..we think it is interesting
Posted on 11/16/2007 9:07:47 AM PST by dschapin
Fred Thompson and the NRLC
It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group, voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.
...
Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.
However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter. Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Who do you support? Unless it's Hunter or Tancredo, any such nitpicking is hypocritical of you. no one has been more consistent in his philosophy than Fred.
But the Federal government does? No, actually, the Federal government doesn’t because the Constitution does not enumerate that power to the Federal government. That is why a Constitutional amendment would be needed. But while supporters of such an effort are busy throwing themselves against the brick wall that is the US Senate, the states, through the individuals who populate those states, already have the right to decide that life is precious and sacrosanct.
Who is the more foolish? He who wages a constantly losing campaign to change a law or one who wins the war with the laws already in place? If you truly care about life you must think every life is precious and that means that waiting for another 60 years to change the Constitution is unacceptable.
Stop the silly propaganda.
Fred`s been a federalist and a conservative since his early 20`s, back when he attended college in the 1960`s. Some 45 years ago! Fred didn’t even know John McCain back then. Fred`s his own man.
The point is that it's phony. Nothing more than a way to dodge the abortion question, and avoid any responsibility for it.
Do you think John McCain is really a "federalist"?
Can YOU name me a single unconstitutional federal program or department that either Fred Thompson or John McCain are advocating for dismantling?
This confusion between enumerated POWERS and unalienable RIGHTS is purposefully spread by cynical politicians. It's sad to see so many fall for it.
Fact is, NEITHER of them is actually a federalist at all. In fact, they're the exact opposite.
They don't even comprehend the simple reason for the existence of government in the first place.
""The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else, folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, "Should government be doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?" But they don't.
A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."
~~~ Fred Thompson, LINK
President Reagan`s Executive Order #12612: Federalism: October 26, 1987:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to restore the division of governmental responsibilities between the national government and the States that was intended by the Framers of the Constitution and to ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the Executive departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Sec. 2.:
(a) Federalism is rooted in the knowledge that our political liberties are best assured by limiting the size and scope of the national government.
It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group,
Nope. There's a difference between "offering legal advice" and being assigned a case by the firm.
voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate
Do what? Exactly what "key pro-life issues" did FDT vote against? The answer: none.
and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.
Convoluted only to those who don't understand the original purpose and intent of the Constitution.
Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.
What nonsense. If you can't come anywhere near actually passing the amendment, then you aren't protecting anything except your props with the pro-life wing of the party. FDT's way is THE way that little babies' lives will be saved. If you, dschapin, were REALLY pro-life, you'd support Fred's federalism way - because THAT is what is already producing results.
However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.
Um, the FEDERAL flag is a FEDERAL issue - if you don't believe me, look up the parts of the US Code already on the books concerning such things as the proper display and treatment of the flag.
Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
Actually, since Congress is specifically delegated spending powers at the federal level, the BB amendment would most definitely NOT be superfluous. Instead, it would be correctly fixing a deficiency at the federal level in the federal Constitution.
You DH people are getting both more desperate and more craven.
Who do I listen to on this...
Where do I turn for guidance...
Washington Times or National Right to Life...
Do I listen to a newspaper editor or a group of folks who have dedicated their lives and careers to saving the unborn...
Man it is indeed a tough call... (Yes , I am rolling my eyes and whistling)
Since that is pretty much a basic application of the principle of federalism, I doubt you'll do very well in making your case that FDT "stole" that line from McCain.
I guess since McCain and Duncan Hunter are both pro-life, then DH must steal what he says about abortion from McCain?
If you had made this statement in August, I would not think of trying to dissuade you from continuing to support your candidate. As a matter of fact, I'm sure that nothing could separate you from your support now. But we now heading down the backside of November and the voting begins in January. Rudy is clearly in the lead and has momentum.
Duncan Hunter is not a front runner. He is running out of money and does not have enough time left to gain the support he needs. He will not be President of the United States in 2008. When it is time for you to cast your vote, I hope you will join us in supporting Fred Thompson.
*************
It is pretty laughable.
Yup...
This did not go down the road they wanted...
Truth usually wins out...
Which liberal are you supporting?
