Posted on 11/16/2007 9:07:47 AM PST by dschapin
Fred Thompson and the NRLC
It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group, voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.
...
Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.
However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter. Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I disagree somewhat on the flag burning, in that the flag is a federal responsibility, and if there ARE going to be rules about it, they should apply equally, not be decided by states.
But since I also think abortion is a violation of a basic inalienable right of all people to life, I think that a federal prohibition would not violate what the founding fathers considered state’s perogatives.
ping
It is the national flag.
If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.
The states could not do that without a reversal of the court decision; that was the purpose of the constitutional amendment. But why would a ban on burning the national flag be a question of state law anyway?
Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments...
I don't believe he said that was his concern.
...he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
Again, it is the national budget. How do states rights fit into balancing the federal budget? What state remedy is there?
This is a pretty sophomoric line of arguments from the Washington Times.
...voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate...
Oh really? Which ones are those?
It's hard to believe they published this trash.
LLS
It is a key endorsement by one of, if not the biggest, Right to Life Group.
Congratulations to Fred Thompson.
Is he a Federalist or NOT
He’s both and his statements on both are already definitive.
“You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate,” says Dr. O'Steen [of NRLC]. “You’d have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitution], so it’s not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term — and of course, the president doesn’t have a vote.”
bump
I support the flag-burning amendment. It’s our national symbol, which stands for the principles embodied by the United States of America.
However, one of those principles, in fact the foremost principle, is that our rights to life and liberty are God-given, and therefore unalienable.
All persons are made in God’s image. That’s why each and every one has infinite value.
It’s nonsensical to think that a piece of cloth that represents these priceless principles is more valuable, more worthy of protection, than the principles themselves.
A living human being deserves more protection than a symbol. You can make a new flag, but you can never replace a single unique individual person.
The concerns regarding Fred are minutia. He is facing a devout liberal, a liberal in denial (who may or may not be an android), and a pro-life liberal. Fred is the ONLY candidate in the race with a conservative RECORD. Regardless of any perceived deviations at times, he is the only candidate who has been at all consistent.
Good post
You’re right. And I don’t believe that Thompson feels differently than you.
He’s acknowledging the harsh reality that he HLA cannot be passed at the current time, but we have a reasonable chance of getting a couple more justices on the SCOTUS that would be in favor of overturning Roe.
Sometimes the effectiveness of a position is what you have to be concerned about.
Thompson has made countless definative statements - he is not only pro-life and a devout federalist, but is also the only one in the race.
Good post. Mr. Thompson supported constitutional amendments for national and federal issues. Traditionally, criminal law has mostly been the province of the states.
Myself, I will not rest until explicit protection of the unborn is enshrined in the Constitution. However, I can respect and count as allies for now those who prefer only to overturn Roe and return the matter to the states.
The editorial line of the Washington Times is often like this. A lot of times, they just don’t really get it.
sitetest
I wonder who, among the front runners, the editorial board at the Washington Times thinks should have been given the nod? Maybe the editors should add up the dents and dings for all the front runners on the issue of abortion as well as other issues of importance to the majority of conservatives and see who looks least like an acne scarred teenager. I have, and I think Fred looks really good in comparison.
Trying to pull down a conservative candidate to prop up your one percenter does neither him nor Senator Thompson any favors, and makes it that much more likely that Rudy “Sanctuary City” Giuliani, Mitt “Gay Marriage” Romney or Mike “Open Borders for Jesus” Huckabee is the nominee. Is that what you want?! BTW, I understand that Fred and Duncan are friends. Did you know that?
However, I can respect and count as allies for now those who prefer only to overturn Roe and return the matter to the states.Well said.
Ridiculous. The Times may be building the ramp for a shark jump to join with the rest of the media.
And again, who really cares about endorsements? None of us should. We should, rather, think and study and think some more - for ourselves - not follow what Group A or Council B has told us to think.
Well, you're wrong. My top priority is to restore adherence to the principles I discussed above. And politicians like Thompson (and Giuliani and Romney and McCain and Paul and Huckabee) are unmoored from those principles, as signified by their claim that states have any right to decide the abortion question, and alienate the most important unalienable right of all.
Can you list out the federal programs that fall outside the Enumerated Powers that Mr. Thompson is advocating dismantling?
If the Washington Times thinks Fred`s 100% pro-life Senate voting record in the 1990`s, which gained him two NRTL endorsements in 1994 and 1996, coupled with those consistent pro-life positions he still holds today, can somehow be considered checkered, this article must have been written by a liberal guest editorialist. I can't think of any rational reason for this old conservative newspaper to publish such a sophomoric article.
