Posted on 05/01/2007 3:08:56 PM PDT by Politicalmom
Tuesday, May 1:
• EXCLUSIVE! Former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson sits down with us tonight. Will he or won't he enter the 2008 presidential race?
“Slipped” as in unintentionally let slip his intentions to run.”
My impression of the Senator is that he very carefully chooses his words. I doubt it was a slip. He needed to send a few hints. For a lot of pragmatic reasons he did not and should not announce just yet. But he’s been effectively running for a few months now.
reminds me of the old song, “the ankle bone is connected to the calf bone, the calf bone is connected to the....”
You need to understand your argument is flawed.
The States are united for the purposes and powers given in the US Constitution. The right to life is not addressed in the Constitution. Nor is the right to an abortion addressed in the Constitution. But a former US Supreme Court ruled the right to abortion is constitutional using an interpretation governing privacy. They were wrong to do that. Their decision will be overturned.
After Roe vs. Wade is overturned, the Federal Government will have nothing to do with abortion, just as they had nothing to do with it prior to Roe vs. Wade.
Before Roe vs. Wade, the principles of federalism were observed in the federal government’s role in abortion. That role was one of no involvement.
The fact that the US Constitution does not address abortion was the reason it was brought before the US Supreme Court to begin with. The Roe party sought to insert the right to an abortion under the fourth amendment right to privacy. They succeeded with a liberal court in what is now known as Roe vs. Wade. As already mentioned the Supreme Court was wrong.
Now you need to note that before Roe vs. Wade there was never a federal law banning abortion nor was there a federal law allowing abortion. The federal government was not involved period.
Now write fifty times the following:
Fred Thompson’s position on abortion is a federalist position.
Baloney.
The Preamble, or what could be called the PRETEXT:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Posterity includes not just the unborn, but the as yet unconceived.
And, the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments clearly rule out the taking of innocent human life; that is, without a fair trial and conviction on a capital offense.
It's a confederate position.
Sorry, as important as states' rights are, this is not a states' rights issue. It is a question of the God-given, unalienable, right to life and liberty. It is a question of whether our Bill of Rights is still in effect, in practice.
Fact is, it isn't in effect in several very important ways, as long as folks who think like you are in power.
Great link! Thanks! Fred isn’t going to make any friends with the pro-choice crowd, because what he is stating is that Roe V Wade should be overturned. It is a state’s rights issue, rather than the perview of the Federal government. They way he answered it further entrenches my support.
Posterior is what comes after. You are stretching the meaning of the word to suit your own wishes, just as the Supreme Court stretched the meaning of the word ‘privacy’ in their flawed decision in Roe vs. Wade.
The Preamble is not law, it is a statement of purposes. The Supreme Court never rules from the Preamble. They may draw on it to justify their decision on law, but they never cite it as law.
If the Founders had wanted to include the word unborn they would have done so. The fact is that the unborn were not guaranteed life because 25% of pregancies ended in still births in that age.
Abortion was always in the realm of religion and during that age religion was part of everyday conduct. Nobody in that age thought to legalize abortion so it was not necessary to put in the Constitution a specific law that prohibited abortion.
You want to make Fred Thompson’s federalist position on abortion some sort of pro-choice smear. You can try but you’re not going to convince anyone here but a few wrongheaded persons.
The right to life is addressed in the Declaration of Independence. But the DOI is not a document of law. The Constitution is a document of law. The right to life is not addressed in the Constitution nor is the right to an abortion. But a liberal Supreme Court ‘interpreted’ that theright to an abortion was valid under the fourth amendment. They were wrong. Their decision will be overturned.
States don't have the right to legalize murder.
Exactly right.
It most certainly is. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, it is the pretext, the summing-up-beforehand, the context, of the entire document.
Let me ask you a simple question:
Is an unborn child a person?
A yes or a no will suffice.
A ‘confederate’ position?
That’s absurd if not outright laughable.
I have seen alot of smears on FDT but this is a truly bizarre one.
I think Roe vs. Wade is wrong and must and will be overturned. I think that abortion should be illegal except when a child is dead or dying in the womb and the mother could die if the child is not aborted.
But my thinking has nothing to do with federalism.
Federalism is a perspective that there are things the federal government is not permitted to intrude on and that those things fall to the jurisdiction of the states.
The ‘Confederacy’ was bourne over the issue of the right of states to secede from the Union. Fred Thompson is not advocating that states secede from the Union. So your assertion that his view or position is a confederate position is absurd.
BTW, there is no such thing as "state's rights", it's "state powers".
A private citizen taking the life of another private citizen should only be punishable by state laws and not federal laws then, right?
No. The original Confederacy was what we had before the Constitution. It didn't work.
In many instances, you are correct. But not when it comes to God-given, unalienable rights. Your view alienates those rights.
Not all unalienable rights are enumerated in the BOR. Unalienable rights not enumerated in the BOR can be protected by state and local laws.
We've been through this.
"Smear"? Hardly. Simply stating his position, and arguing with it, is not a smear.
And, this argument has little to do with Fred, other than the extent to which he holds this position. My argument is with an entire political establishment who have collectively become lazy mushminds.
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.