Sam_Flynn

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

Not how criminal law works, mehoe. 

Criminal law is not a law of United States Constitutional Right, paesano. 

Biological criteria is met at conception. That's just a basic fact of life, irrelevant of your "whole truth" (it's not a whole loaf of bread).

 Literally fact science does harvest, store, and take donations of sperm and human egg keeping them alive so they can be used in the treatment of infertility.

Biological material for additional medical treatments is grown after human conception as well as medical conception.

Whole truth that is a way of say all the truth that might be gathered as a United State as a complete condition or principle. A medical professional can be found guilty of perjury for only describing a partial truth when giving an expert opinion in an official proceeding of inquiry. 

Article II | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Abortion is a foreign criminal law written by legislators outside American United States Constitutional Right before America had ever been established an independent state of two forms of law, Criminal law, and Law of Right. A United States Constitutional Right does not need to be ratified before it held before the Courts of America it is a power described to be held by “We the people.” With a condition of being a more perfect state of the union than what is in use at any given time in history.

We must accept the fact that 1:

Human life begins at conception and should be treated as such.

"...and should be treated as such." What does this even mean? 

Treated as [such], treated like....what, exactly??

It means the we (sic) must accept that a arprtial (sic) truth is nough (sic) fact to base criminal law on.

Science describes as whole truth that life begins at the creation of two things independent from eachother (sic) an egg and sperm.

In the law of nature as whole truth

according to science

men kill  more sperm then women kill eggs.

A male female couple can practice medicinesa (sic) and exstend (sic) the life of one sperm and one egg in most aplications (sic) of sexual intercourse.

Just as medical science can preactice (sic) marriage and produce life by having sex according to christain (sic) law without sexual intercourse.

This debate becomesa matter of equality under criminal law and United States Constitutional right.It is a United States Constitutional right to apply lethal force to a child of certainage when married and unmarried in one way. The parents must neglect the law ofnature they possess as share to save the child and not extend the length of anatural life of a child at this stage as fact. The scientific life expectancyis about 28 days or 1-month. The age is not set by absence of intercourse it isset by the mother of the child and the laws of nature; natures GOD gives them.In whole truth this is the connection Christianity is making as a proposedUnited States Constitutional state of the Union.

Now let’s look atthe United States Constitutional Right executive officer # 45 has made which isnot being placed in writing to be evaluated his abilities of preserving UnitedStates Constitution under House Impeachment. Remember this is not a criminal chargeand there is no presumption of innocence to be expected. It is to be given ornot give by all those under oath during impeachment. A man in attempt to preserveUnited States Constitutional right is use a very young child as a 2nd amendment right to bear arms to attempt to kill all women. Yes, as whole truththe odds of him killing all women is not very likely, though all women areplaced at risk of death randomly as a gamble. Simply said odds dictate not allwomen die simple because that try at creating what American United StatesConstitution describes as a nation’s posterity. The United States Constitutionalright that is created by all men’s independence from English law without women andcreation of men’s own equality is the future and the present are separated by aborder created by law of nature.

As a united stateconstitutional right the very young child cannot even be charged withaccidental use of lethal force it may apply allowing a woman to defend her lifeplaced only her at risk for presenting a nation with the most perfect posteritypossible for her to create. A woman is at War with the laws of nature and allconception or copulation ensures is she is not alone in that battle. Lifeliberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Female specific amputation is not abortion they may both share a use of lethal force but they are in no way equal.

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

i dunno if that's a reliable source

Report proving malfeasance and fraud in the 2020 election.

What an embarrassment you are. You are one of the idiots allowing a fascist resurgence in this country like we hade right before WWII

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

"...and should be treated as such." What does this even mean? 

Treated as [such], treated like....what, exactly??

A human being with inherent value. 

That which is within, is a part of the whole. It is feeding off her, taking her nutrients to develop. Taking from her, makes it a part of her.