We've covered all these issues on Free Republic for months on end. Fred`s work for a pro-choice organization in 1991 was minimal. Especially when compared to the work private attorney John Roberts did to assist homosexual groups in the case of Romer v Evans around the same time frame.
The NRTL Committee has spoken. When you look at the top tier candidates, the NRTL`s reasoning makes Fred the logical choice. Methinks the Wash Times won't be backing Fred anytime soon. Something tells me there could be a Mitt Boy or a Huckster in the Times future.
The framers clearly intended that bitterly controversial social issues should be worked out in the ordinary processes of state and local politics. The HLA would plainly flout that aspect of the constitutional plan. Neither a balanced budget amendment nor a flag-burning amendment is remotely analogous.
As originally written the Constitution even left the states free to infringe basic human rights by providing for one human being to own another. It took a war which left hundreds of thousands dead to resolve that matter on a national basis. The framers had it in mind that most issues would be defused with less fuss through a decentralized process of discussion and compromise.
Abortion is certainly a violation of a basic inalienable right. It doesn’t follow, however, that a federal prohibition mandating that abortion be criminal in all fifty states would be consistent with the Constitution’s federal plan nor that it would be a good idea.
Fred is absolutely correct to turn away from the HLA. It can’t pass, and even if it could it shouldn’t. The HLA would only reinforce the great cultural divide that Roe v. Wade opened up.
Roe short-circuited a serious debate we need to have about abortion. If we focus that debate on the HLA and whether abortion should be criminal nationwide the forces of life will lose it. Even if they won they would only empower a pro-choice resistance movement that would mirror the pro-life movement Roe inspired.
The debate we need has to be focused on enacting reasonable, life-saving regulation, state by state. That process can persuade people and help move the culture closer to full appreciation of life’s incalculable value.
Fred is pointing the way here and NRTL plainly understands that. Nobody else in the field of candidates has been able clearly to say that Roe was wrongly decided and must be overturned. Nobody else has record that proves he understands this. That’s where the rubber hits the road in the fight for life.
The HLA is an artifact of a time when the pro-life movement hadn’t yet figured out either the magnitude of the task it faced or the right tools for attacking it. It’s long past time to let it go. Certainly the pro-life movement can’t afford to fall into an idiotic internecine spat over a silly relic like the HLA.
By being belligerent on the subject...you are indirectly leading to abortion not being stopped at all.
The HLA will not pass now. It just won’t.
While you “stand by your principles” your principles will get crushed by the world falling down around you.
It’s no different than the crowd that said Thompson’s SS plan wasn’t good enough because he didn’t say he was going to scrap the whole thing on January 21, 2009, all current retirees be damned. Too bad that platform WILL NOT WIN and even if that candidate won, such a plan wouldn’t be passed.
I am assuming that you didn't read that Thompson had NO problem with signing on to an amendment to save the flag -- just NOT to save a life, as he would "leave that up to the states."
If you wish to return to the 18th or 19th Century, Congressman Ron Paul is your man, and you're welcome to him. If, however, you wish to be a realist and get those things done Federalism-wise that are doable within the current societal conditions, I invite you to join me in supporting Senator Fred Thompson.
The flag amendment was a passable amendment that would not divide our nation (save for a few far-left moonbats.)
I’ve said before that Ron Paul is the perfect Republican candidate...
...for 1880.
For starters, a fetus is not a person under current US law. You clearly don't understand the 10th Amendment or Article 5. For your edification. (Btw, isn't this a new position for you? LOL)
Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
That means abortion is a states rights issue. This idea goes back to the beginning of the nation. The Framers/Founders called it Federalism. Something most conservatives and candidate Fred Thompson support. Now, if you want a Reagan style Human Rights amendment added to the Constitution --- which I would support --- you'll have to go through a process that is outlined in the Constitution itself. A process that has been successful only 17 times in our history.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
“Maybe the editors should add up the dents and dings for all the front runners on the issue of abortion as well as other issues of importance to the majority of conservatives and see who looks least like an acne scarred teenager. I have, and I think Fred looks really good in comparison.”
Done the comparing...and exactly why it CLEARLY makes better sense to support Duncan Hunter rather than waste a minute on the lesser of the four.
Because, virtually all of Fred Thompson's language and stance about being some great "federalist" was borrowed directly from John McCain.
"I’m a federalist. Just as I believe that the issue of gay marriage should be decided by the states, so do I believe that we would be better off by having Roe v. Wade return to the states."
