Monday, November 05, 2007
|
|
Thompson Right on Federalism, Wrong on Abortion
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
9:16 AM
|
Yesterday, on Meet the Press, Fred Thompson told Tim Russert he would oppose the pro-Life plank in the GOP platform (above), in favor of state-by-state laws on abortion. While many candidates, such as Mitt Romney, support this as an incremental step toward outlawing abortion, Fred Thompson sees it as a substitute.
Thompson's rationale is that he is a Federalist, and that the Federal government is already too big. As such, he believes states should determine abortion law (as was the case before the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973). While I am sympathetic to this argument, and generally agree with Federalist philosophy (for example, I think states, not the federal government, should control education), among the few true responsibilities of a Republic is the protection of fundamental rights such as, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Furthermore, if one believes life begins at conception, as Thompson says he now does, then he also believes abortion is murder. Why wouldn't the 14th Amendment protections then also apply to the unborn?
Conservatives have long compared the abortion issue to slavery. Among the obvious parallels is the fact that allowing slavery in one state essentially made it legal in every state. It seems to me that, in this case, the "state's rights"/slavery analogy is apt.
While I applaud Fred Thompson's commitment to limited government and a small Federal government, he should re-think his position on the Life issue. Again, it is one thing to support overturning Roe, as an incremental step toward defending Life. It is quite another issue to oppose the plank which has been with us since 1980, in the GOP platform.
|
|
Remember the phrase, 'give an inch, take a mile?' This is exactly what happens when we leave social issues in the hands of the national government.
When is another little straw enough to break the camel's back? FDR said "The New Deal program is blah, blah, blah, but it's only temporary, and is set up to expire"... And then during Truman's term when it was to expire, he said "Great depression! (not wondering what really caused it) Let's not only NOT end the New Deal, but let's set up more programs like it!" Ergo, Socialist Security Agency, Internal Russia Service, MediCon, and Dept of Homo and Human Secularization. All were meant to be like the New Deal, set to expire, but each succesive DNC Congress voted to extend them until they became mainstreamed, and the latter generations were born and raised into the financial slavery that is the centrist government we now have. These vote getter programs are shamelessly used by politicians and PACs alike.
Having been 'In Session' now for 11 months, this also is a violation of the rules for National Congress. They have been AWOL from thier elected duties, which are to be in state session (No wonder the state's are in such disarray!) People like Pelosi, elected by maybe .3 million people to serve a small part of a city, likes to be 'third in charge' of 300 million, so why should she leave WaDC?
No. Regardless of our personal views on this and other social issues, Fred stands for 'enough is enough!', time to pull the plug and send these people back to their own houses, and quit trying to play house in DC. No wonder they can't get anything passed! They are in the wrong place at the wrong time! Fred knows that, and every American who learned the unabridged, unrevised American History knows better. Stop trying to turn our Federal government into a Socialist democracy! That's why he has my vote. Go Fred! |
|
Many people seem to give the President of the U.S. too much credit for what he/she can and can't do. The only way a President can affect the abortion debate is by appointing Supreme Court Justices. Otherwise, he can't do squat. Even Roberts and Alito said that they considered Woe v. Wade settled law. So please, let's not throw out the baby with the bath water (no pun intended).
The same is true for taxes. The President can't increase or lower taxes. Only Congress can do that. The "Bush" tax cuts were really the Congress tax cuts.
It's nice to hear that a President is Pro-life or for lower taxes, but our focus should be on enforcement of laws. That's where the power of the President resides and that's where a President can have a real impact on illegal aliens and National Security. |
|
Jump feet first into federalism as opposed to making exceptions from the get go. I'm all for diversity of thought, but in our current setup, we can't even fix something as fixable as social security.
|
|
PC writes: "There is no such thing as reasoned federalism when it comes to murder."
I would accept that, if I thought that stopping murder was the ONLY exception to federalism you would make.
But the Christian evangelicals also want a Federal Marriage Amendment that would ban same-sex marriage nationally, overriding state courts and state legislatures even in liberal states.
They want the insane War on Drugs continued, in which even medicinal use of marijuana remains a Federal crime despite the attempts of individual states to decriminalize it.
The Christian evangelicals want a lot more than just stopping murder.
They want the Federal Government to implement their entire political agenda. Even though as you can see, most of it violates the principle of federalism.
|
|
Lisa writes: "Why don't you just check his voting record in the senate? He's pro-life 100% of the time. He's in favor of over turning Roe v. Wade."
For the social conservatives, even that is NOT good enough.
If Roe v. Wade were overturned, individual states (such as liberal Massachusetts and California and New York) could still opt to keep abortion legal there. It's just that the Federal Government would no longer be legalizing it nationally.
