Posted on 10/01/2007 8:23:57 PM PDT by Doofer
I agree with you. it is not the federal governments place to decide what people should believe or not believe in when it comes to immorality.
One’s opinion of something should never be mandated by a government directive, or in this case, a federal constitutional amendment.
At least by giving each state the opportunity to approach an amendment, as deemed by need, residents of that state have direct influence by requiring and participating in a vote. But when a judge directs the mandate, the majority people have effectively lost their right to fair and equal representation.
For the record, I am furious at Huckabee for RAISING TAXES IN ARKANSAS and for attacking President Bush about the war against terrorism. Gov. Huckabee can jump in the lake.
I'm not so sure this will do him in. Lets not forget who the alternatives are. Sure the Evangelicals may not be thrilled, but I don't think they will go swarming over to Rudy or Hillery.
If the focus of the amendment is on protecting the power of state legislatures from usurpation by judges or by other states, I think a lot of legislatures would go along with it. If the focus is limiting what states can do, more legislatures would balk.
... as I recall, everyone saw it coming. Fred's a federalist. Like abortion, he was sure to take this position.
It was also obvious that big government conservatives would be taken aback by his principals.
Trouble is ... 'big governmentism' is so ingrained throughout our thinking that we don't recognize it in ourselves. We call others 'liberals', 'democrats' or 'RINOs' when they want big government solutions we oppose; but when we want a big government solution for something we want, we still think of ourselves as 'conservatives' ...
I think 'evangelical southerners' are not so backward that they won't see the wisdom of his approach and why it's really better than the alternative.
Doubletalk...he has “Front Runner” written all over him.
Note the tagline ...
Thats true, theyll split up into a half dozen pieces. Unfortunately, Thompson needs them whole, on his side, given how late he got in. His first win was suppose to be South Carolina, but that aint gonna happen now. I think hes lost the South and the rest hes already behind in.
Tell Dobson that. Im surprised to see he has so many followers, but it appears he does , given the polls. Thompson's gay marriage stance is hurting him, no doubt about it.
>>>The way I see it, we’re going to hell in a handbasket and Thompson’s solution is to insist that each state have the right to choose the color of the basket.<<<
Care to guess how many are going to go with the rainbow variety when that time comes?
The longer we drag our free, the more the nation tanks.
>>The longer we drag our free, the more the nation tanks.<<
DRAG OUR FEET :P
Awesome way to put that !
I disagree, but I don't want to argue to bitterly about it. I do hope you are wrong, and it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
“If you say judges can’t interpret the law then you have violated the tripartite government.”
I don’t think it hurt him. He’s dead man walking and hasn’t got the Memo. Sad but true.
>>Which would be better: to have a Constitutional amendment that gets ratified, and which prevents state judges from pushing homosexual ‘marriages’ over the objections of the legislatures and prevents states from imposing such ‘marriages’ on other state<<
And the moment someone who is married in Vermont has their marriage annulled in Wyoming? And sues in a federal court?
Sorry, Ockam’s legal razor applies here. The simplest amendment and the most sound legal principles involve simply defining marriage between one man and one woman. No loopholes. No room for doubt. Very simple.
Which Unconstitutional Federal Programs is this Not-A-Big-Government Fred talking about undoing?
I haven’t heard a Reaganism out of him on any of those issues.
All I see is a Big Government Confederate.
And we only need 3/4ths of the States to agree ! Forget about, CA, IL, NJ, NY etc. You are 1000000% right on !!
>>>Second, our tri-partite form of government does not require the courts to “interpret” laws - it requires them to apply them<<<
In order to apply a law, you have to interpret the principle of law in relation to the scenario at hand. They’re indivisibly linked.
Even Californians passed prop 22, the defensive of marriage law. Surely, most states can do the same. I know Nevada has it in their constitution. It came about from the initiative process. This type of initiative was what Bush rode on in his last election. Big reason for his victory.
Instead of Dobson whining, he should go to work getting initiatives on the ballots on as many states as possible that are the likes of prop 22.
Have no idea where this thing is going to go for FDT. However, FDT is the real conservative’s choice.
Agreed, the initiative process has been successful in many states. It is normally referred to as The Defense of Marriage. I think AZ failed to pass it last time around. They should give it another go. It passed in CA and NV several years ago.
Has Dobson bothered to get this type of initiative on the CO ballot or is he too busy showboating and whining.
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.