Posted on 11/05/2007 8:52:54 AM PST by Reagan Man
This week-end, Fred Thompson did Meet the Press and unlike Hillary, he bore up well under Russert's questioning. However, there was one thing that Thompson said that raised a few eyebrows. Here's the passage in question,
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. THOMPSON: No. I have always—and that’s been my position the entire time I’ve been in politics. I thought Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. I think this platform originally came out as a response to particularly Roe v. Wade because of that. Before Roe v. Wade, states made those decisions. I think people ought to be free at state and local levels to make decisions that even Fred Thompson disagrees with. That’s what freedom is all about. And I think the diversity we have among the states, the system of federalism we have where power is divided between the state and the federal government is, is, is—serves us very, very well. I think that’s true of abortion. I think Roe v. Wade hopefully one day will be overturned, and we can go back to the pre-Roe v. Wade days. But...
MR. RUSSERT: Each state would make their own abortion laws.
MR. THOMPSON: Yeah. But, but, but to, to, to have an amendment compelling—going back even further than pre-Roe v. Wade, to have a constitutional amendment to do that, I do not think would be the way to go.
Two things.
#1) Unfortunately, a lot of people who are serious about Federalism tend to oppose very reasonable Constitutional Amendments because they think it will take power away from the states. Although it's a very common argument, I've never thought it held any water. After all, 38 states have to approve for a Constitutional Amendment to become law, so it's not as if the states aren't being fairly represented in the process.
#2) Anyone who has ever read RWN knows that I am adamantly pro-life. It's a very big issue for me and I have to admit that I would not mind seeing a Constitutional Amendment passed that banned abortion except in the case of the mother's life being endangered.
However, as I've written before, that's simply not going to happen,
...Republicans can't ban abortion outright because of Roe v. Wade. We could try for a constitutional amendment to get around that, but it would be futile, because they couldn't get enough support for it. Until Roe v. Wade is overturned (and we'd need to replace at least one more judge after Alito gets on the court to do it), we're stuck.
That's why I don't find Thompson's position on this issue to be troubling. To the contrary, it's actually a little reassuring in a roundabout way (Pay close attention to this next paragraph or you'll get confused).
Let me tell you why: since we can't get a constitutional ban on abortion passed, we lose nothing if Thompson gets elected and doesn't support it. That being said, it would have been politically advantageous for him, with social conservatives, to say that he supports the Amendment. The fact that he isn't supporting it is another strong indication that he means what he says about Federalism. That's great news for people who are pro-life, because it means he will likely keep his promise to appoint an originalist judge who respects the Federalist principles in the Constitution and any such judge would certainly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Granted, if Thompson said he supported the Constitutional Amendment, it would also be another indicator he was going to appoint a judge who would overturn Roe v. Wade, but still -- any candidate who really believes in Federalism will move the ball forward for those of us who are conservatives -- and not just on pro-life issues.
That’s because you have a full-time job making up new childish names for mitt and his supporters.
Now a fred supporter will claim you are attacking Reagan by quoting him. :-)
Hence the desire for a constitutional amendment, a process that is clearly constitutional.
A Thompson supporter asking about incivility by the Hunter supporters.
Have you complained about the Thompson supporters personally attacking the Romney supporters?
What do you mean?
In the 1800s, I’m certain the abolitionists felt it was impossible to get a constitutional amendment to ban slavery.
Then we have a civil war, and then we banned slavery.
Hopefully we can ban abortion without a civil war.
Actually, that is wrong. Each state could ban partial birth abortion. Some states did so, and others didn’t.
And then the federal government (properly in my opinion) decded that this was too important an issue for the states, and passed a FEDERAL law banning the procedure.
Fred Thompson did NOT trust each state with this law, but voted to ban it nationwide, circumventing the rights of each state to decide it’s own laws.
There is no structural difference between banning partial birth abortion, and banning all abortion — just a matter of degree.
I mean that the Fred supporters spend a lot of time calling Mitt and his supporters childish names, like “Myth”, and “Mittwitts”, to name a couple.
In other words, the Thompson supporters are doing to the Mitt supporters exactly what you are claiming the Hunter supporters are doing to the Thompson supporters.
