Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JRochelle
"Sorry but if you really don’t know, I don’t have the time to explain it."

That is probably because you can't explain it. The constitution does not give the president any powers in this area. The courts have ruled that abortion is an domain that is beyond the reach of the federal government. The popular interpretation is that it is a "privacy" issue, but what the ruling really said is that the federal government has no rights to get involved in it. The only thing a president can do is to appoint judges who will strictly interpret the constitution. What this effectively means is that abortion will become a states issue.

What you appear to be telling us is that you are OK with a POTUS that would appoint judges who would legislate from the bench if it supported your personal agenda. Is this right? Rudy has already pledged many times that he will only appoint strict constructionist judges leaving the abortion issue to what is written and not written into the constitution.

989 posted on 10/21/2007 10:58:23 PM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 967 | View Replies ]


To: Natural Law

And thats where the abortion issue belongs. In the states.

I trust Rudy about as much as his ex wives likely do.


1,010 posted on 10/22/2007 6:47:12 AM PDT by JRochelle (Rudy voted for McGovern in '72. Romney voted for Tsongas in '92.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 989 | View Replies ]

To: Natural Law
The popular interpretation is that it is a "privacy" issue, but what the ruling really said is that the federal government has no rights to get involved in it.

Umm, so the Supreme Court is NOT a part of the federal government? Do tell!

1,161 posted on 10/23/2007 3:07:21 AM PDT by Tabi Katz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 989 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson