Fred Thompson says "No" to Human Life Amendment

CBNnews.com ^ | November 4, 2007 | David Brody

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Fred Thompson told Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday that he DOES NOT support a Human Life amendment. That position is part of the GOP platform. Here’s what the 2004 GOP platform says:

"We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions." Here’s what Thompson said about it lifted from today’s Meet The Press transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about an issue very important in your party’s primary process, and that’s abortion.

MR. THOMPSON: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: This is the 2004 Republican Party platform, and here it is: “We say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution,” “we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Could you run as a candidate on that platform, promising a human life amendment banning all abortions?

MR. THOMPSON: No.

MR. RUSSERT: You would not?

--snip--

[EternalVigilance]

The SCOTUS interprets the constitution,

All three branches, and in fact every officer of the United States, takes an oath to defend the Constitution.

Pray tell how they can keep that oath if they can't interpret it?

In fact, they have a duty to interpret, and enforce it. The executive, the legislative, and the judicial branch.

If one branch fails in this sworn duty, the other two branches have a sworn duty to check them.

Gosh, the public schools have really dumbed down the understanding of basic civics...

And these candidates, historical and constitutional morons that most of them are, are dumbing down the Republican electorate, and sadly, FReeperdom.

[Secret Agent Man]

They are also the ones easiest replaced. They want to keep getting re-elected.

The conservatives on the court are getting older too. We’re either going to get another Harriet Myers or a Souter, not a Scalia or Thomas. If a Rat gets elected it’s more Ginsburgs. We have hardly any ability to influence who’s nominated. Much less force the Senate to confirm them.

[Secret Agent Man]

Sometimes being a leader is telling people what they believe is a correct decision is wrong and working to make it illegal.

Slavery for example. If Lincoln would’ve said “I’m personally opposed to slavery but I believe it’s up to white people as to whether or not they want to own slaves, I don’t want to make them criminals” then we’d probably have a CSA in the southern part of the North American land mass. Sometimes it is right to say to others they are wrong, even when they ‘believe’ they are correct (but are wrong).

[Hunton Peck]

"All three branches, and in fact every officer of the United States, takes an oath to defend the Constitution...."

Exactly. So you're proposing that, if some army first louie agrees with us, he should drive his tank over and start leveling abortion mills, or the Supreme Court building, or . . . what?

I guess I'll have to check out of this discussion until I get some sleep. It's too late for me to argue at the level of abstraction you seem to be going for. If this thread is still alive tomorrow evening, I might be back.

[CitizenUSA]

EV wrote: “Gosh, the public schools have really dumbed down the understanding of basic civics...”

Forgive me for my ignorance of “basic civics,” and let me know when you’ve convinced the president and Congress to try it your way.

[Reagan Man]

I know very well that Pres Reagan supported a Human Rights amendment to the Constitution. So did I. It came in 1983 and was called the Hatch-Eagleton Human Life Federalism Amendment.

Problem was, it failed to pass the first step for any amendment. The Senate vote was 50-49 against, falling far short of the 67 votes needed for passage.

Btw, its wording was pretty simple.

“A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution.”

That simply wording would have meant, Roe v Wade would've been overturned and the issue thrown back to the states.

Its really a moot point. There isn't gonna be a Human Life amendment in the foreseeable future. We need to get a fifth pro-life conservative on the high court, which would then overturn RvW and send it back to the states. That is the best resolution possible at this point in time.

[Reagan Man]

Presidential rhetoric is great, but the POTUS has no power in the amendment process. OTOH, a POTUS can appoint pro-life conservatives to the SCOTUS. We need just one more on the hbigh court and that would effectively end RvW as the law of the land.

President Reagan said it best:

"Our nation-wide policy of abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy was neither voted for by our people, nor enacted by our legislators--not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973. [It was] an act of raw judicial power"...

"Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution. Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a "right" so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born."

"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."

"Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

~~~~ President Ronald Reagan : "Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation", 1983

[Reddy]

bookmark

[CitizenUSA]

Reagan Man wrote: “Its really a moot point. There isn’t gonna be a Human Life amendment in the foreseeable future. We need to get a fifth pro-life conservative on the high court, which would then overturn RvW and send it back to the states. That is the best resolution possible at this point in time.”

Good points. We are quite close to winning this so long as Hillary and her ilk don’t make it to the White House. There are several Republican candidates who promise to appoint strict constructionists. Some of them even appear likely to follow through if elected (others are not to be trusted).

[LowOiL]

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized – the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old."
Ted Kennedy (pre-1971)

[Jim Noble]

If Lincoln would’ve said “I’m personally opposed to slavery but I believe it’s up to white people as to whether or not they want to own slaves, I don’t want to make them criminals”

Lincoln said in fact exactly that, repeatedly:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free."

Personally opposed. That's what he was.

[Fred]

Hey, take it easy, I was just kidding.

Love the name.

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[8mmMauser]

I have that and more and gladly provide it. Clara Lou, all you have to do is follow my link just upthread to Terri Dailies. Then check out my morning posts with the little title, Fred and Terri tar baby dailies. It goes all the way back to the first gaffe, carried from the start in our Terri Dailies. It will take a little research but all that has come out about the tar baby is there. Occasionally a day or two are without new tar baby links, but the media won't let go of it for long.

Glad to help!

8mm

[Clara Lou]

I believe that you are speaking of the incident where Thompson billed that pro-choice group for 3.2 billable hours. That was the extent of his “lobbying effort” for that group. Of the other hours, none were lobbying hours. People here verified that from the PDF of the original document.

[phrogphlyer]

Not anymore than we already do. How many convicted murderers get the death sentence? How many of these are actually carried out?

[LexBaird]

I’m pro-life, but would you please explain where, in the Constitution, it says life begins at conception and that it is the role of the federal government to protect the unborn?

IIRC, murder is left to the states to deal with. Why is abortion different than murder?

IIRC, no state has legalized murder. If one were to do so, the Federal govt. has grounds under the 14th amendment to step in.

" ... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;..."

The law currently finesses this fact by defining when life begins via Roe v Wade. Overturning that decision would knock out the underpinnings of the pro aborts, and leave the definition of the start of life open legally. Since it is a vital definition in many points of law to know whom is alive and whom is not, it would have to be resolved. For example, if a child-in-utero can inherit or be a murder victim, how can it not merit 14th amendment equal rights?

[Dionysiusdecordealcis]

We don’t know the answers to some of this and that is one but not the only reason why all of them should outlawed. If we just stuck with natural means of conceiving and nurturing babies we’d be okay. All the stuff you list will eventually destroy all of us, even if along the way some kind of “positive” desease-fighting result is achieved, in the end it will come back to bite us and destroy us as a people.

So pose all the “what ifs” you want. They only underscore my point. Human life begins at conception and we should nurture it rather than monkey with it or kill it.

Period.

[LexBaird]

Sorry, but under the US Constitution, life begins at birth. From the 14th amendment, I quote, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Note: protections are afforded to persons “born or naturalized”.

You misinterpret. Protections are afforded to ALL persons within its jurisdiction. Citizenship is limited persons born or naturalized in the US, but even non-citizens cannot be murdered, falsely imprisoned or robbed.

[ari-freedom]

well if he doesn’t want to change the federal laws against abortion then that is different than “leave it to the states”