It actually does the opposite. There are numerous medical benefits for having a child including: 

Abortion & Pregnancy Risks | La Dept. of Health

"Women who have had a first full-term pregnancy at an early age have reduced risks of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Furthermore, the risks of these cancers decline with each additional full-term pregnancy.

Pregnancies that are terminated afford no protection; thus, a woman who chooses abortion over continuing her pregnancy would lose the protective benefit.”

And yes, it is inside her body, but has separate DNA from her, is a distinct independent living organism, and is not part of the mother's body. It uses parts of the mother's body to grow and collect nutrients, but it is completely separate biologically. 

It shares familial DNA, not independent DNA. DNA from both generations, mother and father, despite maybe having a different blood type, whatever. It is still of her and is within her. 

Ok, with that logic, you are still part of your mom, because you have some of your mothers DNA still.

With that logic you are also part of your dad still, because you have your dads DNA.

And since you are part of their body, you are not independent, and if your mom wants to, she should be allowed to kill you right?

Pregnancy let alone birth wreaks havoc on a girl's/woman's body and lasts a lifetime. There is no benefit to the mother when pregnancy ages her body beyond years. 

It's actually a part of a female organisms maturing process. Look it up. 

And I doubt the over 90 million children who were unwanted and/or orphaned would disagree with your idea of how they are benefited. 

Wow. Thats a dangerous argument you're making there. 

I believe in the proposition that no matter what hardships human beings endure, we always have the ability to not only survive, but to thrive regardless of the situation. There are many cases of this throughout not only today, but throughout history. Every human life has value, even the orphans. 

Many women and little girls would unequivocally disagree with you. 

Fully matured women shouldn't disagree with me. 

Now if we were talking about little girls, (which we weren't so Red Herring right there) I would disagree with me too. 

A lot of women would disagree with you.

Facts don't care about your feelings. 

Where did you go to school? Wherever it was, get your parents' money back. They failed you. 

A very liberal school actually. It wasn't pleasant. 

If "an individual" is scared of getting pregnant? An individual? I think you mean a girl/woman. We all know ONLY females can get pregnant, so do not demean them by using BS language that would be used by the alphabet soup mafia. 

Again, another Red Herring man. 

I wasn't even talking about that. 

And yes, only females can get pregnant. I agree with you. 

AND, consenting to sexual relations is just that and nothing more. Both parties, if they don't want to be saddled with the possibility of having a child, then precautions are taken. At the beginning of her period, contraception, I mean it is not that difficult to enjoy another's sexuality without worrying about an unplanned pregnancy. I mean really, how old are you? 16?

Another fallacy, talking about my personal being. (I'm not 16).

Oh FFS, comparing getting into a car to sexual relations...dumb comparison of no equal relevance on any level. 

It actually does. 

Maybe think about it intellectually next time bud. 

There are 90+ million unwanted children worldwide who would disagree with you. 

And you think all those 90 million children would rather die? 

Big assumption of you man.

Again, ALL human life is valuable,

And THIS is the choice of the individual family, not you or anyone else.

Is murder the choice of a family or is it the law? 

 You (nor anyone else) foots the bill for their lifelong healthcare, so you (nor anyone else) do not have any say in the matter that you're not a part of. 

Great..........all I'm saying is that they can't kill a baby. Is that too harsh?

We must accept the fact that 1:

Human life begins at conception and should be treated as such.

The fetus that presides in the womb of a mother, is in no way part of the mother's body no matter what way you spin it.

The fetus in the womb has different DNA, most times contains different blood types, half the time the child is a different sex completely, and inherently is not a product of only the mother's body, but a combination of the mothers DNA and the fathers DNA. 3:

Abortion is 98% of the time never medically necessary for a woman's health.

There are safer and more productive alternatives to abortion, that involve benefit to both the mother and the child,

The risk of injury to the mother during pregnancy is extremely low.

