Posted on 11/04/2007 4:46:14 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
I thought the interview with former President George H.W. Bush was outstanding. Very frank, very telling, very supportive of his family.
Since my son was in Desert Storm, I enjoyed that part of it too.
Was there a full moon or sumptin’? LOL
Well, looks like the Patriots are living up to their hype. I was very impressed with their ability to stay calm and come from behind. Will they now go undefeated?
With each lackluster and laid back appearance, I am convinced, he does not illicit the enthusiasm and energy it takes to defeat Hillary. Your assessment is dead on, snugs!
With each lackluster and laid back appearance, I am convinced, he does not illicit the enthusiasm and energy it takes to defeat Hillary. Your assessment is dead on, snugs!
Several members of the 1972 Dolphins team have had a party each year when the last undefeated team falls. That's 35 years worth of parties. I bet they're wondering if they'll get to do it again this year.
Just finished watching the taped FNS and thoroughly enjoyed the interview in the Presidential library with the elder Pres George Bush. We will make it a point to visit the library our next trip thru Texas. The panel discussion of the rebellion within the foreign service diplomat corps was quite lively. Because the positions to be filled in war zones surpass the volunteers for those jobs, the diplomats will now be assigned to go where needed. Juan Williams, bless his heart, was the only defender of Mr. Jack Croddy whose public crybaby whining was an embarrassment to his fellow diplomats and this country as well. Brit got to the crux of Croddy’s complaint by pointing out that his objection began with an objection to the war itself, and that one cannot ‘self assign’ to preferred stations. Hillary and her debate gaffe was discussed with all in agreement that she goofed in playing the gender card. Even Mara was unsympathatic to her and said she has to distinguish between the ‘victim’ card and the ‘woman’ one. Bill Kristol was amused at the thought of women being victims in these situations since it is men who are. LOL. I actually agree with him. He also thinks that OBama has a chance to upset Hillary because there is now a crack in the Hillary armor. All in all, quite a good show today.
Actions speak louder than words. Thompson has a 100% pro-life voting record and that was before he had the emotional response to his own child's sonogram.
If the latter, why is murder a matter for states, and abortion a matter for the Feds?
Murder isn't a matter just for the states. States pass all kinds of statutes that still must meet Constitutional muster. Many times these statutes are appealed to Federal Courts not because the states don't have original jurisdiction, they do, but because the federal Courts have appellate jurisdiction on all cases that raise Federal Constitutional questions. There was nothing wrong with the states having original jurisdiction on the issue of abortion. These laws, however, had to be Constitutional. The SCOTUS, in Roe v. Wade, said these statutes were not Constitutional largely because, they said, they violated a womens right to privacy. SCOTUS did not say that states couldn't pass laws on abortion, neither did they say the Federal government could, or should, pass laws on this issue. The issue of whether abortion laws are constitutional or not is clearly an issue only SCOTUS can decide. Murder laws are no different. If a state passed a law that said the penalty for killing, say an albino, was different than the penalty for killing anyone else, the law would certainly be appealed to Federal Court questioning it's Constitutionality. The Federal Courts would make the determination, not state courts.
If SCOTUS "overturned" Roe v. Wade and ruled that it was a state matter, all state statutes on abortion would still be subject to being appealed to Federal Court as being in conflict with either the protections of life afforded by the Constitution or being in conflict with a womens right to privacy.. The matter would be right back in the lap of SCOTUS, no matter what "states rights" proponents claim.
Roe v. Wade was wrong not because the Constitution makes it a state issue. The appeal to SCOTUS was clearly proper. The problem was that SCOTUS did not abide by the written words of the Constitution and find that the unenumerated right to privacy, protected by the Ninth Amendment, was trumped by the enumerated right to life, protected in the Fourteenth amendment, when the two come into conflict. This is going to have to be decided by SCOTUS, one way or another. This is what will control the future of abortion no matter what the states want to do.
Not sure I agree, but a thought provoking response. Thank you.
There are many different kinds of NHL with many different survival rates. Fred's NHL is indolent, which means that it is slow moving. Fred's oncologist as stated in no uncertain terms, that Fred's illness should not effect Fred running for president.
You are spreading misinformation when you use the survival rates for all NHL's and you apply it to Fred.
Your remark is unsupportable by any text in the Constitution.
Well, the Colts lost. Sigh.
I checked on the thread this morning, but before I could post the fracas started, and I refuse to particpate in that stuff anymore. So, I went elsewhere.
I will try to check in next week and participate. Have a good week!
Hi, what did the smock say, if I can ask?
I guess my feelings are sort of like Reagan's "trust but verify"... I say "pray, but sterilize" after exposure ;-)
That voting record was nine years ago. He quit because of his daughter’s overdose. Is he a quitter?
I have every intention of voting for the eventual nominee be it Thompson or otherwise. I brought up the issue of abortion because it stood out to me as the one in question in that interview and hence most worthy of discussion. It would be helpful to all, if eeryone would stop assuming that when a freeper brings up a “hot button” issue that they are inflexible “single issue voters”. That case is perhaps more rare than you think.
Try next time to participate in the discussion in a more meaningful manner, and as a lady. Thank you.
(tips cap)
Article One, Section 9. “ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.
Article Three, Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...
In addition, Article Three allows the Federal Government to provide for jurisdiction of the Federal Courts by statute, which they have.
A party can always appeal to Federal Court if they believe the state law that has affected them, by prosecution or otherwise, is in violation of the Federal Constitution. This is what Roe did. To prevent this the right to Habeas Corpus would have to be suspended which, of course, is prohibited by the Constitution.
SCOTUS in Roe v. Wade did not strike down the Texas abortion law because it was a Federal and not a state issue, it was struck down because, although Texas had a right to pass such laws, this law, they ruled, was unconstitutional.
I also find his position awkward on - excuse me if I get this wrong - a constitutional amendment barring judges from establishing gay marriage. Isn’t that kind of nuancing nuance? Technically “federalist”, but if you are going to go that far you might as well just make the actual amendment. It seems like he’s taking “principle” on a tightrope walk.
Your post sounds like an excellent analysis of what we face in Roe. Thank you.
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.