Notre Dame Protests Too Little Too Late

[Carole]

President Obama will deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame today despite protests by some bishops, students, alumni and others. At issue is the president's stand on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research which are in direct conflict with Church teachings.

Of course everyone has the right to peacefully protest in this country, but this situation in Indiana seems so insignificant compared to the legislative and judicial situations in Washington DC.

While protesters and a full media contingent gather on Notre Dame's campus because of a speech, legislators who occasionally remind voters they are technically Catholic are in post-election mode. They continue to ignore their alleged faith to support abortion-on-demand and federal funding for medical research that seeks to create human life only to destroy it.

While the extremists on both sides debate whether a pro-choice president should be given a piece of paper by a pro-life institution, the deck is stacked against the next Supreme Court Justice being someone who will recognize that Roe vs. Wade is the creation of an activist court and not a true interpretation of the Constitution.

President Obama won 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008 which contributed strongly to his overall victory. That victory combined with the Democratic Party's control of Congress, effectively eliminated any chance of limiting abortions or preventing our tax dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research for at least two years.

While the controversy continues over whether Catholics should listen to a commencement speech; Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other pseudo Catholics are ready, willing and very able to approve a Supreme Court nominee who will undoubtedly continue the David Souter tradition of liberal rulings instead of strict Constitutional ones.

And once President Obama has finished his speech and tucked his honorary degree into his pocket he will go back to the White House and continue to sign executive orders and make appointments that further his own agenda.

The next protest against that, the one that really matters, will be held in November of 2010.

 

[Gunny]

President Obama will deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame today despite protests by some bishops, students, alumni and others. At issue is the president's stand on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research which are in direct conflict with Church teachings.

Of course everyone has the right to peacefully protest in this country, but this situation in Indiana seems so insignificant compared to the legislative and judicial situations in Washington DC.

While protesters and a full media contingent gather on Notre Dame's campus because of a speech, legislators who occasionally remind voters they are technically Catholic are in post-election mode. They continue to ignore their alleged faith to support abortion-on-demand and federal funding for medical research that seeks to create human life only to destroy it.

While the extremists on both sides debate whether a pro-choice president should be given a piece of paper by a pro-life institution, the deck is stacked against the next Supreme Court Justice being someone who will recognize that Roe vs. Wade is the creation of an activist court and not a true interpretation of the Constitution.

President Obama won 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008 which contributed strongly to his overall victory. That victory combined with the Democratic Party's control of Congress, effectively eliminated any chance of limiting abortions or preventing our tax dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research for at least two years.

While the controversy continues over whether Catholics should listen to a commencement speech; Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other pseudo Catholics are ready, willing and very able to approve a Supreme Court nominee who will undoubtedly continue the David Souter tradition of liberal rulings instead of strict Constitutional ones.

And once President Obama has finished his speech and tucked his honorary degree into his pocket he will go back to the White House and continue to sign executive orders and make appointments that further his own agenda.

The next protest against that, the one that really matters, will be held in November of 2010.

Should our representatives in DC vote their personal beliefs? Or should they represent the beliefs of the majority of their constituents?

 

[garyd]

Why should they not? If you aren't willing to support your beliefs do you really believe them and even if you do to what extent do they matter to you? Ezekiel 32 informs Christians that they are watchmen set to sound the alarm, to warn against impending danger, if the watchman will not sound the alarm then the blood of those who are harmed because the alarm was not given will be upon the watchman's hand, but if the watchmen sounds the alarm and the alarm is ignored then the watchman is blameless.

 

[Xenophon]

Giving out these 'honorary' degrees will cause increasing problems in this heavily devided landscape we find ourselves in.

They should make teh smart play and stop doing it.

 

[garyd]

If they were capable of making the smart play this recession would be half over insted of stuck temporarily at the beginning.

 

[C-101]

President Obama will deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame today despite protests by some bishops, students, alumni and others. At issue is the president's stand on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research which are in direct conflict with Church teachings.

Of course everyone has the right to peacefully protest in this country, but this situation in Indiana seems so insignificant compared to the legislative and judicial situations in Washington DC.

While protesters and a full media contingent gather on Notre Dame's campus because of a speech, legislators who occasionally remind voters they are technically Catholic are in post-election mode. They continue to ignore their alleged faith to support abortion-on-demand and federal funding for medical research that seeks to create human life only to destroy it.

While the extremists on both sides debate whether a pro-choice president should be given a piece of paper by a pro-life institution, the deck is stacked against the next Supreme Court Justice being someone who will recognize that Roe vs. Wade is the creation of an activist court and not a true interpretation of the Constitution.

President Obama won 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008 which contributed strongly to his overall victory. That victory combined with the Democratic Party's control of Congress, effectively eliminated any chance of limiting abortions or preventing our tax dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research for at least two years.

