I'll just settle for one that is making the argument that the Supreme Court had no constitutional right to rule on abortion being legal. Then we can agree at that point that the author of that article is in err. However, if you're going to provide examples that are where the Tea Party is trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade through the Constitutional process allowed them legally (wherein they get the court to look at the issue in a different light - either scientifically, etc) then that doesn't count. That's what the Constitution allows for. We're talking about specific examples where the Tea Party is saying that the Constitution is being violated by the Supreme Court. I'm not saying they don't exist, they possibly do. I'm saying you're making them out to be the rule rather than the exception, and that's horseshit.
The Court has the right, and the TP who adheres to the list agrees to "abide by" their ruling. But clearly there are many who don't see it that way. We're not talking about the TPs views on the Court; we're talking about the demand to "abide by the Constitution". I couldn't care less about the TPs views on the Court's alleged violation of the Constitution.
One can either accept the Supreme Court ruling or not accept it and try to get the court to re-look at it through the proper channels (which is not accepting that the court made the right choice). But one must legally follow the decision the court made until - if ever - it revisits and changes the decision. And here I am still waiting for links.
You can start with this one: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-stealth-war-on-abortion-20140115 Any more I'm sure you can find on your own.
1. and you pre fascists have the guts to all the tea party extreme? 2. no wonder you are willing to put soros in charge of the money supply? 3. no wonder why you have so many far left ideas? 4. no wonder you think IRS was not improperly targeting conservatives before and election. You would allow the state to target groups... because there is no need for a constitution. The state is always correct and freedom and liberty are not necessary in your world. may I respectfully request you change you worldview. do you live in America piezoe? are you a us citizen? do you work for the democrats or the left? are you serious? you scare me... seriously... if you are just a normal thinking person with no dog in the hunt for power and control... I have to readjust my world view cause you don't strike me as crazy like that bomber buddy of Obamas.
it is a living document for a capitalist and a freedom loving country. is that a description of the US? you make the determination.
"... Originally Posted by piezoe... I have said, "We should burn the Constitution and start over." Now I'm concerned that a new Constitution would be worse. Looks like we are all doomed to work within the present system. Woe is me...." Apparently you wouldn't recognize a good thing if it bit you in the ass.
So you're so keen on pointing out inconsistencies of arguments, I can't help but wonder why you missed your own (wait, I know, don't answer that!) There seem to be a lot of instances in that article of various creative attempts to circumvent the ruling of the Supreme Court. Many of those attempts are within the legal right of legislatures and fair game, some are not. For example, passing laws to prevent clinics from remaining in business (if that is the sole purpose, and it probably is) would qualify under your comment about not "abiding by the constitutional" decision of the Supreme Court. I am reminded as to how Chicago passed many laws (and continues to do so) in order to target gun shops and get them run out of town despite a ruling that said it was illegal to ban them. The problem, though, is I asked for specific examples of Tea Party individuals or politicians behind this behavior, and the article offers nothing of any substantial proof other than the fact that conservatives (who have long been against abortion) have executed this "stealth" campaign. In fact, the only Tea Party mentions are in the title (blaming the Tea Party) and the following two quotes: No proof of any of this or source cited, ignoring for a moment the fact that the insurance coverage issue is a different one. Wow, ok. I looked to find evidence that correlation was indeed causation here, but could not. The author showed nothing on it.