Posted on 11/05/2007 6:06:22 PM PST by pissant
Fred Thompson on Meet the Press, 11/4/07.
(Excerpt) Read more at video.google.com ...
“I can see that social conservatives might not like it”
And therein Fred dooms his chances and fragments the party. Federalism has its place, but there are times when it has to go out the window. Thompson’s “FREDeralism” is not a good idea, IMO, because it doesn’t take into account how things creep, and how the courts can’t be trusted.
Only a constitutional ammendment to ban homosexual marraige (and abortion for that matter) in all states will maintain consistency. Some things just have to be universal to all states.
Amendment 8 did not include the Morill Anti-Bigamy Act. It was supposed to be a paragraph break.
“There’s just some things you have to put up with in a free nation made up of distinct states with cultural differences.”
No, I must respectfully disagree. There are some universals that must remain constant from state to state. Thompson’s devotion to his FREDeralism is hurting him as a candidate and potential president.
BTW - The framers didn’t address such issues because the common mood of the country would not allow such things. I don’t think any of them could imagine how much America would literally degenerate over time.
Utah wasn’t allowed to enter the union until it canned polygamy. Why wasn’t that cultural way allowed? Because it was bad for the union, the same way homosexual marriage is.
I have no idea who Shannon Royce is, nor do I care.
I didn’t know Royce joined the Thompson campaign. That’s a great move on Fred’s part. Thanks for pointing this out.
Thank Daylilly. LOL
If you don’t realize how impractical your political perspective is, and you grasp on the impossible...you’ll never gain anything. Despite how much I dislike Bush’s policies on immigration and so-forth, I see the positive element in him picking some justices.
Even if Duncan got in to office, I give him a 100 to 1 shot of getting a Constitutional ban on abortion. That requires a powerful conservative congress. If your a man of God, you’ll realize that even the divine works in time. All evil takes time to squelch.
Look how limited Reagan’s effect was on this...and Bush senior. If their justices had being purely on key with this, we’d see our movement leaps and bounds ahead in this. But even the caliber you see in Duncan (which you describe as a true Reagan follower), could lead to not much more.
It requires constant effort on our part.
This is about gay marriage, not abortion. But both need to be fought on all fronts. Not just hoping that judges will overturn it. that may never happen.
Shannon Royce has joined Fred’s team?
That’s great!
It needs to be fought, but the praticality must be understood.
If you know history, you know the mormon pologamy was addressed in the courts, not through a constitutional amendment. The best way...the most practical...is through the courts. Most negative changes come through there, and vice-versa.
Actually not. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
It was upheld in the courts 20 years later.
To further demonstrate the low character of the Hunter Duncan supporter.
“Actually not. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was signed into law on July 8, 1862 by President Abraham Lincoln. The act banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.
It was upheld in the courts 20 years later.”
Exactly...
It wasn’t a constitutional amendment, was it?
It was the practical way. Congress was able to pass a law, and then the courts solidified it when it came up. No amendment. That was my point.
Not all Duncan supporters are bad...atleast I respect their candidate in comparison to Rudy.
Yes, just like Hunter’s Right to Life act that has dozens of cosponsors. No need for an amendment if this baby passes. Except Thompson would not sign it.
You’re right. My apologies. Let me restate that:
“To further demonstrate the low character of the most vocal Hunter Duncan supporters.”
Hunter Duncan’s a good man. He just needs a better class of supporter.
If we were any classier, it would be like a reception at Buckingham palace. Toughen up.
Buzz off, scum.
Once again, you come onto my thread and tell me to buzz off. You can pound sand, sally.
But I’d be bitter too after that performance on Russert by Fred.
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.