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."
So in other words, your opinion of the 14th is even more meaningless than I gave you credit for, and I still have yet to hear an argument for why abortion shouldn’t be a 14th issue as long as the amendment stands.
Wrong, there are post on this thread where, flip flopping huckster, in his own words, was on both sides, the constitution is only his latest.
Best description of Huck I've heard yet!
The total word count of the four Acts was 8,149 words. They are completely devoid of any language to support the claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect corporations, mandate integrated schools, or protect abortion (or "privacy") rights, or "gender equity." A word search of the four Acts found no instance where either of the words "corporation" or "corporations" were used. The words "person" or "persons" were found a total of 166 times. A short comment on each Act is given just below followed by the complete text of the four Acts.
Make me an argument showing how abortion isn't a state (by consent) depriving a person of life without due process of law which doesn't fall back on the pro-infanticide crowd's "the unborn fetus isn't a person" canard. I'm still waiting.
Meanwhile, what the references to corporations have to do with this topic is beyond me.
“Is Waiting For a Constitutional Ban on Abortion Really Pro-Life?”
It IS pro-life. It is NOT practical.
you must have liked it then.
Really? Hmmm. So it doesn't matter if the majority opinion is consistent with the Constitution as long as they agree with each other? Or it the lawyer's fault for not giving the flaming activist liberal Justices an offer they couldn't refuse? I don't think so.
I thought Huckabee did extremely well in the interview by Chris Wallace. Anyone else?
A) It’s a State crime to kill NOT a federal crime. As pointed out there was no federal law against killing the President from the founding of the union until August 28, 1965. The Founding Fathers left the general police powers to the States.
B) The Fifth Amendment restricted the rights of the Federal Government and didn’t apply to the States until passage of the Fourteenth Amendment otherwise there would have been no need for the Fourteenth Amendment.
C) You need to read what the Fourteenth Amendment says: 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.
The Amendment restricts the power of the STATES.
It prohibits the STATES from these actions. The average person can not offer due process of law, but the average person can kill another person if he acts within the laws of the state he is in at the time.
Were the Courts to hold with your reading of the Amendment nobody could kill an attacker or a home invader because there is no due process of law present at the time they do the killing.
Where is the due process when someone shoots a person they wake up to find in their home uninvited? There isn’t any.
Where is the due process when a store owner shoots a thief? There isn’t any.
The laws governing when one may kill are different in all 50 States. There is no federal law against killing the average person. There are federal laws against killing specific persons and groups of persons, but no federal law against murder in general.
The 5th and 14th Amendments were in place when JFK was killed but the federal government had no jurisdiction to try Oswald because there was no federal law against murder of anyone, even the President. That’s why Congress passed Public Law 89-141. If the 5th and 14th Amendments made murder done by individuals illegal there would have been no reason to pass Public Law 89-141.
Deciding what killing is and is not murder is a State power not a federal power and has been since the founding of the Union. I’m not for changing that.
So, if a state wants to, it can allow murder, according to you.
I not only wouldn’t want to live in such a place, I wouldn’t want it to be a part of my country.
Blah, blah, blah. Each kid will have exactly what the parents enable that kid to have until the kid turns into an adult. Our government oversteps its bounds on almost all of the issues discuss in todays political discourse. Military - definitely. Infrastructure - you betcha. Schools - anecessary evil. Everything else - tell the government to butt out.
There is nothing wrong with amending the Constitution to assure every citizen has a certain right. That's why the Founders gave us the amendment process.
Huckabee has problems on multiple issues. But, he is, by far, the strongest pro-life and social conservative in the race.
I don't think that's a very reasonable claim, considering it was legal in some states (and illegal in others) at that time.
States define murder differently right now. Nothing in the Constitution compels a State to outlaw murder and nothing in the Constitution defines what murder is.
In some States it’s second or third degree murder to kill someone by using more force than some vague standard to repel an attacker. In others it’s not.
In some states you can kill another person just because they break into your house. In others that’s murder if you don’t try to retreat. In some states it’s murder if the person isn’t armed. In others it isn’t.
I don’t want the Federal Government taking any more power than they already have. They are already way out of line with the Constitution and what the Founders put in place.
As it stands now if you don’t like the way your state defines murder, you can move to a place that defines it more to your liking. That’s as it should be.
Grand Inquests is the one I was thinkihng of. He covers the Chase and Johnson trials but all the others as well, just not in depth. I read it before the Clinton impeachment trial and it was a good read. In every impeachment, the person was impeached for personal reasons, not what they did in their offical capacity.
I will look into Barton more, thanks for the comment. For myself, I believe we should be using impeachment more than we have used it in the past. Not for political reasons but for the intended reason to remove a judge who does not do his job and enforce the law.
I’m sorry. I don’t know this morning what I was thinking yesterday. I will try to be more careful in the future.
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.