But to actually BAN abortion even in liberal states like Massachusetts, the social conservatives are insisting that the 14th Amendment makes the very act of abortion ipso facto unconstitutional--a violation of the 14th Amendment. Then if Massachusetts proceeded with legalizing abortion, they would be violating the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
kukee writes: "While I know that banning Gay Marriage is not in the Republican platform, it is still an issue that needs to be addressed. "
That would be an even WORSE violation of Federalism, which is why Fred has already said he opposes any Federal Marriage Amendment.
Because such an Amendment would end up overriding and nullifying the marriage laws of the fifty states.
If a liberal state wants to make gay marriage legal, then according to the principle of federalism, that's their right.
|
|
I can do what I want as long as I'm not bothering you and the same goes for you. If your entire agenda is based on telling someone what to do, are you sure you value freedom and life?
|
|
I obviously know more about Fred's positions than you do.
You yourself stated- "Romney was alway pro-life personally and pro-choice when he ran for gov of a very liberal state. He was pro-choice for the simple reason of acknowledging that abortion was legal and he vowed to uphold that law."
This shows to me a political opportunist who does not have the stregth of his convictions. As much as I can't stand Ron Paul, he at least has that. Fred has a 100% pro-life voting record. He has been conservative since the 1970's, not some recent convert who conveniently "saw the light" when he needed to win conservative approval.
I'm not into the Human Life Amendment either as I see it a non-issue. |
|
|
Sorry- Ron Paul is the one Republican I will NEVER vote for. If he should get the nomination, I will have to find a third party for the first time in my life! |
|
Don't bother - I tried both of those:
**Monday, November, 05, 2007 4:32 PM**
Folks here are so wrapped up in shouting each other down, they don't have time for such trivial things as Critical Thinking...
...they just blow right past.
- MuscleDaddy |
|
Hey, folks.
First time poster here, and I don't have a favorite candidate in this race. So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that abortion is indisputably murder. Who gets jurisdiction for murder? Excepting cases where federal employees or foreign dignitaries are involved, or where the murder occurs on federal property, or where the murder involves a US citizen outside the borders of a state, the /state/ has jurisdiction over murder. The /state/, therefore, decides what murder is, what manslaughter is, and so forth. Thompson's federalist viewpoint, then, is wholly consistent with the way murder works. It's a state issue. Not a Federal issue. This is the cold, hard way the law works. Now, in my opinion, blowing it up into a federal issue gives the Federal government jurisdiction over murder trials--that is, it /greatly/ increases the scope of the federal government. No, thank you. |
|
|
Mr. Lewis believes it proper to legislate his religion upon society. As much as I dislike Fred, he gave the right answer. When will you conservavangelists realize you have to teach your philosophy, not legislate it. There will ALWAYS be women who want abortions and doctors to give them, please stop screwing the rest of us with your single-issue voting. |
|
Which mental midget started the idea of Amendment's to our Constitution anyway??
That is a Liberal tactic to treat symptoms instead of dealing with the cause of a situation.
The cause of this situation is judicial activism.
Control judges from ignoring the separation of powers!
Are you catching on yet??
Keep your Mitts, Pauls and Hucksters OFF our Constitution!!
|
|
That's funny. I wonder how a member of CFR, who supports the destruction of our country and creation of North American Union could be a federalist. We won't have a country.
Pro-life, but lobbied for planned parenthood.
Fred has cancer, looks older than he is, supported McCain/Feingold. Screw him. If all we have are traitors to vote for, then let the dems kill the country.
If I have to choose between a Marxist Globalist (Dem) and a Fascist Globalist (Rep), why bother.
("Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini)
2010 is their goal and frankly I don't see that they are going to be stopped. Esp when we make excuses for libs trying to pass themselves off as conservative. I think America is toast. Think abortion doesn't matter? God doesn't need you to agree with Him. 45 million abortions is genocide and judgement is coming. |
|
Those feti need to have real rights. I mean "Walk around" rights. Hell, they probably got more brains than most republicans, I say run a fetus for president of the United States. You'd get the Evangelicals for sure.
I particullarly like Fred's point of view on millionaire drug dealers with private jets, who "served their time" on probation (and then got more even more probation when they got caught agin.) Well, darn it all, at least he warn't no colored. |
|
The right to life is an unalienable right embedded directly into the constitution. Without life there is not liberty nor pursuit of happiness. The right to life super cedes Federalism.
Fred is simply wrong on life issues. They are not rights given by states to the Federal government nor to individuals. They are unalienable and we do not need nor want a patchwork quilt approach where one state has one policy and others have other policies.
The right to life is a universal God given right that should be uniform in a Republic. |
|
"I'll take Fred's reasoned Federalism over Ron Paul's Libertarianism any day!!"
