Posted on 09/19/2007 7:14:10 PM PDT by pissant
I would love such an amendment.
I also want to be a multi-billionaire, fly like superman, and maybe make love to every girl in the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, or at least have them swoon a bit over me.
Sensible post about Thompson needing to show he is up to the campaign pretty quickly. That’s why I’ve been saying to let your neighbors, friends, family, etc., know about Duncan Hunter. If Thompson stumbles who does a conservative vote for? We need to get Duncan Hunter in a position to be a real alternative if Fred Thompson doesn’t make it when the rubber meets the road. Otherwise we are looking at Guilianni.
Personally, I would have no objection to a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, however Constitutional Amendments are extremely difficult to pass. I think the ERA Amendment proves that to be true. It’s far easier to get states to ban abortion than attempting via Constitutional Amendment.
I don't blame anyone for the motley crew we have in Congress now except the motley crew we had in Congress before '06 (and yes, this Congress is even worse -- but the critters who failed to adhere to Contract with America and did their best to become career congressional politicians need to take a long, hard look at themselves).
That said, would-be kingmaking (as this appears to be)always strikes me as being more about earthly power than anything else. It just seems like a dangerous game. Then again, the most devout person I've ever known refused to even vote -- that seems like a dangerous game, on the other end of the spectrum.
Anyhoo, this doesn't change anything for me -- we'll see if it makes a difference in the race over the long term.
“No constitutional amendment will stop homosexuality.”
Kid, please identify anyone on the planet who has proposed a constitutional amendment to stop homosexual behavior.
On the other hand, over two dozen states — by an average vote in favor of 67% — have already approved constitutional amendments to prohibit their states from legally recognizing as a marriage anything other than the union of one man and one woman. (I co-authored Michigan’s.)
A Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the long term, is likely the only thing that will prevent five members of the U.S. Supreme Court from some day discovering and declaring that homosexual “marriage” is a “right,” thus overturning all state laws and constitutional protections to the contrary.
And a point that I’m stunned even has to made on a blog frequented by folks who have more than a passing interest and knowledge of the American political process.
Anybody who does not recognize that Dr. James Dobson is a revered individual who substantially influences the public policy thinking and likely voting patterns of millions if not tens of millions of Americans is simply delusional.
People who describe themselves as “focused” or “intensely focused” on moral and social issues comprise 51% of all Republicans...see Fabrizio poll numbers posted in post above (up there somewhere).
And if you don’t think millions of them are influenced by Dr. Dobson’s views on everything from parenting to who the next president should (or should not) be, you’re in la-la land.
Whether you like the guy, agree with the guy, respect the guy, or totally dismiss him (as amazingly, many here obviously do) is totally irrelevant to the FACT of his substantial and widespread influence.
Everything I am and have belongs to my Lord God Almighty. His law is sacrosanct to me. Most of our early laws were based on His laws.
>No constitutional amendment will stop homosexuality, promiscuity, infidelity, drug use, alcohol abuse, or any other sin,. All this accomplishes is restricting freedom, empowering government and a lack of community involvment (sic).<
The Constitutional Amendment we have been discussing is the one banning same sex marriage and the recognition of same, not stopping sinful behavior. Only the sinner can do that. Because God finds homosexuality an abomination, our Constitution, which is largely based on God’s laws, should, indeed, be amended to ban same sex marriage.
If you have something to lose by that, it is your problem.
Certain freedoms must be restricted by law. That is what laws are for. And I do not see where this empowers government or threatens Community involvement.
Assuming you agree with Madison on the point, please explain how banning slavery falls into the “external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce” category.
That is, assuming you think it’s a good thing that “federalism” was violated by a Constitutional amendment banning slavery.
If you do, please explain why.
If you don’t, please explain why.
Please do so with the understanding that however you justify your position, that’ll be the standard by which in future exchanges, I’ll hold Fred accountable regarding amendments to protect life and marriage.
No, James Dobson is a man of unquestioned integrity. He simply doesn’t believe that Thompson is a social conservative and he is tired of supporting Republicans who take our votes and then stab us in the back. You can blast James Dobson all you want but why should social conservatives support someone who won’t even take a strong stand against Terri Schievo’s murder. It is becoming clear that Thompson is no social conservative and thus we won’t support him.
“I would love such an amendment.”
And Fred opposes such an amendment. At least til next week, when I hope he’ll suddenly “see the light.” Stay tuned.
Dobson was....hmmmm might have been
Frankly, I’d vote for Alan Keyes before I’d vote for Fred.
But in the primary, I’ll stick with Duncan Hunter. Sent him another $100 today. Will anyone please join me? :)
I’ll vote for Keyes if you do!
...I read somewhere here today that he is already taking a week off from it.
Of course you have a link for that...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1899326/posts?page=100#100
Here’s the link.
Let me try to explain where social conservatives are coming from: we don’t want the politicians to do homage to us and our leaders its just that we are tired of being treated like the crazy uncle in the Republican party. Republican’s can’t win without us and we want to be treated with the same sort of respect that they given to the other parts of the Republican Party. More than anything, however, we are issue based voters. We don’t support Thompson because he is not willing to take a stand on the issues that we care about. He opposes any sort of federal ban on abortion, he dodged his chance to condemn Terri’s murder, he refused to come and answer questions about his views from social conservative leaders, he has downplayed his personal faith, and he opposes the marriage Amendment. So - why should we support him?
Don’t worry. When Christ returns, he won’t be “running” for office:’)
yeah, Kings don’t need to run for anything!!
The amendment is not feasible. Not. Gonna. Happen.
It’s like having a fight over who is tougher: Superman or the Incredible Hulk. Well, who cares? They’re both fictional, so it’s Not. Gonna. Happen.
I applaud a candidate who is not going to waste government resources on something this is not feasible.
Thats ridiculous and you know better than that. You disagree with him but he is a very good man of great integrity who has done a lot of good for this country. He is probably the most respected leader in the social conservative movement. So, when you ridicule him you are ridiculing all of the rest of us and insulting us is not a good idea when you need our votes to win.
“Personally, I would have no objection to a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion.”
Great. Glad to know you recognize that a universal guarantee of every prenatal citizen’s right to be born in the first place is more important than the concept of “federalism.”
And I also respect your decision to support Fred anyway, despite the fact that he opposes amendments too protect life and marriage.
None of the candidates is both perfect and viable on every issue each of us cares about.
But since you acknowledge that there are some principles more important that “federalism,” please refrain from defending Fred from criticism about his opposition to the marriage amendment as if you believe otherwise.
As long as any changes are made by constitutional amendment there is no federalism problem. The 10th Amendment simply states that the powers which have not been delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved respectively to the states or to the people. If a constitutional amendment is ratified that means that the people - in whom the ultimate sovereignty rests - have chosen to delegate that to the federal government. So, again, federalism is irrelevant when you are talking about constitutional amendments.
Dobson doesn’t have a flock, doesn’t have a church, and doesn’t have anything to do with Craig. He runs a ministry that focuses on the family . . . hence “Focus on the Family.” I don’t know why you are so angry at Dobson and harsh towards him. Do you?
Why doesn’t Dobson himself run for POTUS?
He has experience, reputation, and a passionate following.
A recognizable name. A history of integrity. A popular author. Devout family man.
Has anyone tried to draft him?
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.