I DO NOT LISTEN TO A NEWSPAPER EDITOR, WHEN I SHOULD LISTEN TO A GROUP OF FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED THEIR LIVES AND CAREERS TO SAVING THE UNBORN!
It's no contest.
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Posted on 11/16/2007 9:07:47 AM PST by dschapin
Oh... good point. I got my head turned around there... never mind.
It makes me happy that Thompson worries the NYT.
I DO NOT LISTEN TO A NEWSPAPER EDITOR, WHEN I SHOULD LISTEN TO A GROUP OF FOLKS WHO HAVE DEDICATED THEIR LIVES AND CAREERS TO SAVING THE UNBORN!
It's no contest.
FRED VETS, SIGN UP TODAY AT:
Which raises a different question, do people have the RIGHT to have their rights vindicated by government?
The HLA would not make law. Some suggest it would REQUIRE states to then make laws, but can any action really REQUIRE a body to pass a law?
What if we eliminate all laws that say abortion is legal, but don’t pass any laws that define criminal penalties for it? I know that won’t really stop a lot of abortions, but at least it won’t be a protected act anymore.
Obviously, if having recognized the right of the pre-born, and eliminating all laws that permitted the killing of the pre-born, we find that people are killing the pre-born, the government would naturally be expected to take action to stop the violation of rights. But they wouldn’t be REQUIRED to do so — or is the consensus that the constitution requires government to pass laws and enact punishments sufficient to stop individuals from violating the rights of other individuals?
I know the constitution ALLOWS government to pass such laws, but does it REQUIRE it?
For example, would the federal government, based on the “right” to burn a flag, be required to pass a law that punished people who stopped someone from burning a flag?
If you cloned me, I probably wouldn’t vote for my clone. :-)
Yeah... I doubt I’d be pure enough for myself either. :)
I agree with you on Fred’s position, and I speculate that the clarification issued on the subjet by his campaign was in part related to the NRLC endorsement, maybe a phone call saying “we can’t endorse you if you are saying you will oppose the platform plank on HLA (which is what he actually SAID on MTP, that he OPPOSED the plank), so his campaign came back and said he would NOT oppose it.
Sometimes principles and policy aren’t the same. Sometimes you have to be in support of a policy that might seem, on the surface, against your principles, when you determine what can be done with it, it will have a net result that is much more in line with those principles than being steadfast on a policy that won’t be implemented.
Pragmatism is a necessary part of politics.
Absolutely not.
I agree with you on that point.
He isn’t “opposed” to it. He clarified that. He just knows it won’t pass.
You bet. Fred bump!
Excellent analysis. May I have your permission to use it elsewhere?
Damn Skippy...
And thanks...
It does.
The U.S. Constitution, Article Four, Section Four
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..."
In other words, a form of state government that conforms to the model of our national government.
And, one that is based on the same bedrock principles.
This is not optional.
The Fourteenth Amendment clarified this even further.
Which other unalienable rights are you going to turn over to state decision-making?
Please explain to me what legal rationale Fred is going to use to overturn Roe and return the issue to the states. Do you think that the court is going to reject the right to privacy - I think it is too ingrained by know for them to throw it out. So, the only way that I see unborn children being protected by law is through either a Constitutional Amendment or recognition that they are persons and thus have a right to life which outweighs the mothers right to privacy. As to offering advice to the pro-choice group if he was strongly pro-life he could have refused to do so and taken whatever consequences came. It was a large firm so he probably could have passed the case off to someone else.
I don’t think they should have endorsed Mitt. If they were going to hold true to their principles and endorse the most pro-life candidate then they should have endorsed either Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee (and possibly Tom Tancredo - I am not sure of his position on abortion) they are both committed defenders of the unborn who strongly support our parties pro-life platform. And in Hunter’s case, he has even sponsored a bill which would define personhood as starting at conception. In contrast, Thompson may have voted pro-life but I have seen virtually nothing that makes me think he actually cares about the issue. I could be misreading him but I don’t see any determination on his part to overturn Roe and end this injustice. He might be ok with it if it falls in his lap but I don’t think he is going to expend any political capital fighting for the Pro-Life cause.
I think they are referring to his votes in favor of McCain-Feingold when National Right to Life had defined voting against McCain-Feingold as being key pro-life vote. If you read the entire article as opposed to the short excerpt that I was able to include it becomes more clear.
This is the Washington Times NOT the New York Times.
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.