- John McCain, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, 11-19-06
Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have an almost identical position in this regard, one that matches that of Stephen A. Douglas in 1858, and Jerry Ford in 1976, which is anathema to the Reagan pro-life GOP platform.
I cannot, and will not, support someone who is completely unmoored from an understanding that no individual, no state, has the right to alienate the unalienable rights to life and liberty.
***************
Exactly right. I wonder, too, what it is they want.
Fred has had these positions just as long as McCain has. You know better, too.
Your intellectual dishonesty is disgusting. Fred is not "borrowing" a position from McCain. He is advocating a return to the legal framework of abortion law that existed in this country for over 200 years prior to Roe vs. Wade. John McCain didn't invent the position on Goerge Stephanopoulos' show.
For whatever reason, it is apparently necessary to tear down Fred and the NRLC to pave the way for whomever they have decided to endorse. Since they are completely free to endorse anyone they like, one has to wonder why it is necessary to play these intellectually dishonest games.
Who do you support? Unless it's Hunter or Tancredo, any such nitpicking is hypocritical of you. no one has been more consistent in his philosophy than Fred.
But the Federal government does? No, actually, the Federal government doesn’t because the Constitution does not enumerate that power to the Federal government. That is why a Constitutional amendment would be needed. But while supporters of such an effort are busy throwing themselves against the brick wall that is the US Senate, the states, through the individuals who populate those states, already have the right to decide that life is precious and sacrosanct.
Who is the more foolish? He who wages a constantly losing campaign to change a law or one who wins the war with the laws already in place? If you truly care about life you must think every life is precious and that means that waiting for another 60 years to change the Constitution is unacceptable.
Stop the silly propaganda.
Fred`s been a federalist and a conservative since his early 20`s, back when he attended college in the 1960`s. Some 45 years ago! Fred didn’t even know John McCain back then. Fred`s his own man.
The point is that it's phony. Nothing more than a way to dodge the abortion question, and avoid any responsibility for it.
Do you think John McCain is really a "federalist"?
Can YOU name me a single unconstitutional federal program or department that either Fred Thompson or John McCain are advocating for dismantling?
This confusion between enumerated POWERS and unalienable RIGHTS is purposefully spread by cynical politicians. It's sad to see so many fall for it.
Fact is, NEITHER of them is actually a federalist at all. In fact, they're the exact opposite.
They don't even comprehend the simple reason for the existence of government in the first place.
""The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, "Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?" But they don't.
A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."
~~~ Fred Thompson, LINK
President Reagan`s Executive Order #12612: Federalism: October 26, 1987:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Sec. 2.:
(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.
It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group,
Nope. There's a difference between "offering legal advice" and being assigned a case by the firm.
voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate
Do what? Exactly what "key pro-life issues" did FDT vote against? The answer: none.
and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.
Convoluted only to those who don't understand the original purpose and intent of the Constitution.
Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.
What nonsense. If you can't come anywhere near actually passing the amendment, then you aren't protecting anything except your props with the pro-life wing of the party. FDT's way is THE way that little babies' lives will be saved. If you, dschapin, were REALLY pro-life, you'd support Fred's federalism way - because THAT is what is already producing results.
However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.
Um, the FEDERAL flag is a FEDERAL issue - if you don't believe me, look up the parts of the US Code already on the books concerning such things as the proper display and treatment of the flag.
Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
Actually, since Congress is specifically delegated spending powers at the federal level, the BB amendment would most definitely NOT be superfluous. Instead, it would be correctly fixing a deficiency at the federal level in the federal Constitution.
You DH people are getting both more desperate and more craven.
Who do I listen to on this...
Where do I turn for guidance...
Washington Times or National Right to Life...
Do I listen to a newspaper editor or a group of folks who have dedicated their lives and careers to saving the unborn...
Man it is indeed a tough call... (Yes , I am rolling my eyes and whistling)
Since that is pretty much a basic application of the principle of federalism, I doubt you'll do very well in making your case that FDT "stole" that line from McCain.
I guess since McCain and Duncan Hunter are both pro-life, then DH must steal what he says about abortion from McCain?
If you had made this statement in August, I would not think of trying to dissuade you from continuing to support your candidate. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that nothing could separate you from your support now. But we now heading down the backside of November and the voting begins in January. Rudy is clearly in the lead and has momentum.
Duncan Hunter is not a front runner. He is running out of money and does not have enough time left to gain the support he needs. He will not be President of the United States in 2008. When it is time for you to cast your vote, I hope you will join us in supporting Fred Thompson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.