In fact, pregnancy can actually benefit the mother in many ways, such as reduced risks of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer, if the pregnancy is completed without major complication. Abortion takes away that benefit, and in fact in many cases abortions can cause severe mental health problems to women. And finally, 5:

Planned Parent Hood's roots are inherently racist, and genocidal and while many organizations also have ugly backgrounds, we should take this into consideration while thinking about this legislation. 

Moral dilemmas.

1. People who don’t want to be pregnant, and don’t want the responsibility of a child.
   

I think it is extremely important, as mature as we are, to talk about sex, and its effects on people. If an individual is scared of the possibility of getting pregnant, then they shouldn’t involve themselves in sexual relations, because no matter how much protection you give yourself, having sexual relations is by definition is consenting to the possibility of pregnancy.

Just as you would get into your car, but you don’t want to crash, when you enter that car, you are consenting to the possibility of getting into a wreck. One of the ways you can defend yourself from getting an abortion, is by being smart about who you sleep with.

If you do find yourself in a situation where you are pregnant, and you do not wish to take care of the child, there are alternatives to abortion, such as giving the child up for adoption. 

   2. Abortion in cases where the child has a disability is necessary to save them from a life of struggle. 

I believe in the proposition that no matter what hardships human beings endure, we always have the ability to not only survive, but to thrive regardless of the situation. There are many cases of this throughout not only today, but throughout history. 

To make a bold statement such as that is in fact extremely offensive to individuals today who live with disabilities and developmental complications, because it implies that their lives are too hard, so they don’t matter. It takes away meaning from the lives of those most vulnerable among us. 

At that point we can continue this discussion, because as it stands now you're just not getting it

I am not getting it because your arguments are entirely incoherent and self defeating.

The language of "The Congress shall have the power to..." is pretty freaking clear. 

Yes, to enforce via appropriate legislation. You continue to ignore that part even though I've repeatedly pointed out the difference, that this isn't a matter of legislation it's a matter of adjudication, and Congress is not the body nor does it even have the processes in place to adjudicate matters of law.

If Congress wants to pass a law now determining how the 14th amendment applies or is adjudicated then we'd be constitutionally bound to follow it, until then the language in the 14th is what we we have.

I think it is also noteworthy to point out here that according to what you've been arguing, if based on Section 5 no one else other than Congress can decide Section 3 then the same also applies to Section 1, so every federal case adjudicating Section 1 over the past century and a half were apparently all unconstitutional.

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

The Amendment itself IS the Constitutional (Supreme) Law of the land

Agreed, that's why we have judges who can decide whether the law is being followed

Federal statutory legislation is not needed,

Yes, that's my point which you have been arguing against

until needed. When needed is when a State passes its own laws in violation of the Constitution

Yes, and if we've reached that point then it's time for Congress to pass legislation explaining how the 14th section 3 is adjudicated. Until then, it's up to the courts to sort out.

That bolded statement isn't mine; it was provided by the source as the legal analysis of the highlighted provision of Sec 5. It's a legal analysis, so it is a serious contention.

I didn't imply the bolded section was your words nor was it the contention I was talking about. I was referring to your argument - that only Congress can enforce the 14th amendment - that was not a serious contention. The bolded legal analysis doesn't contradict that because it doesn't argue that Congress is exclusive in this authority.

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

This language ensured that Congress would have enforcement powers, paralleling language used in the 13th Amendment."

And Congress never appropriated any legislation enforcing the outlaw of slavery, so under your legal theory slavery was essentially still legal in the United States until 2015 when the modern slavery act was passed.

This isn’t a serious contention. You're treating the language as if Congress was intended to be some sort of tribunal to determine whether the amendment had been violated. Their job is to pass laws, it's up to the judges to sort out whether those laws are violated. If Congress passes no further laws then the judges are forced to work with whatever has been passed. That's the way law in this country has worked for centuries.

The Office of the President of the United States is both civil and military, 

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

Section 5, again, says Congress "shall have" the "power" to "enforce" the provisions of the 14th. The "by appropriate legislation" tells Congress (and us) how they may execute their power. It does not tell Congress (or us) that if they do not act, then said power is transferred to the states. 

