All the ones that say, "god, family, country, in that order". Like, our vice president.Which ones?
Which laws are he pushing above the laws of our land?
Dear hadit
One conflict I've run into with Christian Constitutionalists,
if they interpret Right to Life as including unborn persons legally,
then both sides believe the other is putting their own beliefs above the Law of the Land.
The prochoice see these prolife beliefs as faith based and not included in the law,
so it appears to be imposing beliefs on others through Government.
The prolife see this as INHERENT and not requiring further laws, so that
by judicial rulings or other laws VIOLATING this, THAT is pushing other beliefs
or policies against existing protections already included in the laws of the land.
This is similar to liberal beliefs in right to health care or right to marriage as "inherent."
Since believers in those principles already see this as rights that should ALREADY
be recognized and protected, they don't see how pushing laws violate any freedom or due process
because those AREN'T choices but should be mandatory by govt anyway as part of natural rights.
But people who DON'T believe "right to health care" or "right to marriage" are part of govt
but are BELIEFS that can't be established by imposing through govt, find these BELIEFS
to contradict Constitutional limits and laws.
In both cases, because of different beliefs that are supposed to be equally protected
from infringement or discrimination,
I find BOTH "right to life" AND "right to health care" beliefs being PUSHED THROUGH LEGISLATION
that violates Constitutional principles and process.
In order to CORRECT those violations, the laws should be written, passed and enforced
by CONSENSUS of the people so that all beliefs are included and represented equally.
The violations occur where laws are BIASED and leave out people of other beliefs still
protesting these biases in beliefs being incorporated and enforced by govt laws.
Those are two examples where beliefs are being pushed through Govt to violate the Law of the Land, by not representing the consent of ALL people, but discriminating by creed against opposing beliefs.
That is a very well thought out position, and difficult to fault.