Skip to comments.Flippers, Floppers & Frauds vs. Duncan Hunter – Part 1
Posted on 08/28/2007 11:38:07 AM PDT by WalterSkinner
The bottom line is this. If Americans want a leader who does not attempt to hide behind the skirt of federalism, does not have to explain why he flipped and flopped like a beached cutthroat trout, and who has always understood that the unalienable right to life comes from our creator and not state politicians or courts, then Duncan Hunter is the only choice...
(Excerpt) Read more at newswhichcannotlose.blogspot.com ...
When Duncan can get over 5%, get back to me.
If Hunter is so confident in his ability to win he should resign his House seat and campaign full-time.
He’s resigning from Congress after this term ends. So once the next year ends, he’s either President or looking for a new job.
He is a man of integrity and made a commitment to serve his district for the two years of his term...
Are you calling him a liar?
..in which cooked MSM poll?
Your the one pinging the list.
No one can get over 5%.
The “people” get you whatever percentage they get you. In the meantime you campaign your heart out and speak your issues and ignore the naysayers.
Where did that come from? Seems as though you might have an iussue or two.
I certainly hope that this blog continues with comparisons on other issues as well. I have long felt that it is VERY important to outline the specific differences comparing Hunter with the other top tier candidates (including Fred Thompson) on border security, illegal immigration and amnesty, NAFTA, NAU/SPP, and China.
Of note in Part 1:
“Thompsons other mistake is that he is still trying to stick with a federalist argument. Roe v. Wade was certainly a poorly reasoned decision, but it was not only bad because it usurped states rights. It had a far worse effect on the HUMAN rights of the unborn, Gods natural law. Fred does not support a constitutional amendment to overturn this abomination. Apparently he has reverence for our founding documents, or so it would seem. Yet, if you look at the above citations, it is obvious that he was more than willing to amend the constitution for things our Founding Fathers never envisioned: Term limits and a mandatory balanced budget. A man who is willing to change the constitution to tell states they must limit the terms of their representatives, yet who wont contemplate it for something that the founders clearly would have included had it been an issue at the time protection of the unborn is thoroughly confused. Or in Freds case, thoroughly phony.”
What other issues will ‘Federalist’ Fred decide are individual state’s issues? Illegal immigration? “Aspirations of citizenship” for illegals? Would that result in sanctuary states with the Federal government off the hook for enforcing our current immigration laws?
...........”I speculate that this is one of the reasons for his delayed entry into the race; to afford him the time necessary to conjure up a believable narrative. Though it is only speculation regarding the delay, it is not speculation that he will have to address his pro-choice history once he does enter.”
Or perhaps he figures the less time to be pressed into answering, the better?
I am so thankful to have the opportunity to support Duncan Hunter!!
>When Duncan can get over 5%, get back to me.<
In other words, let George do it.
>If Hunter is so confident in his ability to win he should resign his House seat and campaign full-time.<
I know it is difficult to understand this, but Rep. Hunter will serve the term he swore to complete, and carry on the best campaign he can at the same time. It takes quite a guy to do double duty, but Duncan Hunter is no stranger to sticking to his guns, and managing to hit his target at least 99% of the time. The more voters who recognize these truths, the better he will do.
To help him, please write your most generous check today to Hunter for President, and send it to:
Go Hunter 08
9340 Fuerte Dr., Suite 302
La Mesa, CA 91414-4164
Thank you. :)
Hell, when Duncan get get from sharing 2% to 5% get back to me.
Oh, btw, it's interesting Madison had to go back to 1993 for this, and nothing to support it.
Thompson said he supports the Supreme Courts Roe vs. Wade decision that established a constitutional right to abortion. Interview, Memphis Commercial Appeal, July 1993.
Google it. You won't find a thing and the archives go back to 93. Invented headlines, perhaps?
He'll resign as soon as his son wins his seat.
FAIR & EQUITABLE TRADE
ECONOMY & TAXES
SAFETY & SECURITY
FAITH & VALUES
ADDITIONAL AUDIO & VIDEOS
Gotta buy the article if you want the original. But some enterprising freeper did that a while ago.
Fred Thompson is pro-life, he opposes Roe v Wade as the law of the land and its provision for legalizing abortion on demand. Fred had a 100% pro-life voting record while in the Senate and was endorsed by the National Right to Life organization twice, in his election in 1994, and in his reelection in 1996.
>>>>>Thompsons other mistake is that he is still trying to stick with a federalist argument.
