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."
No. I don’t care if you support or oppose Fred Thompson but in this case the charge is false. He was asked to provide legal advice to a client of the firm, which he did. In no way does this mean he’s a lobbyist for abortion. At the very worst he would be guilty of accepting a chore he could have avoided by saying no. My point is research the facts before listening to the MSM and jumping to their conclusions.
It looks to me like you are misreading that sentence by taking a few words out of context. Try reading the whole sentence again.
“His Supreme Ct nominees are not among them.”
Harriet Myers? Do you realize how extreme the response was be to get him to change course on this? That he’d nominate her in the first place, and initially NOT back down from her?
Even more difficult than getting 2/3 of Congress would be getting 3/4 of the states to approve. Only 13 states would need to hold out to prevent passage. IOW, the Northeast plus the Pacific Coast states.
An amendment is only possible when there is broad national consensus on an issue, as the Founders intended.
As you say, talking about passing amendments to settle highly controversial issues is pointless. Not gonna happen.
Do you understand Federalism. I am taking a Constitutional Law Class this semester and I can assure you that most people seem to have a more idealogical than legal view of federalism. Legally all that federalism requires is that the federal government not regulate in areas that it has been given power to regulate in under the constitution. It says nothing about the advisability of amending the constitution or how one should interpret the 14th Amendment which would seem to give Congress the power to prevent any state from legalizing any murder of a person (including an unborn person). Most people on FR seem to embrace FREDERALISM rather than true Federalism and reinterpret the 10th Amendment as if it said “Congress shall make no law infringing on states rights.” Unfortunately, for Frederalists that is not what it says and to interpret it that way is nothing other than judicial activism.
I guess in your little bitty mind an attorney representing a drunk is also a drunk, and an attorney representing a murderer is also a murderer. That is called a two digit IQ.
“How about you pimping your pro-amnesty, ‘open borders for Jesus’, Gomer Pyle-looking, nanny state pushing, big spending, ethically challenged, “aw-shucks” MSM darling nominee and let us conservatives worry about a few hours of stray lobbying work 20 years ago? Fred Thompson has a 100% pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment voting record in the Senate. As you know, the National Right To Life Committee (3,000 chapters in all 50 states) endorsed Senator Thompson—Not Huckabee, not Romney, but Thompson!! Fred doesn’t think protecting the borders, enforcing immigration laws and ending sanctuary cities is “racist” like Mike Huckabee does!”
Great rant!! One more open borders POTUS, and America is finished. Fred has a voting record on abortion, and the NRLC is not stupid.
BTTT
Yes, and you want to keep it in the hands of someone who says he'll deal with it on a national/federal level, who once(IF) he gets there, will never get it done, but you'll vote for him because he gives you the promise of instant gratification on this issue, that you so crave.
It is a war.
And very rarely(if ever) in war, will you find one big decisive battle covering the entire field of battle, that wins it. And in this case your enemy is expecting it and is equipped to deal with it.
So what do you do?
Change the game. Change the field of battle. Change the tactics.
It may not satisfy your need for instant gratification, but it can give the troops the momentum they need to win it.
“The 60-second spot stars actor Chuck Norris, .....”
60 seconds? I can stand that much easier than one hour of Walker Texas Ranger.
I tend to believe that abortion isn’t anymore a states right issue than immigration is.
Of course we believe in States’ rights. But the right to life does not come from the Government but from Almighty God, and no State or person can deny or abridge that right in the case of an innocent person. States do not have the right to enslave anyone because the Constitution forbids it (Thirteenth Amendment). The Declaration of Independence lays out the existential purpose of government: to secure the certain unalienable rights with which Almighty God endowed each of us from the moment of creation.
And we already have two Constitutional amendments addressing this very issue: the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment, the latter more explicit regarding the role of the States: “...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” The Fifth Amendment doesn’t mention any aggressor, governmental or otherwise: “No person shall ..., nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....”
The Supreme Court apparently didn’t understand the difference between a living human baby and a cancerous tumor when it decided Roe v. Wade (1973). The justices shamefully implicitly rejuvenated Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), a terrible decision that set the awful precedent that a genetically human individual somehow did not meet their hypertechnical legal definition of “person.”
So while States should run their own respective education systems and regulate health care without interference from the federal government, they simply cannot permit the wholesale slaughter of their Posterity, to whom our Constitution intended to secure the Blessings of Liberty.
The founders didn’t intend to nationalize slavery. Do you want to refight that war?
Except in certain specific cases like murder of a federal employee, there is no federal law against murder. You can kill me today and face no federal charge.
While I’m firmly pro-life, I’m more firmly pro-Constitution. As such, I have to come down on the States Rights side of this. The Constitution doesn’t specifically give the federal government the right to outlaw murder before or after birth, so it is a States’ Right per the Tenth Amendment.
Here is the link to Fred’s interview this morning. An ad comes up first, so hang in a minute to see the interview.
See Fred answer questions strongly and honestly from a well known Demorat! :)
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3882871
I know all about Harriet Miers and how troublesome it became for the President. I was referring to Roberts and Alito. (I.e., the actual results.)
President Thompson would nominate people like Roberts and Alito. Or don’t you think so?
I don’t think life should be a states rights issue. I think there is a big difference between deciding who runs medicaid vs letting people kill babies.
Roe should be repealed through the SC and congress should then pass a law against abortion for all 50 states. Or congress could simply take away jurisdiction from the SC on this matter.
But drano1 doesn't care, he's a hucker for the huckster.
Here's another example:
Brian: Ok, now, um, this is…my personal opinion is that it [Roe v. Wade] should be overturned and at the VERY least kicked back to the states…
Governor Huckabee: Mm-hmm.
Brian: …so do you think this should be a state issue if you couldn’t get it passed, or…?
Governor Huckabee: Well, if was overturned, frankly it would be passed back to the states, because that’s all Roe v. Wade really did was to take it away from the states and federalize it. So the states would have it. In my state, for example, it would have automatically have been settled, since we already have a constitutional provision to deal with, uh, the right to a human, uh, the right to sanctity of life.
But obviously I think the ultimate goal is that we would never be a society that would terminate the life of a completely innocent human being.
Yeah, it’s best left to the states. I mean, life is either life or it isn’t. I recognize that you often get what you get in increments, and if there was a law that said that there were exceptions for the physical life — not, you know, just this wide definition of “gee I don’t feel well” or “it’s going to make me upset” – but for the physical life of the mother, in that case you’re really not trying to take a life, you’re trying to save all the lives, you realize there may be one of those rare occasions where if you can’t save one you’re not going to criminalize the doctor for having saved all the lives he can.
(Mike Huckabee interview with IowaVoice.com, Sunday, August 5, 2007)
I can accept your definition and position. I’m not supporting either side yet because I see merits of both. That’s exactly why I support opening this up to debate and analysis.
The person who said 30 years is wrong. We have spent forty, or closer to fifty years working on educating voters on this issue. That effort has to continue even though we have a majority now, which we did not have before, opposing abortions.
One of the most persuasive comments I have ever heard came from Kathy Ireland, of all people. She said “you prove to me that life does not begin at conception and I will reconsider my opposition to abortion.” It’s too bad politicians cannot be that clear in their arguments.
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.