Posted on 04/16/2007 4:25:25 AM PDT by Liz
....Rudy Giuliani will speak tomorrow at the university founded by televangelist Pat Robertson, a major appearance for the former mayor...who holds liberal social views....Giuliani made his sharpest case for moving beyond social issues this weekend in Iowa, telling The Des Moines Register, "Our party is going to grow, and we are going to win in 2008 if we are a party characterized by what we're for, not if we're a party that's known for what we're against." Asked about abortion, he said, "Our party has to get beyond issues like that." Giuliani upset conservatives - and surprised supporters - by saying he favored public funding for abortion....His campaign quickly noted he wasn't proposing changes to current federal laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Not to harp on the point, but I noticed you’re a Hunter supporter. Well, Hunter is going to prosecute the War on Terror in at least as tough a manner as the current President. So, if I come across a post of yours in 2010, will you be calling President Hunter an Endless War scumbag?
Actually, that would be the 2nd Amendment, and Rudy's got some problems there.
Rudy has a lot of problems; not just with the 2nd Amendment.
Good job! Here’s a few snippets that might supplement your 4th amendment section (and 5th and 6th):
Fourth Amendment:
In 1994 Giuliani and then-police commissioner William Bratton ordered their “elite” Street Crimes Unit to confiscate illegal weapons from pedestrians through a program of stop and search. Charges flew of civil-rights violations and increased police shootings. More than 33,000 people were stopped on New York City’s streets in 1997 and 1998, according to police data. The actual number stopped will never be known because many citizens were stopped and frisked and found not to be carrying unlicensed weapons. Most were sent on their way, and no paperwork or record of the intrusion was filed.
[Philadelphia Inquirer/Knight Ridder, Mar 22, 2007]
Giuliani’s cops, and primarily [the Street Crimes] unit, have adopted aggressive crime-fighting methods. They’ve made stop-and-frisk procedures the centerpiece of their tactics. In the last two years, this unit has stopped and frisked 40,000 New Yorkers. They’ve found grounds to arrest fewer than one in four of them. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires cops to stop and frisk only when they have a “reasonable suspicion” - - one they can clearly articulate — that a crime has taken place or is about to take place. That legal nicety seems largely ignored in New York City. Last year, roughly half the felony gun cases brought to court in Manhattan were deemed unconstitutional.
[Times Union, Apr 2, 1999]
The last time we checked, the Fourth Amendment protection `against unreasonable searches and seizures` was still the law of the land. But just get caught driving while intoxicated in New York City, neighboring Nassau County, or what seems likely to become a growing number of jurisdictions across America, and see where the rule of law gets you. In the brave new world of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s Big Apple, it will cost you your vehicle on the spot; no trial and conviction required. Along with the Fourth Amendment, you can forget about the Fifth (`No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law`), Sixth (`the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial`) and the Eighth amendments (`excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment`).
[The Sunday Patriot, Mar 7, 1999]
Peering from skyscrapers with lenses that can count the buttons on a blouse three miles away, [cameras] watch every move you make. Even Rudy likes to watch. After testing reaction to the monitoring of parks, public pools, and subway platforms, the city is quietly expanding a pilot program on buses. Cameras indistinguishable from lampposts have advanced from the perimeter of Washington Square into the heart of the park. They’re already hidden at some bus stops and intersections to snag speeders and parking perps. More are on the way. The Housing Authority is rushing to put bulletproof cameras in corridors throughout city projects. ... With little public awareness and no debate, the scaffolding of mass surveillance is taking shape. “It’s all about balancing a sense of security against an invasion of privacy,” Rudolph Giuliani insists.
[Village Voice Oct 6, 1998]
;) Rudy Giuliani is no Fernando Wood and, perhaps more important, Fred Thompson is no Lincoln.
However, Lincoln actually did have executive experience. He had been captain in the Illinois militia during the Black Hawk War and he had run a store.
That said, the country, the world and the presidency are much more complex constructs today. Technology and terrorism can extinguish cities—maybe even countries—in a flash, so I am not so sure that historical analogies are especially relevant....
