Posted on 11/13/2007 11:13:48 AM PST by pissant
The American electorate is a fickle mistress. Just ask former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.).
When Thompson announced his candidacy for president just after Labor Day most national polls showed him running a close second behind former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the majority of state polls had him in the top three.
No longer. Thompson's campaign has yet to take off as expected and voters -- especially in crucial early states like Iowa, New Hampshire and Florida.
The most recent data comes from New Hampshire where two surveys were released over the weekend. The first, conducted by theUniversity of New Hampshire for the Boston Globe, put Thompson in sixth (yes, SIXTH) place with just three percent of the vote. (Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led the way with 32 percent.) In a Marist University poll Thompson again took sixth place with just five percent support. To be clear, Thompson was never a frontrunner in New Hampshire but polls conducted in the run-up to his announcement and just after he formally entered the race show him regularly polling in double digits.
Thompson's shrinking support is apparent in other early states as well. The last three polls taken in Iowa put Thompson in fourth, fifth and fourth place, respectively, and his high water mark in any of those surveys is 11 percent. In Florida, too, Thompson appears to be fading. A new poll conducted for the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times showed Thompson in fifth place (eight percent) behind Giuliani (36 percent), Romney (19 percent), Arizona Sen. John McCain (12 percent) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (nine percent).
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.washingtonpost.com ...
Is Fred to be condemned because he doesn't like tinkering with the Constitution? Just remember, you tinker with it to push your short-term goals, and the lefties will soon be tinkering with it to push theirs - all based on your precedent, and you won't have any reason to complain.
Amen, amen, amen. That's what happened on the coast of California back in the 70s, when the state proposition was formed and passed that created the horrific State Coastal Commission. Short-sighted people loved the proposition because they thought it "protected" their own NIMBY interests; when the CC then turned around and used their power to restrict and affect their personal property rights and freedoms instead of those of others ... it was too late.
Aren't social conservatives smart enough to LEARN FROM HISTORY??? Smart, thinking, sincere social conservatives should understand that Fred Thompson must win this primary; when he does, he will certainly become president, and the best friend to Christianity and freedom that America has had in the White House in a good long while.
Your post is an execellent apologetic - convincing only to those who want to be convinced. Thompson is the only candidate to whom I’ve contributed but now I’m sorry I did. And the reason he’s sinking in the polls, and is now unlikely to be the nominee, is because there are a lot of people like me.
MEMO
TO: Traditionalist rural Christian voters in Iowa
FROM: LA Times, NY Times, Washington Post, Salon, AP
RE: Mike Huckabee
DATE: November 11, 2007
Dear Bible Thumping toothless rednecks,
Please remember to vote for the tax raising, environmentalist wacko, nanny state sheeple controlling, smoker banning, open border third world America killing, Socialist candidate we tell you to vote for in the primary....Mike Huckabee.
He is pro life and he talks about Jesus. That should be good enough for you.
DO NOT VOTE FOR REAL CONSERVATIVES LIKE FRED THOMPSON OR DUNCAN HUNTER. THAT WOULD DERAIL OUR QUEST TO TURN AMERICA INTO A THIRD WORLD SOCIALIST UTOPIA.
Thank you,
The Elitist left wing media
“DO NOT VOTE FOR REAL CONSERVATIVES LIKE FRED THOMPSON OR DUNCAN HUNTER. THAT WOULD DERAIL OUR QUEST TO TURN AMERICA INTO A THIRD WORLD SOCIALIST UTOPIA.”
EXACTLY!
But what about the wee little chilruns of illegals? Fred doesn’t care about them.
WOW, a detailed personal attack bemoaning personal attacks....something new from a Mittwit...NOT!
Careful, foxxy, they’re still a protected species. LOL
People like you, who aren't that keen on applying the Constitution when doing so doesn't fit your particular personal way of how things should be done?
No matter. For me, it really is FDT or no one now. If we can't have the constitutionalist candidate, then I'm not really interested in voting - period.
I attacked what you DID, not what you are.
Actually, no, that is NOT what the amendment process is for. The amendmend process is designed to correct problems with the functioning of the Constitution itself, not push partisan agendas. Amendmend is about constitutional self-correction, not codifying partisan political positions, no matter how worthy they may be. The proper place for addressing abortion is in statutory law.
Second, doesn’t the 14th Amendment which specifically gives congress the power to legislate in order to ensure that no state deprives anyone of life, liberty or property without due process of law and that no person is deprived of the equal protection of the laws already give Congress that power to intervene when a state legalizes the murder of any class of people. If that power has already been granted to the federal government by the 14th Amendment then it cannot by definition violate the 10th Amendment.
Your own argument is self-defeating - if the 14th amendment can already be used as you say, then there is no NEED for an HLA. Further, for Congress to intervene, well, this only involves rights specifically delineated in the BoR, which are silent about abortion.
Finally, there is a huge difference between enacting a constitutional amendment and judicial activism. Judicial activism (a living constitution) is bad because it is anti-democratic. Unelected judges are changing the social contract which we all agreed to live by. In contrast an Amendment is ratified in exactly the same way that the 10th Amendmnet was ratified and is thus every bit as authoritative. If we truly believe, as Lincoln said that the American Government is “of the people, by the people, and for the people” than surely the American people have the right to amend the constitution through a democratic process.
No, there isn't much of a difference. Either way, the Constitution is being frivolously used for an agenda. My advice to fellow pro-lifers is to stop the quixotic quest for an HLA which is never going to pass the amending process anywise, and instead focus on judges, federalism, and regulating the abortion industry to death. THESE are what is going to save babies' lives, not a never-ending quest for an unpassable HLA. Dschapin, are you really interested in saving little babies' lives, or are you just interested in power politics?