It is funny that you say that, because Ron Paul's position is incredibly similar to that of Fred Thompson. The key difference is that Ron Paul has already submitted a proposal in congress to add a constitutional amendment to define life as beginning at conception. It is up to the states to create the laws based on this fact for those special situations (rape, incest, mother's life in danger, etc.).
Ron Paul is inaccurately labeled a Libertarian when really he is a constitutionalist. His staunchly pro-life stance puts Ron Paul at odds with the true Libertarians. I encourage you to do some more research on Ron Paul. You may find that you will like him a lot more than you think. |
|
Fred has a far inferior position on abortion than Romney and his former position was also inferior to Romney's. Fred was formerly pro-abortion through the first trimester. He was against overturning Roe. Yes, he has flip-flopped around on the issue, and is still not up to speed.
Romney was alway pro-life personally and pro-choice when he ran for gov of a very liberal state. He was pro-choice for the simple reason of acknowledging that abortion was legal and he vowed to uphold that law.
Romney supportst he Human Life amendment and Fred doesn't. There is no such thing as reasoned federalism when it comes to murder. |
|
|
I'll take Fred's reasoned Federalism over Ron Paul's Libertarianism any day!! In fact, I'll also take it over Rudy's RINO ways, Huck's Religious Socialism and whatever Mitt has decided he thinks this week. |
|
|
I am not sure what the true definition of "Evangelical" is when referred to politically but... I am a born again Christian that understands the world that we live in and the threats that we face and frankly, I am not going to vote for someone specifically because of those particular social issues. I am ashamed of those ultra-religious people that do however. And I think they are doing this country and Christianity a great disservice. |
|
The evangelicals would not agree to the priorities as listed by Chillin.
Number 1 on their list will always be abortion
Number 2 will always be pro-family
those three things Chillin lists are important, of course but they will always follow numbers 1 and 2.
A DIRE warning to the GOP...
Do not give evangelicals a candidate who is pro-choice or lacks pro-family values on a federal level.
A vast majority of evangelicals CAN NOT vote for such a person. Not will not vote for them, CAN NOT vote for them. |
|
Have we all lost focus on what the 2008 election is about? I believe that these 5 topics are most important facing the upcoming election:
1. Terrorism/National Security
2. Terrorism/National Security
3. Terrorism/National Security
4. Taxes
5. Immigration
I believe issues like abortion, and gay marriage are minor, probably not even in the Top 10. For me, these topics don't mean anything to me if I die in a terrorist attack.
Some of these hard core religious folk need to get their heads out of the sand and realize that we need to get behind whoever represents the GOP, other than R. Paul, because I believe that it the WH goes to Clinton or another Dem we are going to have bigger problems than abortion and who is sleeping with who.
With that being said, I like Thompson, and even if he defends deferring to the states I can only imagine one state, Mass., that would make those issues allowable. |
|
|
Fred Thompson’s analogy is sound but he should understand the power of symbolism. It was the GOP which has historically stood on behalf of those who were denied their humanity by Democrats and RINOs: the slaves and the unborn. Symbols matter. Constitutionally, at this point, the issues of medical regulation and criminal prosecution should be left up to the states…and that is why it is important to overturn Roe. |
|
Being Pro-Life is not easy. A Constitution Amendment to ban abortions is the cowards way to being Pro-Life.
Being Pro-Life is to work to assure that every child has proper food, a home, are safe from sexual predators, every child has good, affordable health care, that the mother has proper health care, and that the child's parent(s) have a job that pays a living wage.
It is not enough to fold hands, or protest that abortions are a sin and not do anything to help the woman to want to make the decision to bring life into this world where the wicked, rule, and selfish, mindless people cheer on war that murders someone else's child.
If you serously want to end abortions, do not focus on the act, but focus on the why,that is a lot harder to change.
You can not be for life and pro dropping bombs on little children in foreign countries because you are scared. If the one issue anti-abortion voter focus more on life than death, than they would not appear to be hypocrites.
Pro-Life is the respect for all human life, regardless of color, race, religion or the lack there of. |
|
Matt (taking time off from stumping for Mitt) says:
"Furthermore, if one believes life begins at conception, as Thompson says he now does, then he also believes abortion is murder. Why wouldn't the 14th Amendment protections then also apply to the unborn?"
So Matt - you're suggesting that every murder committed in the US should be applied to the US Constitution and handled as a Federal crime?
Federal Courts, Federal Prosecutors, Federal Judges, etc.?
...Or do you think those should be handled by the states in which they occur? And if so - and you believe that abortion is murder - then what makes abortion different from other murders?
While we're at it...
"Conservatives have long compared the abortion issue to slavery. Among the obvious parallels is the fact that allowing slavery in one state essentially made it legal in every state. It seems to me that, in this case, the "state's rights"/slavery analogy is apt."
That's just nonsensical.