And Fred has a big problem with Amendment Numero Uno.
As I said above, if you are going to reject Rudy and select someone with inferior credentials based on his ideology, you had better be sure his ideology and the ideology you are desperately seeking are actually one and the same.
Indeed.
A little Noo Yawk street fighter already. Please.
While I see your point (i.e., it can be argued that deciding what constitutes interpretation vs. invention is ultimately subjective), I’m not sure there aren’t objective parameters... in which case it isn’t pertinent... unless Rudy plans to nominate himself. ;)
Rudy has explicitly defined what he means by the term:
GIULIANI: ‘I would appoint judges that interpreted the constitution rather than invented it. Understood the difference of being a judge and a legislator. And having argued a case before the Supreme Court, having argued in many, many courts is something I would take very seriously.
HANNITY: So you would look for a Scalia, Roberts, Alito.
GIULIANI: Scalia is another former colleague of mine and somebody I consider to be a great judge. You are never going to get somebody exactly the same. I don’t think you have a litmus test. But I do think you have a general philosophical approach that you want from a justice. I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it.
I’ve already heard that, and it doesn’t ease my concerns.
Now, could you please answer the question?
“Do you personally think that a judge who is, by definition, a “strict constructionist”, believes that the Constitution allows for federal funding of abortions?”
That is absurd, and if you have to engage in sci-fi fantasies to rationalize your support of a pro-abort pubbie, you really need to re-examine your core values.
The answer is implicit in my prior post. Why do you suppose I added this qualifier, ‘unless Rudy plans to nominate himself’ ?
As for concerns, only a fool wouldn’t have any. Perfection is hard to come by, especially in the professional political class, a self-selected subgroup that is mediocre, power-hungry and corrupt or corruptible by definition.
If you refuse to follow my argument, did you at least read Tony Blankley’s piece? Sticking your head in the sand won’t keep your defining issue from disappearing overnite.
The writing is on the wall. It is obvious. Abortion will be obsoleted—transmuted by technology—and the resultant product will not be susceptible to constitutional redress.
I cite this issue for your benefit, not mine. It is you, not I, who will be left spinning his wheels.
The ability to prosecute the war takes precedence for me. Unlike you, I will vote for the person who will protect ALL of our children, the unborn, the living, the not yet even imagined.
I did. It will not outlaw biology and is spurious.
And until that time might come, 3,000 children ARE STILL ABORTED EVERY DAY.
Show us where.
And until that time might come, 3,000 children ARE STILL ABORTED EVERY DAY.
... and 300,000--even 3,000,000--children--INCLUDING THOUSANDS WHO ARE UNBORN--will be taken out in one instant, by one terrorist attack.
That said, your premise is false. The unborn will not be at increased risk under a Giuliani presidency (but they will be if your assistance to the clintons to retake the White House bears fruit ).
And your point is? That we can only deal with one issue and not both? You're absurd. Especially since the liberal you are pushing takes fighting terrorism so seriously that he pushed a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country. That would be like Bush nominating Sandy Berger to be in charge of keeping classified documents secure.
I was looking for something a little more straight forwasrd.
Like "YES" or "NO".
But I understand your reluctance to answer my question that way.
Why do you suppose I added this qualifier,‘unless Rudy plans to nominate himself’...
Because you didn't want to answer the question directly?
"-I think a strict construction would be probably the way I describe it."- Rudy
He thinks 'strict constructionist' would be "PROBABLY" the way he describes it!?
Sorry,but that's neither explicit nor confidence inspiring.
His definition of the concept WAS explicit. Then he went on to NAME the concept. The way I heard it then, the way I now read it now, he was simply trying not to sound pedantic when invoking the legal jargon.
I guess we just see it differently.
I always am suspicious when a politician speaks, especially one who is a lawyer.
That, plus the fact that I do not like Rudy’s many liberal leaning social positions, tends to make me even more skeptical when he tells me how conservative he is going to be.
Sorry, ‘MiaT’, but he raises a lot of red flags for me.
Now, about that question. Care to give me a YES or NO answer? Or not.
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.