LOL, what was it I DID?
The federal government doesn't intrude on those areas where it is not explicitly granted power by the Constitution - that is left to the States, and this rightly includes abortion (just as it already does every other form of homicide, btw). And okay, technically, an HLA would "sidestep" federalism by explicitly granting the issue to federal purview, but really, that's not exactly what the Founders had in mind when they set up our federally balanced system.
But we did the same for all other forms of homicide, when we passed the 14th A. " ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Homicide cannot be made legal by any State, because it denies the victim due process. This is as true for extra-judicial lynchings of Blacks that were not prosecuted at the time as it is for the unborn today. This is currently sidestepped in law by not granting the unborn with "personhood".
Federalism is not about State's "rights"; it is about the proper division and exercise of the Powers granted by the people to both the States and the Federal. Legalizing the extra-judicial killing of the unborn is not a granted Power to either level of government, so "criminalizing" it isn't a question. The default position is that it is already a criminal act, unless justified by due process (such as justifiable homicide in self defense is now).
Uh, no. People like me who think the right to life is more important than federalism. Just like we think abolishing slavery and giving women the vote is more important than federalism.
No, just a Southron who rejects the Yankee-imposed Webster's orthography, and who is also an Anglophile, to boot.
But we did the same for all other forms of homicide, when we passed the 14th A. " ...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Homicide cannot be made legal by any State, because it denies the victim due process. This is as true for extra-judicial lynchings of Blacks that were not prosecuted at the time as it is for the unborn today. This is currently sidestepped in law by not granting the unborn with "personhood".
Unfortunately, the verbiage prior to the portion of the 14th amendment which you quoted says that this applies to those who are born in the USA or who are naturalised US citizens. The letter of the text would seem to exclude the unborn (an oversight I would chalk up to nobody in 1868 anticipating the industrialised murder of millions of unborn each year). On this basis, it doesn't cover the unborn - sad, but yet the case. As such, the matter DOES fall back onto the States, being a power not explicitly granted to the federal gov't nor denied to the States (10th amendment).
Federalism is not about State's "rights"; it is about the proper division and exercise of the Powers granted by the people to both the States and the Federal. Legalizing the extra-judicial killing of the unborn is not a granted Power to either level of government, so "criminalizing" it isn't a question. The default position is that it is already a criminal act, unless justified by due process (such as justifiable homicide in self defense is now).
Yes, federalism IS about State's rights, specifically because of the issue of proper division and role. The 10th amendment was intentionally left broad because the Founders wanted the States to be in charge of their own local affairs. The Federal Constitution was intended to regulate affairs that occur between States (i.e. to be an impartial referee), and to take care of matters which affect the Union as a whole (like foreign policy, warmaking, etc.) If the Fed steps in on issues that rightly belong to the States, then the matter is a States' rights issue.
What's ironic is that you don't even really think that. If you did, you'd go with what would actually save babies' lives now, instead of grandstanding for an HLA which is never going to pass muster for ratification anywise. I really hate to say it, but people who quixotically waste their time on pushing an HLA while excluding federalism from the equation are FAKE pro-lifers. They talk the talk, but haven't saved a single baby's life through their windmill tilting. Getting judges who actually understand the Constitution, throwing the ball to the States by overturning Roe v. Wade, and legislating and/or regulating abortion to death at the State level is what will (and already does) save lives.
Read it again. The "born or naturalized" part defines which persons are Citizens. The latter part applies to all persons in the jurisdiction, citizen or not. Citzens have additional immunities and privileges that non-citizen residents in the US jurisdiction do not, but all persons have rights to life, liberty and property, as well as equal protection.
Yes, federalism IS about State's rights, specifically because of the issue of proper division and role.
States don't have rights. Only people have rights. States have powers, delegated by the people. The States in turn, delegate some powers to the Fed and reserve others. The rest are reserved directly by the people, including the right to life, as noted in the 5th and 14th Amendments. The State and Fed only have the power to take a life with due process, and must give all persons equal protection from the unjustfied taking of life. They cannot protect Whites from murder and not protect Blacks, and neither can they protect infants but not unborn.
Under Amendment 14, Section 5.: "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." Therefore, under Federalism, and the 10th Amendment, which applies to the 14th as much as the rest, the power to enforce civil rights protections is delegated to the Feds, and the power to violate them is prohibited to the States.
The States have no "rights" or powers to allow extra-judicial killing by pregnant women or doctors. The only reason they do it now is that the unborn have had their humanity and status as living beings removed by the courts. That is no more logical than changing the legal definition of anyone over 80 years old to "non-living person" and allowing their families to euthanize them.
Ah yes, the WaPo. Pathetic!
I think we can multi-task and work on both a constitutional amendment, legislation based on the 14th Amendment, and other forms of regulation - like mandatory ultrasounds before any abortion - all the same time. I also use support of a constitutional amendment to gauge how committed to the pro-life cause a candidate really was. If I sensed that Fred Thompson was a committed pro-lifer and he simply disagreed with me on tactics it wouldn’t bother me too much. However, he seems to be trying to push social conservatives as far away from himself as he can and still get our votes. If he is doing this during the primary season I expect it will get much worse during the general election and after he is elected. I guess I just don’t trust him on social isses.
The language before about people born in the United Staes deals with citizenship in the United States. The courts have drawn a distinction between the rights of citizens and the rights of persons. The Rights of persons apply to all people including non-citizens. So, while it is clear that citizenship only applies to those who have been born it is not clear that personhood is limited to those who have been born.
Great response - I wish I could explain it half so clearly.
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.