I don’t support liberals. I fight them with every ounce of energy I can muster.
There is no chance to pass it, so I wouldn’t vote against an otherwise good conservative simply for not supporting it.
On the other hand, if only a few dozen representatives supported building a wall, that wouldn’t justify pushing a president who opposed building the wall. Given the clarifications, I don’t really know WHAT Fred’s current position is on this HLA issue, so I don’t mean to suggest he opposes it.
Their position on slavery would suggest you are correct, but that didn’t work out so well, and I think it’s fair to say the slavery issue was their biggest error.
On the other hand, maybe that was the only way to get the states together, and we shouldn’t fault them for accepting something that would be loathsome to rational people, if that compromise led to something better.
..we think it is interesting
Obviously not, because you are defaming the only conservative with a chance of winning the nomination. When Guiliani signs an assault weapons ban, amnesty for illegals and nominates Lawrence Tribe for the Supreme Court, you can thank yourself.
You mean like putting a Human Life Amendment on the back-burner and instead focusing on the more attainable goals like getting Roe v. Wade reversed?
Many folks treat "compromise" as a dirty word, especially if it's on their "near and dear" topic. But getting some of what you want is usually better than holding out for everything, and getting nothing.
Our basic unalienable rights are not defined by the constitution. The founders clearly understood that.
The founders did not have the knowledge of the last 200 years of medical advances to help them understand the true personhood of the baby in the womb.
I have ALWAYS believed in the personhood of the fetus, from the time of conception. If you find ANY quotes of me anywhere that suggests otherwise, please ping me to them so I can correct them, but I doubt there are any.
As to your argument, The 10th amendment clearly reserves rights both to the states and the people, so not everything that isn’t a federal responsibility is a state responsibility.
Further, the 10th amendment, and the constitution, define what limited liberties the government can TAKE from us, not the other way around. The 10th amendment does not say that any rights that are not specifically protected by the federal government can be violated by the states, it says that whatever powers are NOT explicitly given to the federal government are restricted to the states, or to the people.
I think I understand the basis for the disagreement here. You and I have opposing views on the unalienable, God-given right of a pre-born to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So where you see an HLA amendment as a “restriction” on the rights of a person, I see it as a limitation of the government’s power to take AWAY the rights of the people.
If you think of abortion as the violation of the rights of the unborn, then you would see that a prohibition ON abortion isn’t really an ACTION of the state, it is a prohibition of an action of the state, the action being the sanctioning of the violation of the rights of the preborn child.
HLA would ensure the pre-born were given their due as persons, thus extending the UNDERSTANDING of their rights so those rights are not violated by state or federal laws allowing others to harm them or kill them.
Just as, absent a specific constitutional definition of some people as property of others, the personhood of those slaves would have naturally protected them from being treated as property, without any specifig constitutional amendment being needed to define them as such.
I’ll use a misapplication of the principle as my last example. The Supreme court recently ruled that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment when applied to minors. We easily understand that there IS a specific mandate in the constitution for the federal government (and the state governments) to NOT violate the right of people not to be punished cruelly. Note this is not a power given the federal government to meddle in the state affairs, but a right enumerated specifically that the people possess protecting them from government action.
All that it took for a nationwide ban on the death penalty for minors was for the supreme court to decide (wrongly) that there was an age at which the punishment was cruel. Much like they wrongly decided in Roe that there was an age before which the baby was not a person at all, and an age after which the baby deserved MOST but not all the protections of a person (now there’s an idea that is nowhere found in the constitution, that our inalienable rights come to us in bits and pieces as we age).
So while the ruling is wrong, the principle is correct — a person is protected from violation of their inalienable rights at both the FEDERAL and STATE level, by the RESTRICTION on the power of the government to pass laws which take away those rights.
While you are arguing from the point of view that an abortion ban would “take away” the right of the woman, I am arguing that the “ban” is not on abortion, but is on the state passing laws which ALLOW abortion, laws which infringe on the rights of the pre-born.
Much like nobody talks about how laws against murder “take away” the rights of the murderer to do what they please, and nobody anymores talks about how prohibiting slavery “took away the rights” of slaveowners, someday nobody will talk about mothers having their “right to murder” taken from them.
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.