While the controversy continues over whether Catholics should listen to a commencement speech; Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other pseudo Catholics are ready, willing and very able to approve a Supreme Court nominee who will undoubtedly continue the David Souter tradition of liberal rulings instead of strict Constitutional ones.

And once President Obama has finished his speech and tucked his honorary degree into his pocket he will go back to the White House and continue to sign executive orders and make appointments that further his own agenda.

The next protest against that, the one that really matters, will be held in November of 2010.

Should our representatives in DC vote their personal beliefs? Or should they represent the beliefs of the majority of their constituents?

Since we're a republic and not a democracy I would say that by electing a person to office you are signing off on them to carry out their beliefs in policy making.

In other words, the U.S. is not ruled by the mob, but by which is deemed by representatives to be best for nation. (Or at least in theory.)

Our founders made it clear that while the masses know what they want, they do not always know what is best for nation. These are called republican ideals, and are the reason why we are considered a republic and not a democracy. Even Jefferson was prone to republican ideals and it was not until Jackson that Americans started to consider their country a democracy and not a republic.

Many people still confuse the U.S. as a democracy today, and wonder vaguely why the majority opinion can be thwarted at times. Well, this is true because we are a constitutional republic in which government is elected and theoretically bound by the Constitution to limit its power. (Essentially, two checks against power, from the people and the Supreme Law of the Land.)

Overall, a policymaker should feel secure in voting based upon their beliefs in accordance with the principles they were elected for. Granted, this is not a green light to trample on your constituents, as such behavior is generally met with negative results in the next election. A concept that works very good in the House, and not so good in the Senate.

Therefore, term limits are not necessarily favorable but rather term reductions. That is, I think a Senator's term should be reduced in line with the President's term of four years.

I hope that all made sense.

 

[WillowTree]

President Obama will deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame today despite protests by some bishops, students, alumni and others. At issue is the president's stand on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research which are in direct conflict with Church teachings.

Of course everyone has the right to peacefully protest in this country, but this situation in Indiana seems so insignificant compared to the legislative and judicial situations in Washington DC.

While protesters and a full media contingent gather on Notre Dame's campus because of a speech, legislators who occasionally remind voters they are technically Catholic are in post-election mode. They continue to ignore their alleged faith to support abortion-on-demand and federal funding for medical research that seeks to create human life only to destroy it.

While the extremists on both sides debate whether a pro-choice president should be given a piece of paper by a pro-life institution, the deck is stacked against the next Supreme Court Justice being someone who will recognize that Roe vs. Wade is the creation of an activist court and not a true interpretation of the Constitution.

President Obama won 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008 which contributed strongly to his overall victory. That victory combined with the Democratic Party's control of Congress, effectively eliminated any chance of limiting abortions or preventing our tax dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research for at least two years.

While the controversy continues over whether Catholics should listen to a commencement speech; Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other pseudo Catholics are ready, willing and very able to approve a Supreme Court nominee who will undoubtedly continue the David Souter tradition of liberal rulings instead of strict Constitutional ones.

And once President Obama has finished his speech and tucked his honorary degree into his pocket he will go back to the White House and continue to sign executive orders and make appointments that further his own agenda.

The next protest against that, the one that really matters, will be held in November of 2010.

Should our representatives in DC vote their personal beliefs? Or should they represent the beliefs of the majority of their constituents?

Since we're a republic and not a democracy I would say that by electing a person to office you are signing off on them to carry out their beliefs in policy making.

In other words, the U.S. is not ruled by the mob, but by which is deemed by representatives to be best for nation. (Or at least in theory.)

Our founders made it clear that while the masses know what they want, they do not always know what is best for nation. These are called republican ideals, and are the reason why we are considered a republic and not a democracy. Even Jefferson was prone to republican ideals and it was not until Jackson that Americans started to consider their country a democracy and not a republic.

Many people still confuse the U.S. as a democracy today, and wonder vaguely why the majority opinion can be thwarted at times. Well, this is true because we are a constitutional republic in which government is elected and theoretically bound by the Constitution to limit its power. (Essentially, two checks against power, from the people and the Supreme Law of the Land.)

Overall, a policymaker should feel secure in voting based upon their beliefs in accordance with the principles they were elected for. Granted, this is not a green light to trample on your constituents, as such behavior is generally met with negative results in the next election. A concept that works very good in the House, and not so good in the Senate.

Therefore, term limits are not necessarily favorable but rather term reductions. That is, I think a Senator's term should be reduced in line with the President's term of four years.

I hope that all made sense.

These must be the people who refuse to say the pledge of allegiance.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

President Obama will deliver the commencement address at the University of Notre Dame today despite protests by some bishops, students, alumni and others. At issue is the president's stand on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research which are in direct conflict with Church teachings.

