difference in what each governing body does I think they will be able to vote with a better understanding. Sherry Altman
hey stinger understanding that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" it says nothing about all citizens deserving the right to own assult weapons - the intent of Ammendent 2 was not pleasure hunting with aka 47's -- my understanding from high school civics class was this was an ammendment to assure that there would be a viable National Guard should the need arise --- ALSO understanding that: " Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances" Ammendment 1 doesn't prohibit you from displaying the Ten Commandments in a building you own -- personally i think its more important to try to live them than display them -- AND finally ---what medical procedures i have access to or choose are none of your business and none of the government's business --- nor would i want to say what medical procedures you should have access to or be able to choose--- and before you say that i cannot live the ten commandments and support pro choice -- i can i can choose not to have an abortion but that is a choice --- and it is only God's right to judge not yours!!!!
That's an incorrect understanding. The purpose of the second amendment was to insure that the populace could defend against their own government, should it go astray. In spite of what the movies may show, Great Britain did not allow the common citizens to possess weaponry. The founding fathers knew than man, being what he is, could allow the government to become as restrictive as the government they fought and won against. To prevent that, they filled the Bill of Rights with laws that were in direct opposition to what they experienced under the crown. Besides, a national guard would be under the control of a government entity. This is not what a militia is. This is true. It also prevents Congress from making a law to prevent them from being displayed by local governments. So, if you want a medical procedure that could, by it's nature, kill thousands, then neither me, nor the government, should be allowed to prevent it? You claim to support "pro-choice", but you do not allow the life you might choose to end to have a choice as well. That "mass of cells" you seem so flippant to dismiss is not part of the parent. It has a separate DNA sequence. It has a heartbeat. It has brain activity. What gives you the right to kill it? The fact that you might not want to support it? What happens if that child is two years old and you then decide you no longer want to support it? Can you then choose to end it's life?
- as i said it is only God's right to judge ---- as you so eloquently called them "that mass of cells" and then pointed out is not part of the parent -- is totally dependent upon the woman and her health for its health -- it is a part of her until birth -- and when personhood occurs is a religious determination not a biological one --- there is no denying a fetus is a potential person however it is not the government's place to legislate the moment that personhood occurs i did not say i was pro abortion i said i was pro choice legislation will not prevent abortion --
And that is why God instantiated judges, right? That one phrase "Judge not, lest ye be judged" is so over used that it has lost it's original meaning. So that fact that it's "totally dependent upon the woman and her health for its health' means that it's ok to kill it? Then what do you say about people who are on life support where the care givers decide that keeping them there is too much of a burden? Who all would you kill out of convenience? Very well. Virtually all the major religions (I say "virtually all" because, while I can't think of any that don't, there may well be) say that a fetus is a human life from the moment of conception. So declaring that it's religion's job and not the government's job doesn't help you in the least. Let's see, your next argument will be that it's your decision. In that case, we're back to the idea of post-partum abortion. You might decide that it's not a life until it starts kindergarden, does that make it right to kill a two-year old? So, you're not in favour of murder, but your in favour of giving others the right to murder. And the difference is? Nor will legislation prevent murder, robbery, rape, etc. Making it legal doesn't make it ok.
Congress does not need to make such a law as the extension of the Bill of Rights by the 14th Amendment makes such an occurance a religious statement by any level of government a violation of the Constitution. :wink: If there is the ability to make such a choice by a fetus or the ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb, this is a valid concern, but until that time it is a decision for the only citizen who is directly affected .. the woman.
Actually, the religions claim that is their belief when it comes to abortion issues, but they do not hold to that view in the history of their ritual requirements. A Strawman is beneath you. The conditions are significantly different and not part of the original statements. No, but as in the case of society, the views do change on what is and is not ok. Until the recent history a baby was not considered until it was born and farther back not really considered until it had lived due to the high incidence of infant mortality.
No, the 14th Amendment says that a state (or local) government cannot make a law that is in violation of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with religion. So, the fact that the fetus is without voice means that it has no rights? Again, we start getting into whether or not post-partum abortions are acceptable. If a two-month old becomes too much of a burden on the mother, can she kill it?
It does in the context used. You said it prevented Congress from passing a law preventing a local government from a display, but the extension of the Bill of Rights prevents the local government from passing any legislation on religion as well, which would include anything required in the allowance of a display. Thus, all of the restrictions on the Federal Government is extended to all lower levels of government as well. So, the fact that the fetus is without voice means that it has no rights? Again, we start getting into whether or not post-partum abortions are acceptable. If a two-month old becomes too much of a burden on the mother, can she kill it? The child has no rights, but the guardians do have rights to protect the child. The concept of "post-partum"abortions is a Strawman as the basis for the legal abortion is in the general allowance during the first trimester in which the fetus cannot survive on its own. That is not the case with your addition.
