Posted on 08/28/2007 11:38:07 AM PDT by WalterSkinner
And What Ronald Wilson Reagan believed.
You’re preaching to the choir...
... but you’re also pissing in the wind.
Federalism has never been about the alienation of the God-given right to life and liberty.
I agree, abortion is a special case issue.
Why?
Well, the Reagan choir specifically wanted to attack abortion from multiple angles, not just make a federalist argument. One more reason that Hunter is the only Reganite in the race.
I guess you missed the posting above of the simple text of the Ninth Amendment.
Neither the federal government, nor the state governments, nor any individual has any right to alienate any of the rights to life and liberty that God granted us, whether they are enumerated or not. They are God-given, not granted by man. Therefore, man can't take them away, rightfully.
I have called for a right to life amendment since the earliest days of Roe`s passage. If you want to keep reminding everyone about the sanctity of life, no problem here. Life is precious.
However, some of us believe there is a legitimate interim phase in the pro-life struggle. Overturn Roe and it will go back to the states by default. You seem to have a problem with that. You won't take a partial victory even when a total victory is not possible. Strange.
Sorry, but that is an activist reading of the 9th that made Roe possible.
It was primarily the stupid judgment that the unborn aren’t persons that made Roe possible. It’s right there in the decision.
http://tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/
Falsehoods abound. LOL
My goal has always been to see Roe v Wade overturned adn an end to abortion on demand as Americas national policy. By default, abortion will then head back to the states. I have called for a right to life amendment since the earliest days of Roe`s passage. And Hunter is not the only Reaganite running. Cong Tom Tancredo is also a Reaganite. And so is Fred Thompson!
My man Tancredo and your man Hunter are going nowhere fast. Once FredT announces, the race for the GOP nomination will get real intetesting. Remember, the target is the liberal Giuliani. FredT is not a target for conservatives who want to knock Rooty out of the race.
A) You won't overturn Roe without arguing for the personhood of the unborn.
B) Even if you did, you would still be left with a situation in which the personhood of the unborn is unrecognized.
C) Such a scenario makes it difficult to overturn abortion in the several states.
D) Such a scenario makes another Roe possible at any given point in time.
I did not say that abortion alone made Hunter the only Reaganite. His entire campaign of peace through strength, his virulent anti-communism, his unwavering faith in the goodness of America, his unparalleled career fighting for our military and our borders, his belief in America as the beacon of freedom, his ability to scare the crap out of the mullahs and chicoms, his championing of causes long before they were ‘mainstream’ in the GOP, his stalwart protection of US sovereignty, and his complete lack of nuance and tapdancing make him the only Reaganite.
Rudy will be defeated, but that is not and cannot be the only goal of conservatives.
If you want to hear echoes of RWR, go here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1885750/posts
and here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1887675/posts
My sister once turned down a marriage proposal from someone she cared for deeply, but she couldn’t marry a man who considered himself to be the creator of his children. She found a better husband, who became an excellent father.
It is a rare and humble man who realizes that the gardner merely plants the seed, he does not create it.
Until men are ready for a more spiritual perspective, abortion must be defeated incrimentally, beginning with the overturning of Roe V Wade. IMO
Roe was an activist ruling. J.White said it was, "an act of raw judicial power". If the High Court found that life begins at conception, then all bets are off. Thats what you want to see happen. I'd be overjoyed too. For now, lets use a little practical wisdom.
Do you recognize the difference between the argument that "if Roe were overturned it would go back to the states," and "the states should be allowed to decide this," as candidates like Romney, McCain, Thompson, Brownback and Paul, and Huckabee have all been known to claim?
”Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid”. – Ron Paul, January 2006
"I don’t think a constitutional amendment is probably going to take place, but I do believe that it’s very likely or possible that the Supreme Court should — could overturn Roe v. Wade, which would then return these decisions to the states, which I support. . . 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)
"Roe v. Wade is based on a real stretch of Constitutional application--that somehow there is a greater privacy issue in the abortion concern--than there is a human life issue--and that the federal government should be making that decision as opposed to states making that decision. So, I've never felt that it was a legitimate manner in which to address this and, first of all, it should be left to the states, the 10th Amendment, but secondly, to somehow believe that the taking of an innocent, unborn human life is about privacy and not about that unborn life is ludicrous.” Mike Huckabee, Interview with Right Wing News, 2006
"“It’d be OK. It would be OK to repeal it. It would be OK also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision…the court has to make that decision, and then the country can deal with it.” – Rudy Giuliani, GOP debate, 2007.
"The answer is not, as some have claimed, the nationwide prohibition of abortion. Rather, as the Constitution contemplates, the decision of whether and how to regulate abortion would return once again to the states. There, the democratic, deliberative process would work its will, and the People could reach an acceptable accommodation on the fundamental issue of life.” Sam Brownback, press release, 6-23-2005)
"My view is that the Supreme Court has made an error in saying at the national level ‘one size fits all for the whole nation’ and instead I would let states make their choice….I’d let states make their own decision in this regard. My view of course is that I’m a pro-life individual and it’s the position that I support. But I would let states have this choice rather than let the federal government have it." - Mitt Romney, August 2007
"Mr. [Fred]Thompson, who has formed a "testing the waters" committee and is likely to make an official announcement of his candidacy soon, has long taken a federalist approach to abortion, saying that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and that states should decide the issue for themselves. He opposes a constitutional amendment banning abortion, his spokesman, Mark Corallo, said yesterday." – June 2007, NY Sun
The Respect Human Life Act, just introduced in the 98th Congress, states in its first section that the policy of the United States is "to protect innocent life, both before and after birth." This bill, sponsored by Congressman Henry Hyde and Senator Roger Jepsen, prohibits the federal government from performing abortions or assisting those who do so, except to save the life of the mother. It also addresses the pressing issue of infanticide which, as we have seen, flows inevitably from permissive abortion as another step in the denial of the inviolability of innocent human life.
I have endorsed each of these measures, as well as the more difficult route of constitutional amendment, and I will give these initiatives my full support. Each of them, in different ways, attempts to reverse the tragic policy of abortion-on-demand imposed by the Supreme Court ten years ago. Each of them is a decisive way to affirm the sanctity of human life.
Sad, but not unexpected.
>but for the unborn to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as the humans they are...<
>>By what means, the Supremes?<<
No, the Supreme Being Who is the One Who gave us our inalienable rights, designed the entire system, and inspired a guide book to show us tiny, ingnorant beings Who He is, and how He wants his design to work. The Holy of Holies, the Father of us all, Almighty God.
*applause*
And Fred said he “opposes” a constitutional amendment, not just thinks it is not the most logical or practical or has the lowest chance for success. Wonder if he opposes Hunter’s legislation as well.
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.