Of course everyone has the right to peacefully protest in this country, but this situation in Indiana seems so insignificant compared to the legislative and judicial situations in Washington DC.

While protesters and a full media contingent gather on Notre Dame's campus because of a speech, legislators who occasionally remind voters they are technically Catholic are in post-election mode. They continue to ignore their alleged faith to support abortion-on-demand and federal funding for medical research that seeks to create human life only to destroy it.

While the extremists on both sides debate whether a pro-choice president should be given a piece of paper by a pro-life institution, the deck is stacked against the next Supreme Court Justice being someone who will recognize that Roe vs. Wade is the creation of an activist court and not a true interpretation of the Constitution.

President Obama won 54 percent of the Catholic vote in 2008 which contributed strongly to his overall victory. That victory combined with the Democratic Party's control of Congress, effectively eliminated any chance of limiting abortions or preventing our tax dollars from funding embryonic stem cell research for at least two years.

While the controversy continues over whether Catholics should listen to a commencement speech; Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other pseudo Catholics are ready, willing and very able to approve a Supreme Court nominee who will undoubtedly continue the David Souter tradition of liberal rulings instead of strict Constitutional ones.

And once President Obama has finished his speech and tucked his honorary degree into his pocket he will go back to the White House and continue to sign executive orders and make appointments that further his own agenda.

The next protest against that, the one that really matters, will be held in November of 2010.

Are you a garden variety troll? If so I offense. You have an agenda that nobody gioves two shits about or maybe you want to discuss things within the bounds of the freedom of speech you throw around so lightly?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Since we're a republic and not a democracy ...

Our founders made it clear that while the masses know what they want, they do not always know what is best for nation. These are called republican ideals, and are the reason why we are considered a republic and not a democracy. Even Jefferson was prone to republican ideals and it was not until Jackson that Americans started to consider their country a democracy and not a republic.

Many people still confuse the U.S. as a democracy today, and wonder vaguely why the majority opinion can be thwarted at times. Well, this is true because ...

We are a democratic republic. Majority opinion is not thwarted at all. You are a light weight in this area and deen to develop some critical thinking skills.

 

[bossfan]

Since we're a republic and not a democracy ...

Our founders made it clear that while the masses know what they want, they do not always know what is best for nation. These are called republican ideals, and are the reason why we are considered a republic and not a democracy. Even Jefferson was prone to republican ideals and it was not until Jackson that Americans started to consider their country a democracy and not a republic.

Many people still confuse the U.S. as a democracy today, and wonder vaguely why the majority opinion can be thwarted at times. Well, this is true because ...

We are a democratic republic. Majority opinion is not thwarted at all. You are a light weight in this area and deen to develop some critical thinking skills.

Wrong.

We are a Constitutional Republic.

We are a "A government of laws, and not of men" (John Adams).

C-101 got it right with his post.

 

[Ravi]

I don't know what you people are smoking.

The duty of an elected official is to uphold the constitution.

It isn't to be ruled by popular whim and it certainly isn't to be ruled by what a bunch of Catholics think.

 

[C-101]

Since we're a republic and not a democracy ...

Our founders made it clear that while the masses know what they want, they do not always know what is best for nation. These are called republican ideals, and are the reason why we are considered a republic and not a democracy. Even Jefferson was prone to republican ideals and it was not until Jackson that Americans started to consider their country a democracy and not a republic.

Many people still confuse the U.S. as a democracy today, and wonder vaguely why the majority opinion can be thwarted at times. Well, this is true because ...

We are a democratic republic. Majority opinion is not thwarted at all. You are a light weight in this area and deen to develop some critical thinking skills.

I dunno why you call me a "lightweight" and then proceed to ask me to explain the difference between a republic and democracy on my profile page.

 

[bossfan]

I don't know what you people are smoking.

The duty of an elected official is to uphold the constitution.

It isn't to be ruled by popular whim and it certainly isn't to be ruled by what a bunch of Catholics think.

Okay, maybe not by popular whim, or what a bunch of Catholics think....

But can it be ruled by empathy?

J/K

 

[dilloduck]

Since we're a republic and not a democracy I would say that by electing a person to office you are signing off on them to carry out their beliefs in policy making.

If politicians didn't lie about their beliefs in policy making that would make perfect sense.
Unfortunately we all know that they can't' be trusted to do that.

 

[bossfan]

Since we're a republic and not a democracy I would say that by electing a person to office you are signing off on them to carry out their beliefs in policy making.

If politicians didn't lie about their beliefs in policy making that would make perfect sense.
Unfortunately we all know that they can't' be trusted to do that.

Politicians are very honest "on record" with their votes in Congress. Anyone who does their homework can find out exactly where a politician stands on any given issue....