Posted on 07/27/2011 7:01:25 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Rick Perry Categorizes Abortion as a States' Rights Issue Despite holding personal pro-life beliefs, Texas Gov. Rick Perry categorized abortion as a states’ rights issue today, saying that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it should be up to the states to decide the legality of the procedure. “You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” Perry told reporters after a bill signing in Houston. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, 'We’d rather not have states decide that.'” The 10th Amendment reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
July 27, 2011 8:32 PM
ABC News' Arlette Saenz (@arlettesaenz) reports:
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
“Our friends in New York six weeks ago passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex,” Perry said. “And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”
Perry also expressed that sentiment when he told the New Hampshire Sunday News that the New York decision “is New York’s prerogative.”
The 10th Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Like many constitutional amendments, this one gets interpreted and spun beyond its original meaning. But in the context of marriage, there should be no doubt that each state must have the right to decide who can get marriage licenses. Equally important is each state’s authority to decide whether to recognize marriages performed in other states. The federal Defense of Marriage Act, approved in 1996 and signed by President Bill Clinton, allows states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. That law also defined marriage as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”
......
We’ll give Perry spokesman Mark Miner the last word on this.
“To not pass the Federal Marriage Amendment would impinge on Texas’ and other states’ right not to have marriage forced upon it (by activist judges and special interest groups).
“The amendment process respects all states by requiring three-fourths ratification by the legislatures. Our Constitution was designed to respect states, including the amendment process.”
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/perrys-consistency-commendable-1658391.html
That method of interpretation is call "textualism". It allows the person interpreting it to attribute to the words any one of a various meanings they might have, or come to have in modern lexicon. It makes no attempt to determine the original intent of the authors.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
-Thomas Jefferson
I see no reason that should apply any less to any subsequent amendments than it does to the Constitution proper.
You can declare the "intent" of the authors irrelevant if you want. I won't follow you there, or anywhere else by that path.
No. It was clearly and specifically prohibited by Constitutional amendment. Which is the only way to take the abortion issue away from the states.
You're treading on thin ice here with that statement. The crowd who would rather fail in ending 100.000% of abortions than succeed in ending 99.999% of abortions is pretty vocal.
Abortion should be illegal everywhere.
Bu at least if the “constitutional right” status of abortion were abolished, if the federal courts butted out of what wasn’t actually their concern, if authority over abortion law were returned to the states, it would be a HUGE improvement over what we have now.
In the meantime, we must strive to elect a President who will appoint the right kind of justices, and a Senate that will confirm them.
When I was a kid (about 10) a friend told me that murder was not a federal offense. I couldn’t believe it. Turns out he was right.
Murder is an offense that takes place within a state. Every state has it covered of course no need for the feds to be involved.
I am absolutely against abortion. Absolutely in all cases. However, not the business of the federal government. The idea that a few folks rule over the rest of us-all 300+milllion-is what got us into this mess.
_________________________________________
Interesting, all I did was post her exact words regarding the issue. It is revealing that you see quoting her as an attack.
If I had wanted to go negative I could have said something like..."She had the chance on national TV to talk about the horror of abortion, the evil of killing the unborn, the stain on America's soul; but she didn't and never has."
I could have said that but I didn't.
btw...Are we now to applaud somebody for doing the right thing with her own child?
_______________________________________
While I agree with you 100% about the utter evil of abortion, I don't think, that in this world, we will stand or fall on this single issue.
I understand all the down-stream social structure erosion caused by its acceptance as a "life choice" and can see the argument there but if we do fall there will be other, equally if not more contributing social factors.
For example...the fact that over 40% of children born (ie, not aborted) in the US in 2010 were born to unwed mothers. Throw in queer marriage and amnesty (hard or soft) for illegals and you should see what I mean.
"I am fine with homosexual marriage in State X" and "The voters of State X have the right to decide about homosexual marriage" are not, repeat not, identical statements.
That phrase appears in the Declaration of Independence, which although a brilliant, needed, and inspiring document, does not have the status in law which is held by the Constitution.
Abortion:
>Perry is pro-life and opposes government funding for elective abortions. In 2005, Perry, a social conservative, signed a bill that limited late-term abortions and required girls under the age of 18 who procure abortions to notify their parents. Perry signed the bill in the gymnasium of Calvary Christian Academy in Fort Worth, an evangelical Christian school.
>Perry signed into law a bill requiring a sonogram and doctor’s explanation before granting an abortion
>In 2005, Perry signed a new law that requires minor girls to receive parental consent before getting an abortion. This law strengthens a parental notification law Perry supported as Lt. Gov. in 1999, which
helped reduce teen abortions by 26 percent.
Perry has also signed a ban on third trimester abortions, a ban on tax dollars being used to support abortion facilities, a prenatal protection act that protects
unborn children from assault, and an informed consent law that helps expectant mothers better understand the risks and consequences of abortion. Perry supports a ban on human cloning and will veto any
legislation that provides state dollars for embryonic stem cell research, a process that ends a human life.