I guess I don't see the interplay here as a problem. The ones complaining that we aren't all playing nicely seem to want to remove the passion from this site.
I don't dismiss the barbed comments as meaningless, but we need to keep them in context. We have a forum here perhaps unique in the world of politics, where, unlike the rigid enforcement of dogmatic socialism on the leftist sites... we all, instead, may make our best arguments for or against certain primary candidates.
As pissant says... sure there are some who may think the most compelling argument they may have for changing minds is to slight the motivations and reasoning powers of those they disagree with... but this is driven by involvement, passion, and the clear understanding that who we select in the primary is critical.
They really don't gain as much traction as you might suspect, concentrating on a commenter's shortcomings, rather than perhaps a sharp dissection of where the commenter may have gone astray in their thinking. There is a difference.
Nearly everyone here is trying to avoid fratricide, while suppressing, (perhaps not altogether successfully), the outrage that everyone else refuses to "see it" with the clarity that they do.
The opinions of bcsco lose no weight simply because someone jabs at him too pointedly.
The best we can do is develop a thick enough veneer to slide past comments made in the heat, and continue to each make the excellent points for all of the candidates.
This forum is priceless- too priceless to be too careful with, if that makes any sense.
If we can't toughen our armor against each other's swords, here, in this controlled dojo, ... then we will sputter and falter when the real viciousness comes next summer from the "party of love and flowers".
So, you didn’t mean me personally, correct?
Nope.
I disagree with this reasoning. If we give the federal government official authority over more things through amendments it broadens the reach of the federal government and shrinks the power of the states.
Yes the states have to ratify an amendment. However, the fact that the states are agreeing to pass power to the federal government does not mean that power is not being transferred. The states cannot simply ask for that power back. It would take another constitutional amendment.
However, I still do support a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion because I feel it is such an important issue that it should be uniformly illegal in the United States, just like slavery.
Hopefully we can ban abortion without a civil war.
***Good enough place to bump this thread. Civil war dead: ~500k Abortion dead: ~50M, or 100X more.
There is no structural difference between banning partial birth abortion, and banning all abortion — just a matter of degree.The point of the Congressional ban was to draw a line between abortion and infanticide, and SCOTUS explicitly recognized this intent in its decision in Gonzales v. Carhart:
Congress determined that the abortion methods it proscribed had a “disturbing similarity to the killing of a newborn infant,” Congressional Findings (14)(L), in notes following 18 U. S. C. §1531 (2000 ed., Supp. IV), p. 769, and thus it was concerned with “draw[ing] a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide.” Congressional Findings(14)(G), ibid. The Court has in the past confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to prevent certain practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned. Glucksberg found reasonable the State’s “fear that permitting assisted suicide will start it down the path to voluntary and perhaps even involuntary euthanasia.” 521 U. S., at 732–735, and n. 23.Emphasis added.
Thanks. I agree regarding the effect and purpose of the law, and why it was considered constitutional.
My point was that there is no structural difference from the point of view of federalism. There is no “federal” issue with a federal ban on infanticide that doesn’t exist with regarding to abortion.
No. I apologize for the implication.
“”Actually, that is wrong. Each state could ban partial birth abortion. Some states did so, and others didn’t.
And then the federal government (properly in my opinion) decded that this was too important an issue for the states, and passed a FEDERAL law banning the procedure.
Fred Thompson did NOT trust each state with this law, but voted to ban it nationwide, circumventing the rights of each state to decide it’s own laws.
“”
You forgot another step in there. A state passed a PBA ban, and then a FEDERAL COURT came along and struck that as against Roe v Wade. That is what created the need for the Federal statute.
Actually, if a state ban was against Roe, so would a federal ban be against Roe.
Instead, the federal ban was written slightly differently, plus the case made it to the Supreme Court that ruled in favor.
But it was not necesary to be a federal law to pass constitutional muster.
And while I agree with the Feds passing this law, it’s not very Federalist to want a federal law about this. Especially if you are going to argue that the federalist position requires us to NOT have a federal ban on abortion.
I believe you are correct. We were able to ban partial-birth abortion because the court decided it was more like killing the baby than an abortion. Roe itself was an exercise in line-drawing, in that it allowed for some differences in handling abortion based on trimesters.
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.