That is *not* his reasoning. He was very explicit. He is opposed philosophically to criminalizing abortion and he thinks HLA is contrary to federalism. He wasn't making a *practical* argument but a philosophical one.
By the way, I am sympathetic to the practical argument.
Good on him [wants to fix Social Security by destroying it]. I want to do the same.
Bad on him because he claims he's trying to save it. If you plan to take down SS, be clear about it. But also be prepared to be destroyed politically.
How so [isn't he addressing immigration]?
I've heard he wants to "get tough" but I hadn't heard he supports building a fence. But IMO that isn't nearly enough and doesn't get to the heart of problem. for example, it doesn't address all the illegals aready here and it doesn't say how the labor void will be filled.
Now, see there, I don't think your argument is really on target. IIRC, FDT didn't say that he was against "criminalising abortion", he said that he was against prosecuting women who get abortions (which IS a different matter, btw). In many (perhaps most) cases of abortion, the women IS a victim - she's pressured into it by a boyfriend, etc. which is why those sidewalk counselors have as much success at heading off abortions, even right outside the clinic, as they do. Many women don't WANT abortions, but feel trapped into it by the "options" that the left-leaning media and political culture have given them, even if not explicitly forced into it by an unscrupulous boyfriend or "partner".
Now, I would ask you, if the various states make laws against abortion, and many of them criminalise it, don't you think that is therefore "criminalising" abortion, which FDT would thus be indirectly supporting? Doctors would go to gaol for performing abortions - as they should. That's criminalisation, and it would all be possible by following the federalist approach of throwing it back to the States and letting them deal with it as they will. And yes, the HLA is against federalism. The essence of federalism is that of what is colloquially known as "States' rights". 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. 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.
The majority of states would ban or severely limit abortion, which will lower the total number of abortions in this country, which is (or so I thought) the goal of the pro-life movement in this country.
Bad on him because he claims he's trying to save it. If you plan to take down SS, be clear about it. But also be prepared to be destroyed politically.
You misunderstood. My "good on him" was in agreement with your PERCEPTION that FDT is trying to "destroy" social security. I don't think that HE thinks he is doing so, however. That was YOUR interpretation of events. I, personally, WOULD say that SS ought to be ended - stop in-payments now, pay out to those who've paid in even if we have to temporarily finance it from the general budget (wouldn't that be a reversal!), and once that's done, end the program.
I've heard he wants to "get tough" but I hadn't heard he supports building a fence. But IMO that isn't nearly enough and doesn't get to the heart of problem. for example, it doesn't address all the illegals aready here and it doesn't say how the labor void will be filled.
IIRC, his plan unveiling basically said that illegals will self-deport once they don't have access to jobs or services. As for the fence - true, he hasn't said anything about it that I've heard, but at the same time, I can't make the leap of illogic that many Hunter supporters make - that NOT saying something about the fence (yet) means that he's against the fence. That is a factually unproven and logical untenable assertion which many DH supporters make.
As for the "labour void", why does FDT even need to address this? Do you think it's the federal government's job, or even its business, to regulate employment? I don't. Let the labour MARKET take care of it - which is the whole point. Currently, the market is saturated with a low of low-skill, low-education, low-value labour from Latin America which is creating a huge imbalance on the "supply" side of the equation and driving wages down. Encourage illegals to self-deport (since they'll always find a way around the fence - a fence will slow, but certainly not stop, them all), and you'll find wages rising. As for the "labour void", it may just end up being filled by all those African-American males who have turned to crime because they don't see any good labour or wages options currently because of all the illegals taking jobs and pressuring wages down. Once these men can get some self-respect back by getting a job and being able to support themselves and perhaps a family, many will turn back and go straight.
Ultimately, I think the problem for FDT in all this is that while he is conservative, he's too "paleo" (not in the Pat Buchanan sense) of a conservative to really appeal to many of today's conservatives. FDT is a Constitutionalist - that's why he pushes federalism despite the fact that half of Americans probably never had even heard the term before this year. FDT is a Constitutionalist in the way that really counts - he MEANS it, he's not just mouthing it to give himself conservative street cred. Problem is, many conservatives and Republicans today can't handle that - they want the same sort of quick-fix, gung-ho, judicial activist, force our way onto the country by Constitutional fiat that the lefties have been giving us for years (and yes, amending the Constitution for partisan purposes is just as bad as "amending" it through juducial appeal to a "living document"). Conservatives have learned to use the Left's tactics - and the Constitutional way is forgotten in the process. Even DH, as conservative as he may be, doesn't strike me as really having the grasp of the Constitution that FDT has - DH is just more gung-ho in using conservative judicial activism than perhaps Romney or McCain or Huckabee might be.