well let me say that it is my understanding that Mormon and some Fundamentalist churches believe in personhood at conception; Judaism holds that it begins at birth, and ensoulment theories vary widely within Protestantism.... in the religious community there is not a consensus on the definition of when a person truly becomes a person furthermore there are other compelling reasons to at least have abortion as a legal choice other than the pregnancy being "too much of a burden"
Sherry's Answers Here is something to think about on the abortion issue. When our government takes a census do they count one that has not been born yet? As I stated early on in all of this, this issue is a tough one, but which one of you has found a solution? I still see children in foster care, why are they not adopted? Let's try to find a solution and stop with the smart remarks. Forums such as this are very interesting and can be helpful to all, but we CAN actually find solutions if we keep talking and not bashing each other. Sherry
I will agree that the 14th Amendment prevents local governments from establishing a religion (it doesn't, but for the sake of argument). Now, how is the local courthouse displaying the Ten Commandment equivalent to creating a law that establishes any religion? A law has punishments for violation of that law. What would be the punishment? Conversley, if a judge wants to display the Ten Commandments in his courtroom, how is a court who says he cannot not infringing on his First Amendment right to the free excersise thereof? You're big on using the word "strawman". Apparently if someone takes your thoughts and applies it to it's logical conclusion, it's a "strawman". Aside from that, though. The abortion is not only during the first tri-mester. That was only the ruling of the USSC in Roe v Wade. There's your "strawman". Trying to imply that the abortion argument is only to reverse the Roe v Wade decision. Unfortunately there are far more sinister abortions out there, including partial-birth abortions. Most of these are done in the third trimester. I fail to see how this applies. As of this writing, 34 states recognize the fetus as a human being to the point where a pregnant woman who is murdered is counted as a double murder. This even extends to the federal government who in 2004 enacted the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, also known as "Laci and Conner's Law." This law states that it is a crime to intentionally kill an unborn child. No one is bashing anyone, nor have there been any "smart remarks". In fact I have found this last exchange one of the most civil here. Ms. Altman. I see that you are not too busy to add your 2p to an abortion debate. However you still have not found time to answer my very simple questions.
CLIF said "Aside from that, though. The abortion is not only during the first tri-mester. That was only the ruling of the USSC in Roe v Wade. There's your "strawman". Trying to imply that the abortion argument is only to reverse the Roe v Wade decision. Unfortunately there are far more sinister abortions out there, including partial-birth abortions. Most of these are done in the third trimester." using the statistics from infoplease.com in 2002 the abortions that occurred were as follows: 60.5% took place w/ gestation under 9wks; 18.5% gestation 9 to 10 weeks; 9.6% gestation at 11 to 12 weeks; 6.0% gestation 13 to 15 weeks; 4.1% 16 to 20 weeks; and 1.4% over 21 weeks gestation --- in that 1.4% one must take into account the life and well being of the mother -- and severe complications which may arise w/ the fetus -- Contary to the RTL media there are VERY few abortions taking place in the third trimester and those that do occur are generally for circumstances due to the woman's health -- i doubt that this trend has changed greatly since these statistics were released --- third trimester abortions or partial birth abortions are great media for RTL at the expense of women most women do not view abortion as a method of birth control NOR do they seek it out as an easy alternative -- you insult our intelligence when you imply otherwise
You seem to have misunderstood the text and legal precedents set for Amendment I. The restriction is not on just the establishment of a religion, but of giving any official recognition to any religion or even to religion in particular. Also a law does not have to have a punishment for violation as any bill passed by the state or federal government is referenced as a law. The terminolgy would not be restrictive due to the application to an even lower level of government. Of course, all of those prior SC rulings confirming this view are not even discussed. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/#Scene_1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; A judge in the official capacity has no such right under the Constitution as he is then a part of the government acting on public property. How is it a "logical conclusion" when legal abortions are severely limited past the first trimester? Who is pushing to increase that window? To make the leap to post-partum there would have to be some movement to pust the legal limit closer to birth, which has not been so documented and therefore is a Strawman presentation. Those few, less than 100 per year, are limited to cases where the woman's life is at risk or for a valid medical reason. The whole uproar over the "partial birth abortions" is political. Even the name is political as there is no such medical procedure. It applies in the fact the government does not count the unborn as people. At any stage in the pregnancy? I would look it up myself but I am on a slow connection at present. There are also crimes listed for intentionally killing pets and intentionally damaging property, but that makes neither a citizen or a person.
oh and i forgot -- since when is a courtroom the property of a judge??? i thought courtrooms were built and paid for by the taxpayers' dollars -- which makes it government property correct??? i can see wayne beat me to it -- thanks for having my back there!!!
