Posted on 11/18/2007 12:10:42 PM PST by dano1
Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee rejects letting states decide whether to allow abortions, claiming the right to life is a moral issue not subject to multiple interpretations.
"It's the logic of the Civil War," Huckabee said Sunday, comparing abortion rights to slavery. "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."
"For those of us for whom this is a moral question, you can't simply have 50 different versions of what's right," he said on Fox News Sunday.
The former Arkansas governor, who has drawn within striking distance of Mitt Romney in Iowa's leadoff presidential caucuses, said he was surprised by the National Right to Life Committee's endorsement of Fred Thompson.
"But my surprise was nothing compared to the surprise of people across America who had been faithful supporters of right to life," said Huckabee, a conservative who is challenging Thompson's claim to the title.
"Fred's never had a 100 percent record on right to life in his Senate career. The records reflect that. And he doesn't support the human life amendment which is most amazing because that's been a part of the Republican platform since 1980," Huckabee said.
In a pre-recorded interview on ABC's "This Week," Thompson said Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision allowing legal abortion, should be overturned, with states allowed to decide individually whether to permit abortions.
"We need to remember what the status was before Roe v. Wade," Thompson said in the interview, taped Friday.
Huckabee also previewed his first television ad of the campaign on the program. The 60-second spot stars actor Chuck Norris, and is scheduled to begin running in Iowa on Monday.
"My plan to secure the border. Two words: Chuck. Norris," says Huckabee, who stares into the camera before it cuts away to show Norris standing beside him.
"Mike Huckabee is a lifelong hunter, who'll protect our Second Amendment rights," says the tough-guy actor, who takes turns addressing viewers.
"There's no chin behind Chuck Norris' beard, only another fist," Huckabee says.
"Mike Huckabee wants to put the IRS out of business," Norris adds.
"When Chuck Norris does a push-up, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the earth down," Huckabee says.
"Mike's a principled, authentic conservative," says Norris.
In closing, Huckabee says: "Chuck Norris doesn't endorse. He tells America how it's going to be. I'm Mike Huckabee and I approved this message. So did Chuck."
Huckabee acknowledged that the ad probably won't change a lot of minds.
"But what it does do is exactly what it's doing this morning," he said. "Getting a lot of attention, driving people to our Web site, giving them an opportunity to find out who is this guy that would come out with Chuck Norris in a commercial."
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
I do not disagree with you so let the debate begin. My point on this is this issue needs to be explored before we can have the certainty of our convictions.
The Constitution makes no such distinction:
Amendment 5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment 14. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
Thanks. I watched it earlier from a link on the Sunday talk show thread. I highly recommend that to any Freepers who have not seen it. Anyway, I did see it and I enjoyed Fred’s sword play with little Stephie.
In 1963 it was not even a federal law against killing a U.S. president. Thus the jurisdiction to prosecute Oswald rested with local and State authorities.
The killing of JFK convinced Congress that a federal law was required.
Public Law 89-141, signed on August 28, 1965, enacted 18 U.S.C. 1751, prohibiting the killing, kidnapping, conspiracy, assault or attempt to kill or kidnap the President or Vice President. For the first time killing the President was now federal crime.
Similarly, when Senator Robert F. Kennedy was killed in June 1968, there was no general Federal statute that prohibited the assassination of Members of Congress.
Public Law 91-644, signed on January 2, 1971, enacted 18 U.S.C. 351, which extended the protection of the Federal criminal law to Members of Congress, paralleling that extended to the President and the Vice President.
You can’t mean to assert that killing an unborn baby is a federal offense under the Constitution when killing the President and Members of Congress wasn’t without passing specific laws.
No offense but you have to understand the legal profession and what they do. This is a common thing to happen.
If its a Constitutional issue, then its well within the jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court. The problem is they didn't uphold the 5th Amendment of the Constitution.
And this is exactly what happens when Democrats are elected to any political office.
I’m not being flippant. Thanks for the post and reference. I hope everyone reads it.
You can't mean to assert that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments have no meaning, no force of law, and no application in, or to, the states.
What the US Constitution says is not always what the Supreme Court claims it says.
Thanks for posting this. Did you go to Gutherie for the celebration this weekend?
There were changes in the US Constitution that have never been adequately explained or addressed because of the Civil War. It is interesting to read about how various laws and the three amendments coming out of that period did or did not accomplish what was intended or that have been corrupted over time.
For example the 14th Amendment was never intended to give citizenswhip to illegal aliens as we experience today. It was menat to cover blacks who were enslaved. If so, why did the change happen and what do we do about it?
Huckabee then goes on to refute the point that it is for the States to decide. You have to read the whole sentence to get the meaning.
You miss the point.
The Fifth Restricts the Federal Government. The 14th specifically applies only to “persons born or naturalized in the United States” it says nothing about the unborn.
Even so, if it didn’t make it a crime to kill the President how do you assert it makes it a crime to kill an unborn baby?
Actually not. That would be you.
Abortion was never in our history a federal issue until the infamous Roe v Wade decision made it one. Now Mike Huckabee says that he agrees with the 7 justices who issued the Roe decision, that abortion is in fact a federal issue. I think that Mike is thinking with his emotions more than his brain, and a return to federalism, as Fred Thompson proposes, is the correct answer.
Actually, appointing new Justices is not the only way to overturn Roe. All that is needed is for Congress to use it’s power under the constitution to remove jurisdiction over abortion cases from the Supreme Court. However, Congress is more interested in going on taxpayer-funded junkets and collecting fat pensions, than tackling any serious and controversial issues.
There are reasons why small state governors have to get name recognition as the first part of their national ambitions; their view starts out limited to that small state.
Answer this question - when a person murders another, which laws is he tried under - federal or state ?
Why is abortion any different ?
There’s a different way - define an unborn child as a “person”, then you can apply the laws against murder. Colorado is very close to doing just that.
Not here or now but it would be interesting to read your comments concerning illegal immigration and legal immigration using the same logic and analysis.
There is a movement to allow guest workers into America who will never become citizens because we need the work done. How is this different from slavery other than the person comes to America voluntarily? Would we not be creating an underclass of people for their labor just as happened to blacks in the USA prior to the Civil War?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
B) The Fifth Amendment protects the rights of all Americans, or would if not for folks like yourself. Like many today, you don't understand the difference between enumerated powers granted to the national government by our Constitution, and enumerated and unenumerated rights granted by the Creator God, either spelled out, or not, ala the Ninth Amendment, in our Constitution.
C) You misstate what the Fourteenth Amendment says:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.
All citizens are persons. Not all persons are citizens. No state can deprive any person of their life without trial and conviction on a capital offense.
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.