Posted on 04/10/2007 10:24:18 PM PDT by pissant
Despite his promise to appoint "strict constructionists" to the Supreme Court if he is elected president, Rudy Giuliani recently said he has no interest in overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that discovered a previously unnoticed constitutional right to abortion. Offending social conservatives (and strict constructionists) even further, he told CNN this constitutional right may require government financing of abortions for women who otherwise cannot afford them.
Since Giuliani also claims to support "the right to bear arms" (a right that is actually mentioned in the Constitution), he should, by similar logic, advocate the use of taxpayer money to buy guns for poor people. But the idea would never occur to him, because his sudden interest in the Second Amendment, like his sudden interest in strict constructionism, is merely an affectation intended to allay the concerns of Republican primary voters.
In his stump speeches, Giuliani, whose campaign Web site calls him "a strong supporter of the Second Amendment," praises the federal appeals court decision that last month overturned the District of Columbia's ban on keeping guns in the home for self-defense. Yet that ban is only slightly stricter than the gun laws that Giuliani still brags about vigorously enforcing when he was mayor of New York.
Giuliani tries to reconcile his support for strict gun control in New York with his newfound commitment to the Second Amendment by saying that different jurisdictions should be able to choose the gun laws that are appropriate for them. As his Web site puts it, "Rudy understands that what works in New York doesn't necessarily work in Mississippi or Montana."
But the right to keep and bear arms has no meaning if politicians are free to impose any kind of gun control they think "works." In the D.C. gun ban decision that Giuliani says he supports, a federal court overruled the judgment of local officials because it was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
Giuliani's commitment to federalism in this area seems shaky in any case. As mayor, he supported a federal law that required waiting periods and background checks for gun purchases. He wanted to go further, creating a national system for handgun registration and licensing.
Giuliani also supported a federal ban on "assault weapons," semi-automatic guns that were targeted based on their militaristic appearance rather than their capabilities or use in crime. When the ban lapsed in 2004, he wanted it renewed, although his campaign now says he would not necessarily support reinstating it. If Giuliani sees this utterly arbitrary law as the sort of "reasonable and sensible" gun control he says is consistent with the Second Amendment, that standard is easily met.
In addition to these explicit forms of national gun control, Giuliani sought to impose restrictions throughout the country indirectly by filing a lawsuit that blames firearm manufacturers and distributors for criminal use of their products. The suit demands changes in the way guns are made and sold that would affect their cost and availability nationwide.
Giuliani explained the rationale for the lawsuit during a June 2000 radio show: "We are dealing with a problem that is foisted on the city by the rest of the country 95 percent of the guns in New York City can be traced to someplace outside the city A lot of the problems in New York City are caused by very, very lax regulations outside the city." So much for letting each city or state go its own way on gun control.
Giuliani also made a revealing comment when he accused gun manufacturers of knowingly supplying criminals by "overproducing guns, way beyond the number that's necessary for hunting and for law enforcement." For Giuliani, it seems, hunting is the only legitimate use of guns for people who are not police officers. Presumably that is what he imagines folks in "Mississippi or Montana" are doing with their guns, while law-abiding New Yorkers are disarmed in the name of fighting crime.
And the rudyphiles praise his “honesty”.
He can say he’s for the second amendment with his record. He can say ‘I believe gun control should be decided by the states’ when he called for gun control at the federal level.
The man can not be trusted on the second amendment. And you can safely assume that if you can’t trust a politician with the 2nd amendment, you can’t trust them with any of the others.
Even if this was his only failing that I knew of, it would IMMEDIATELY disqualify him. The rest of the GOP needs to pull its head out of its arse.
ping
I thik we need to put WWBAD? on each Rudy thread.
What would Bella Abzug Do?
He is the classic definition of a liberal and I don’t know how anybody can say otherwise and keep a straight face.
They believe he can beat hillary. That is all that matters to some of them.
To others, his liberal views coincide with their own.
Yep
Makes Nancy Pelosi’s Iraq policy seem consistent and constitutional by comparison.
Who ever said they can keep a straight face? : )
What a world we conservatives are forced to live in.
It really suprises me how many lib GOPers are here. Guess it is a broader cross section of the GOP than I thought.
As long as everyone attacked democrats and not liberalism, they were fine. Now, not so fine.
-—The man can not be trusted on the second amendment. And you can safely assume that if you can’t trust a politician with the 2nd amendment, you can’t trust them with any of the others.-—
Romney is more of the same, joined the NRA last year as a Lifetime Member, after much anti-gun mischief in his brief experience of executive office.
Both of them are welcome to keep their hands off Montana.
Yes indeed....NOT so fine!
It looks like they’re still around 10%, based on rudy’s poll numbers here.
About a month ago it was 15%. And here we’re told that all the “negative” stuff (i.e., rudy’s record and own words) that we’re posting isn’t changing anyone’s minds on the site.
10%, and 80% women
Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Rudy supports campaign finance "reform."
Amendment II: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
You covered his antagonism toward RKBA very well already in your post.
Amendment III: No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Hmmm, I know of nothing that Rudy has said or done on this front. He might support Amendment III!
Amendment IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
He supported unreasonable searches based solely on anonymous tips (and was overturned by the courts). He proposed collecting the DNA of all newborns. That's just off the top of my head -- Rudy does not have a good record on Amendment IV.
Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Rudy supports seizure of property from those acquitted of a crime. Rudy used eminent domain for the benefit of private developers. It's a big NO on Amendment V.
Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
I need more research on this one. I believe there may be some problems reconciling Rudy's use of RICO and his support of a more extensive PATRIOT Act with Amendment VI. I'm not certain, though.
Amendment VII: In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Need more research on this one. I'm guessing there may be problems similar to Amendment VI.
Amendment VIII: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Losing one's property upon being accused of a first offense, even when acquitted, can be considered imposing excessive fines.
Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Ha! See my tagline. Rudy doesn't believe you have the right to do anything the Constitution doesn't explicitly say you can do (i.e., he doesn't understand how our Founding Documents work).
Amendment X: 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.
Federal gun laws are just one example of his antipathy to federalism and states' rights, not to mention individual rights.
So, new campaign slogan: Rudy doesn't not support Amendment III!
Add me to the stop rudy list!
For the first amendment, don’t forget all the court cases he lost as mayor of NY city on first amendment grounds. The one that makes him look really bad is NY magazine vs the city of new york.
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.