Full Video: Fred Thompson on ABC's "This Week"

ABC News ^ | November 18, 2008 | George Stephanopoulos

[Josh Painter]

Watch the full interview here.

[EternalVigilance]

You may well be right on the Florida constitution, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Florida courts disagreed and that constitutes due process.

Please, name the capital crime she was charged with, tried upon, and convicted of. Then I'll accept that she received "due process."

[EternalVigilance]

Document 13

Alexander Hamilton, Remarks on an Act for Regulating Elections, New York Assembly

6 Feb. 1787Papers 4:35
We had in a former debate, travelled largely over the ground of the constitution, as applied to legislative disqualifications; He would not repeat what he had said, but he hoped to be indulged by the house in explaining a sentence in the constitution, which seems not well understood by some gentlemen. In one article of it, it is said no man shall be disfranchised or deprived of any right he enjoys under the constitution, but by the law of the land, or the judgment of his peers. Some gentlemen hold that the law of the land will include an act of the legislature. But Lord Coke, that great luminary of the law, in his comment upon a similar clause, in Magna Charta, interprets the law of the land to mean presentment and indictment, and process of outlawry, as contradistinguished from trial by jury. But if there were any doubt upon the constitution, the bill of rights enacted in this very session removes it. It is there declared that, no man shall be disfranchised or deprived of any right, but by due process of law, or the judgment of his peers. The words “due process” have a precise technical import, and are only applicable to the process and proceedings of the courts of justice; they can never be referred to an act of legislature.

The Founders’ Constitution
Volume 5, Amendment V, Document 13
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendV_due_processs13.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Papers of Alexander Hamilton. Edited by Harold C. Syrett et al. 26 vols. New York and London: Columbia University Press, 1961—79. See also: Federalist

[EternalVigilance]

I don't think my rights are superior, but my medical condition is certainly superior to what hers was.

That's disgusting, by the way. Offensive in the extreme.

The Nazis had attitudes identical to that. They proceeded to empty out the hospitals when they came to power. That's where the ovens were first installed. Once there were no more "defectives" to kill, they moved them to the concentration camps. That's a fact.

[EternalVigilance]

I also feel that if someone feels strongly enough about something, as you apparently do, then they should have the courage of their convictions and take extra legal action to try to affect the outcome. Then, of course, you must be willing to accept the consequences of your actions or be labeld a coward (or a terrorist if you're extreme enough).

So, you think I should become a terrorist, just because you and Judge Greer can't read the plain words of the law?

[TopDog2]

Excellent job by the next President of the United States...

[SoConPubbie]

I concur.

President Fred Thompson will be sweet to hear on 01/20/09.

[MinuteGal]

I posted last week that every time a Fred (or other GOP candidates) thread is put up it's hijacked by the anti-abort crowd after about 30 replies. This thread is the same scenario.

If anyone wants to read discussions on Thompson TV appearances, speeches, etc. you have to move fast as the thread will rapidly segue into the same arguments and remarks by the same people and single-issue provocateurs that do this in FR primary election discussions as long as I can remember........and I've been here since '98.

I'm hoping more freepers will begin to catch on to this ploy and will not fall into the trap of playing along with the deliberate hi-jacking game that's going on.

I suggest the good folks in the Terri/anti-abortion group start a regular Right-to-Life thread to run daily where they can discuss their favorite subject as it relates to the current candidates instead of taking over every thread where the original poster goes to some effort to give us updated information on candidate positions.

As a right-to-lifer, I would most happily participate in such threads.

I imagine there's at least one or two ( ! ) other freepers in our midst who are interested in reading un-hijacked threads on candidates' positions and pronouncements rather than be forced into viewing the same old RTL primer basics flooding the threads while timely comments get lost in the shuffle and dwindle away.

Since most of us are seasoned conservatives, respect life, and hate abortion, is it really necessary to give us "Respect Life 101" by pouncing on every single thread to pick nits off "imperfect" GOP candidates?

Thanks to all the commentators on this particular thread who have stuck to the subject of the original post. I was wondering how Fred did and what he said as I was unable to watch him on the program. The responses and analysis were informative to me and I'm sure to others.

Leni

[lesser_satan]

ROFLMAO! You, sir, have outdone yourself! HEAR HEAR HEAR!!!

[MitchellC]

Pretty darn good. This is the kind of thing that needs to get out to undecideds.

[b9]

Howdy backatcha!

[ejonesie22]

I do not understand why you are laughing, I speak the truth. You cannot refute my argument.

Whatever it was...

[ejonesie22]

Thanks for not rating me out;-)

[eastsider]

I suggest the good folks in the Terri/anti-abortion group start a regular Right-to-Life thread to run daily where they can discuss their favorite subject as it relates to the current candidates instead of taking over every thread where the original poster goes to some effort to give us updated information on candidate positions.

Tx for the excellent suggestion, MinuteGal.

[uglybiker]

Watch when I gwet home BTTT.