So as I addressed in the OP, your interpretation of it is that absent any appropriated legislation by Congress, Section 3 of the 14th amendment essentially doesn't exist.

I'm no constitutional scholar so I can't say whether that's right or wrong, but I get the sense that this would be news to the framers.

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

 It does not tell Congress (or us) that if they do not act, then said power is transferred to the states. 

Correct, this is why the Biden admin is suing Texas for enforcing federal immigration laws because Biden did not act.

What did you think about my point that because there is no official proceeding designated to deal with this amendment it becomes self executing?

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

Strawman fallacy.

Not what I said. 

Clown. 

Methinks the Lady doth protesteth too much.

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

And there is one clear Office or Position that isn't even mentioned in 14/3, the Office of the President.

So you believe the office of the United States Presidency is not an office under the United States, is that correct?

There was no insurrection on J6, and Trump had no hand/play/shall have engaged in (physically) during the riot of J6. 

The person who incites and then gives comfort to those who physically engaged, is by definition engaging in it.

SCOTUS will overturn Colorado, thereby quashing any other state's stupid attempt to kick Trump off the ballot. 

Probably. After all a third of the court was appointed by Trump himself. This doesn't mean it's right.

That's not what current polling shows

Let me know when Trump wins popular vote, not what the polls are.

California is now ready to follow suit.

https://youtu.be/h_x_a5GwaDA

Expect a massive amount of backlash from the people as State government officials continue to revolt against Democracy.

Nice way to expand voting rights; by not letting people that disagree with you on Trump vote.

I am against taking Trump off the ballot, but I also believe we need to follow the constitution, which clearly says Trump can't run.

 Trump lost popular vote twice. People dont want him.

 It's not wrong by default.  You do need a reason to condemn something.

If it's not transphobia, then you explain it, why are you obsessed with the genitals of Transexuals?

I mean, I get it that you don't want immigrants poisoning our blood, I understand that you guys think it's important to maintain the purity of the race, but why hate Transexuals too?   

They are like a half percent of the population,

have you ever even met one to hate? 

If you have met one, did you ask them to show you their genitals?  I mean, if that's what it takes for you to use the preferred pronoun, I'm sure they will pass and tell you they don't really care what you want to call them, I'm sorry, but no matter how much you obsess, you still don't get to see their naughty parts.

But hey, if it's really that important to you, I'm sure there are web sites you can go to. 

Freak.

-->

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

Actually, he's not wrong per se. There are people in the world, possibly millions throughout history, who went their entire lives believing they were women but had XY chromosomes. There are various intersex conditions to this effect and sometimes the only visible symptom was/is infertility.

The conventional modern understanding has an object as being reducible to its parts.

Even conservative efforts to define gender by DNA or phenotype are a byproduct of modernity.

But in the past, Western philosophy, namely Scholasticism, saw objects possessing what is called "essence", which simplistically can be defined as the answer to the question "what is the thing". For example, a horse is a horse. A tree is a tree. A human is a human, a man is a man, and a woman is a woman.

Essence is a metaphysical property (sic) and you cannot break essence down to a DNA test, metallurgical analysis, x-ray, or so on. It's immeasurable as such concepts as, for example, the soul.

In the case of gender, when liberals say it can't be given an absolute rational definition that applies to all human cases, they are right. Of course, that doesn't make gender less real nor abrogate the consequences of throwing said reality out the window.

Transphobes say:

"If you have a penis and testicles, you are a boy."

So if a person surgically removes those, then he stops being a boy?

Checkmate, transphobes! You just proved that (sic) person can change genders!

@<<<Sam_Flynn>>>

It goes beyond external genitals

Maybe for you, but thats (sic) irrelevant to the topic.

This topic only deals with those who claim that penis and vagina determine who is male and who is female.

Trump granted 237 acts of clemency during his four years in the White House, including 143 pardons and 94 commutations.