Okay, if the 'abortion/slavery' analogy is so apt, someone please outline for me the correspondingly-possible 'Dredd Scott Decision'.
...go ahead, I'll wait...
What it sounds like you're REALLY saying here is: "I'm for states-rights and Federalism... unless it flies in the face of one of my talking-point-issues,... then I'm not."
Thank you, Mr. Kerry.
- MuscleDaddy |
|
|
|
Great comment and comparison to the effect of state's rights. Also from Oregon I have the exact sentiment. Fred isn't wishy washy. He isn't willing to call evil, evil when it comes to a social acceptible practice like Abortion. I think Slavery is a great example, and I think that we should have some good ole' Lincoln Douglas debates considering it. Candidates wouldn't be permitted shallow soundbytes on the issue.
Is it me, or is Fred interested in being president only if he can remove any responsibility and task from the occupation? |
|
I am a Thompson Support/Contributor and I just finished watching the entire MTP interview. Overall Fred Thompson did extremely well.
However, on the issue of Life, Fred Thompson's interview raised some serious concerns for me.
Symbolism is important and though we are no where near being in a position to pass a Pro-Life amendment, it is an important plank in the the Republican Party Platform.
I appreciate Fred's Federalist views and have been very encouraged that we have a candidate who has made Federalism a major part of his campaign.
However, as refreshing as Fred's Federalist approach might be, there are some things that should be decided on a national level. The protection of innocent human life is one of those things; as was slavery during Lincoln's day.
If Fred Thompson were to take the position of fighting to have the GOP's pro-life plank removed I would sadly have to discontinue my primary support for Senator Thompson and ask that my contribution be returned.
With that said, if Senator Thompson can agree to live with the Current Party Platform I could still support him because I believe he is the most conservative candidate currently running that has a chance to win. He seems to be good on the 2nd Amendment, immigration, defense, reducing the size of government and judicial appointments.
From a practical perspective he could do much to advance the cause of life by appointing good judges and maintaining current policies that stop the U.S. from funding/promoting abortion nationally and globally.
Obviously he would get my vote in general election, but I sincerely doubt he will make it there if he really is advocating that the Republican Party remove/change its pro-life plank.
If he picks that fight he will have shown that he really is not of presidential timber.
|
|
|
Fred has always been wishy-washy on life. He has only been in favor of overtuning Roe for a few months. |
|
Fred's record in the US Senate pretty much amounted to voting not to use taxpayer funds for abortion and to ban "partial-birth" abortion.
None of this is inconsistent with a stand that says he would allow most abortions to be legal. |
|
Why don't you just check his voting record in the senate? He's pro-life 100% of the time. He's in favor of over turning Roe v. Wade.
Come on folks, don't let the facts slow you down. |
|
He seemed to indicate that he was pro-choice...
RUSSERT: You would allow abortion to be performed in states if chosen by states for people who think otherwise.
THOMPSON: I do not think that you can have a law that would be effective and that would be the right thing to do, as I say, in terms of potentially — you can't have a law that cuts off an age group or something like that which potentially would take young girls in extreme situations and say, basically, we're going to put them in jail to do that. I just don't think that that's the right thing to do. It cannot change the way I feel about it morally, but legally and practically, I've got to recognize that fact. It is a dilemma that I'm not totally comfortable with, but that's the best I can do in resolving it in my own mind.
Link: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjliOGNiOWZjYzhjZ TM0YTE4ZWI4ZDEzMTkxYzNlOTc=
|
|
Wow, that is some photo. You find a photo of him mid blink and run it? Carry your arguement on its own merit, not by cheap campaign tricks. I expect these sort of childish antics from the Dems, not or own side.
If we can not rise above this level of foolishness we deserve the drubbing we may well get in the next election. |
|
to limited government when he pushed through McCain-Feingold?
Fred is on the wrong side of both the Human Life amendment and the marriage amendment, and it IS going to hurt him with conservatives like me.
Hey, I'm from Oregon where it is a-okay to push Grandma right over a cliff if she's hanging around too long, so I don't buy the state's rights baloney when it comes to protecting human life. |
|
While I know that banning Gay Marriage is not in the Republican platform, it is still an issue that needs to be addressed. The only things that will come from gay marriage is:
1. Higher insurance premiums for everyone.
2. More divorces and more money for divorce lawyers. Gay men are 95% more promiscuous than the average SINGLE male. A quote from a gay ex-friend of mine: "I hate it that AIDs has gotten in the way. I have only had 15 partners where some of my friends have had 60 and 70 partners."
How long would a heterosexual marriage last with that kind of attitude. Yes I know 'not all gays are the same', ha!
3. Employee benefits would decrease.
4. Churches would be sued for refusing to perform wedding ceremonioes.
5. Lastly, the United Sates of America would fall just like every other nation who has failed to secure morality. |
|
|
|