I have avoided this question as my mother and I have debated this since you asked. As a side note, Judge Moore in Alabama is a close friend of my mother's (the one who fought the battle over the Ten Commandments). Needless to say, we have great debates in our house. Now, on to Marc Basnight. When I decided to run for the NC Senate District 12 I thought, and was told, that I could contact Democrats in and out of our state and get both advice and some financial help. Well, to my disbelief not one politician in the state of North Carolina responded to my letters. They did not even have the decency to have someone on staff respond back. I want to make sure you and everyone understand that I contacted politicians that are currently in office. I did receive advice from Elaine Marshall at a breakfast where we sat together, but other than that, nothing. Some politicians that I know outside the state of North Carolina did give me advice that came in very handy and I will never forget them. I have been cautioned by my mother to tread lightly on this subject, but my argument to her is that, we as a family decided early on that this campaign’s first and foremost bullet would state: Honesty and Common Sense In Government. If I am to keep that promise I must answer this with both of those issues in mind or I should not run for office. Since someone as powerful as Marc Basnight did not extend a hand out to someone trying to run for office, I question his motives of being in government. Yes, I know, Democrats all over are saying; No, Sherry, No! I, on the other hand, do not listen to those and if I did I would not be running right now. I have been told that the polls show our district as a Conservative Republican area and I have no chance of winning so I would receive no help from some organizations and people. I do not believe those polls are correct because I am out talking to people everyday and they do not feel that way. People really do feel the way I do. Hard working people need representation! I am not going to look up his voting record as it is just too long, but I do not believe that anyone should have that kind of power. As show below he makes the decisions on who can be on what committees and appoints certain members of state boards and commissions. Who should have that kind of power? This should be changed immediately! I do not know him personally but by the lack of response to give even advice and ignoring me, I have less respect for him than I would have if he would have answered me. Either way, I would not vote for him to be “Pro-Tem”. See below for definitions and explanations: The President Pro Tempore (more commonly, "Pro-Tem") of the North Carolina Senate is the highest-ranking (internally elected) officer of one house of the North Carolina General Assembly. The President of the Senate is the Lieutenant Governor of North Carolina, but the President Pro-Tem actually holds most of the power and presides in the absence of the Lt. Governor. He or she, a senior member of the party with a majority of seats, appoints senators to committees and also appoints certain members of state boards and commissions. Until 1868, North Carolina had no Lieutenant Governor, and the highest ranking officer of the Senate was known as the Speaker. The Speaker of the Senate was next in line if the office of Governor became vacant. This occurred on two occasions. Presidents Pro Tem are elected at the beginning of each biennial session, in January of odd-numbered years. As is evident from the foregoing list, from 1868 to 1992, it was rare for a President Pro-Tem to serve more than two terms. Marc Basnight, however, has become arguably the most powerful North Carolina Senate leader in history and one of the state's most influential politicians. Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Pro_Tempore_of_the_North_Carolina_Senate I hope I have answered both of your questions. I answered them as honestly as possible.
Thank you for your candid response. I wish you luck in your run. Hopefully, if you should win, you will live up to your statement.
You are welcome. I urge you, that if I get elected, to remind me about my statement so that I never forget. On my website you will see that some of my mentors taught me to never forget where you come from and I hope to keep that in mind for the rest of my life. I don't know if you agree with my response, but I tried to think it through carefully and be as honest as possible. Figure I might get some heat for it, but I am a big girl and believe me I can handle it. This is a wonderful forum and I have learned alot from it. Each and every one has knowledge that is greater than most people and you should be proud of your discussions. I do appreciate the hard questions, just remember to give me a little time as I am very busy, as I know all of you are. The reason I can answer some questions quicker is that I already know the answer and want to make sure I get to as many people's questions as possible. Your two on the other hand were a bit harder so I took my time on those. Keep it up. I will tell you that when I first signed up to run I was extremely nervous and had a hard time speaking in a group. As time has gone by I feel more comfortable and I realize that if I just say exactly what I feel and mean people respond with delight. I have been very humbled at the responses. When my daughter and I are out putting up signs, so people will know someone other than Fred is running, people honk. I have told my daughter they are honking in support and it is wonderful to see her face when she understands. Thank you so much. Sherry
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=135873 Tuesday, August 22, 2006 States expand fetal homicide laws By Christine Vestal, Stateline.org Staff Writer, and Elizabeth Wilkerson, Special to Stateline.org A wave of new state fetal homicide laws recognizing a fetus “of any gestational age” as a person and potential crime victim has abortion rights advocates worried the statutes could undermine a woman’s right to end her pregnancy. This year, Alabama, Alaska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia passed new fetal homicide statutes making it a separate offense to kill a fetus when a pregnant woman is murdered or assaulted. All five new laws apply to fetuses starting at conception. Among the 37 states with laws making death of a fetus a separate crime, language giving legal status to a fetus at the earliest stages of pregnancy is proliferating. While often enacted in response to a high-profile crime such as the 2002 Modesto, Calif., murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn son, Connor, these laws are increasingly being drawn into the abortion debate.
So you'd rather see them in the dumpster? It sounds as if you're saying that killing a child is better than foster care. If you can't handle some hard questions from a few BBS geeks then I fail to see how you're going to handle the press and your opponents. This cumbya attitude of yours sounds nice but the bottom line is that if elected, you're going to be a leader. I want a strong leader, not one whose going to sit around and sing folk songs and meditate about every decision. I'll pick strong conservative leadership over weak-kneed liberal grab-@ssing every day of the year. P.S. We're straight on the whole democracy thing now, right?
