CV147

In

The problem with that, however, is that the arctic and Antarctic areas are warming faster than the rest of the Earth. Warm up there displaces cold air to come down to the continents. Or so goes the prevailing science. https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/04/19/one-alaskas-warmest-springs-record-is-causing-dangerous-thaw/?utm_term=.1e24262783a3 https://www.newsweek.com/polar-vortex-climate-change-global-warming-research-midwest-1311206

Look up how many Democrats voted to impeach Clinton. Already in the Trump administration we have constructionist Republicans rightly voting against Trump on the border wall controversy. Where was something similar during Obama?

That's why you'll see factions of Republicans holding to a literal word, while Democrats have no such problems. Democrats would not break rank ever for a reason like this. It goes to show their principals are their party.

Constructionist Republicans see the Constitution as a set in stone document. Democrats see it as a "living document" the interpretation of which depends on the political whims of the present.

But why wouldn't federal supremacy over state laws apply in enforcing a treaty made by the federal government?

That was a reasonable response. Thank you for listing our forefathers' explanation. By all means, then, impeach. (By the way also consider their explanation for the second amendment)

There isn't a scientific consensus of when an embryo becomes a human life. It's ponderous how you continue this way. I dare you to provide one bit of evidence in an internet link of such a consensus. It doesn't exist,

Wow. I hope the man becomes rich after his lawsuit. Government can't do this.

So they can just do it because they don't like him? That doesn't bode well given our partisan reality.

Honestly, I thought the Clinton impeachment was bad, because who cares that he lied about an affair? But that had some basis on whether or not he lied to a grand jury. This is an actual crime. Now where is the basis for Trump's impeachment?

I agree with this somewhat. Why doesn't Amash just delineate where Trump broke the law? Lording over the fact that you read 400-plus pages in a report, and saying there's several instances of obstruction doesn't do it for me. Make your case plain. Where are the "high crimes and misdemeanors"? Then, by all means, impeach. Pence would be a better president anyway.

The point in all of this, Bluerules, was to show that there was not a consensus on scientific definition of when a fetus becomes a human entitled to rights. And, if it were the case that all fertilized eggs deserved to be delivered, then the woman's body is far too perilous for it.

A question remains in my mind philosophically, however, of how many aborted babies would have died of natural rejection anyway. Especially when you learn that upwards of 60 percent of fertilized eggs don't make it. On top of that, there's the philosophical question of where you draw the line on a cluster of cells versus a viable baby.