Perry urges to keep up pressure to roll back the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion until “Roe v. Wade is nothing but a shameful footnote in our nation’s history books.
>Perry, a frequent critic of the federal government, also bashed President Barack Obama for his administration’s policy allowing federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, saying he was deeply disturbed by studies that turn “the remains of unborn children into nothing more than raw material.”
>Perry has faulted Obama for reversing the so-called “Mexico City policy” that banned giving federal money to international groups that perform abortions or provide information about abortions. Obama struck down the policy during his first week in office, saying it was too broad and undermined family planning in developing countries.
Under Obama “our federal tax dollars can now be used to fund abortion all over the world. With the stroke of a pen, abortion essentially became a U.S. foreign export,” Perry said.
.
Immigration:
WHAT have other states done?? (with the exception of AZ Ok and Ga)
What have other candidates stated that they would do?
What has Sarah stated she would do?
What is Backmann’s plan?
What did Reagan do?
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/06/rudy-giuliani/yep-reagan-did-the-a-word/
President Ronald Reagan was the first president in history to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. On November 6, 1986, he signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, [PUB L 99-603]. In so doing, he set a precedent whereby the United States would not seek to deport illegal aliens, but to reward their lawbreaking by granting them full citizenship.
What have they done? Promised?
Nothing.
They can’t.
They won’t.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Perry wants passage of a measure requiring every person arrested to be run through the federal immigration databases as part of the Secure Communities program. He also wants to provide the state Department of Public Safety with the authority to make sure someone is in the U.S. legally before issuing a driver’s license.
>These measures, along with a ban on sanctuary cities, would “provide a clear message that Texas will not turn a blind eye to those breaking our laws,” Perry said in a statement.
“Texas owes it to the brave law enforcement officials, who put their lives on the line every day to protect our families and communities, to give them the discretion they need to adequately do their jobs,” Perry said.
http://www.rickperry.org/media-articles/perry-adds-immigration-issues-lawmakers-agenda-0?amp
>Gov. Perry has made numerous requests of the federal govt. to enforce the border in Texas including handing President Obama a letter in person when he landed in Dallas last year.
(Obama insulted governor Perry when he turned away and Perry had to hand the letter on the illegals issue to presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett. Obama declined to personally accept it.)
>Gov. Perry refuses to meet/greet Obama in May 2011 at El Paso during his Texas tour.
Perry later declared, “If he wanted to meet, I was in Austin.
>Perry signed into law photo ID required before voting.
NEWSFLASH! None of them are going to do much.
We have to take the best of the lot.
.
Perry has done the best he can in a state full of Mexicans and Rats fighting him every step of the way.
We have to run a man who can beat Obama.
We cannot afford another four years of the Marxist/Muslim usurper!
.
However, the following statements DO APPEAR in the Constitution:
Amendment V:
...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;...Amendment XIV, Section 1:
...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.
If the unborn baby is a person, it is unconstitutional for the federal or any state government to pass a law that would deprive the baby's rights.
The whole issue, and this is even acknowledged in Roe, is whether or not the unborn baby is a person.
Keep in mind that the last time Americans decided to define persons as nonpersons it ended VERY BADLY.
The entire "pro-choice-by-state" approach is absurd. What it is implying is that one state can declare persons to not be persons.
Moreover, there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that this approach would make any actual dent in the number of abortions being performed. A handful of liberal states like New York, Illinois and California are responsible for the overwhelming majority of abortions and the "pro-choice-by-state" crowd openly acknowledges that these states WILL NOT outlaw abortion. Well over 95% of the people in the continental US live within a day's drive of an abortuary in a state that will never ban abortion if given the option.
I think some states fought a war over that same idea......
You are correct, and especially correct that it remains an "issue". That issue is whether or not the Constitution and federal law as extant today unequivocally define the unborn child as a person.
A few think that it does, that a President and AG could simply prosecute abortionists under the existing law. I don't agree, I think Congressional action to clarify the Fourteenth is needed. And to keep a future Congress from reversing that action, only an amendment will work.
More and more, Perry is revealed as an unacceptable candidate:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2755072/posts
Antonio Gramsci was studied by Saul Alinsky who formed Obama into a marxist. Gramsci stated that there are 10 steps to bring a marxist society to the US: change the popular consensus; destroy Christianity, the traditional family, and existing social mores; transform the culture; install a radical Left mind-control; attain political power; impose strict control of the military and law enforcement; restrict freedom; socialize the economy; erase American sovereignty; and embrace a world without borders.
Gramsci believed the US could be destroyed from within through abortion, lax divorce laws, homosexual marriage, women's rights, pornography,hate speech laws, media and attacking education. It's working.
I'm not sure how the quote from Gramsci (source please) applies to the constitutional aspect of abortion.
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.