The federalist reasoning on the abortion issue is the most logical and rational at this point in time. Overturning Roe v Wade is what all pro-lifers want. Once Roe v Wade is finally struck down, the issue returns to the purview of the states by default. Exactly where it was for almost 200 years, prior to the 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade. A decision that all pro-life conservatives believe was done by judicial fiat. What J.White called, "an act of raw judicial power". Before Roe, abortion on demand didn't exist.
The chances of a Reagan style Human Rights amendment to the Constitution passing into law anytime soon, is about slim to none. Reducing abortions is the objective of every pro-lifer I know.
Fabricating falsehoods about Fred Thompson`s solid pro-life record is an outrage and a sign of desperation by YOU Duncanista's.
Gotta pay $2.95 to view the whole thing though.
And FYI, Duncan Hunter announced that he would resign from his seat long before his son even announced intentions to run.
Where is the falsehood?
Those attacking Fred over his not supporting an amendment banning abortion also tend to support candidates who have no chance of winning, and apparently for the same reason.
A Constitutional Amendment banning abortion sounds fine and dandy until you try to line up the 3/4s of the states to ratify it.
Meanwhile, overturning Roe would allow those states who ARE willing to ban abortion to do such. And if the number of states banning abortion approaches 3/4s, THEN you look at an amendment to force a ban on the other states.
Until then, such talk accomplishes little. Meanwhile, overturning Roe would re-establish basic tenets of federalism and judicial restraint. Those tenets mean that sometimes government doesn't do what you want it to do. But in the long run re-establishing federalism is just as vital as ending abortion. Legal abortion has killed tens of millions. So has too much government. You have to address both issues.
Unfortunately, a few folks would rather maintain a stance of moral superiority even if it accomplishes nothing.
Another non-starter story, but thanks for the link.
There is an interesting foible to this line of thinking though. Although a federalist approach to abortion is the way things went prior to Roe vs. Wade, the ideas on abortion on demand have changed immensely since then; I wouldn’t be surprised if many states would continue to allow abortion on demand, with the exception of a few like South Dakota, Alabama, South Carolina, Arizona, etc. Considering the whole “right to life” issue at hand here with regards to abortion, I don’t see it all going with just Roe vs. Wade being overturned (though that would be nice).
I agree with Fred’s and Ron Paul’s line of reasoning on the topic, in that Roe vs. Wade was an affront to federalism. But approaching this entire issue of ‘abortion on demand’ from a purely federalist point of view isn’t quite the same as approaching it from a pro-life point of view, which not only would call for Roe v. Wade to be overturned, but for the unborn to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as the humans they are.
So if that is the case, how can a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion be ratified?
but for the unborn to be LEGALLY RECOGNIZED as the humans they are.
By what means? The Supremes?
That means personhood is what SCOTUS deems it to mean. And that just perpetuates their power.
I'd rather see Roe overturned. I think a lot more states would ban abortion than you'd think. And that would slowly move the public opinion to a point strongly opposing abortion. This will be a gradual process.
..evolving maybe--solid, come on now...
If you read what I posted, I did say passage of a Reagan style Human Rights amendment is slim to none. That is very true. I’d love to see it happen, but I’m not gonna refuse any opportunity to cut overall abotions across America. That would be stupid.
The fact that some states would totally outlaw abortions, while some would limit abortions to the three exceptions and still others would limit abortions to the first first trimeister, is exactly the way federalism works.
After 34 years and almost 50 million abortions, doing something is better than doing nothing. Attacking a good conservative like Fred Thompson for his pro-life stance in calling for a federalist approach to overturning Roe v Wade and ending abortion on demand as a national policy of the federal government, is defeatism.
I’ve only heard one guy out there talking about federalism:
Fred. Which is why he is my FIRST choice.
Where in his voting record is his pro-life stance not solid?
When you choose to get serious about discussing issues and who is best to lead our country through what will be some very rough times, and forget about useless poll numbers, get back to me.
Read Hunter’s legislation. He has 74 cosponsors. The fight for life should be on all fronts. Getting the Supreme’s to overturn R.v W. cannot be the only strategy, becuase it cannot be certain it will ever be overturned. Hunter has been proposing the Right to Life bill since 1996, getting more and more cosponsors. He is the real deal. And speaking of the courts, who do you trust would unequivocally put pro-lifers on the bench?
There should be no argument--except for whether or not statements made X number of years ago are relevant--eye of the beholder...
Fred, IMO, held off until September for three reasons.
1) To try and restore some sanity to presidential campaigning, by entering at a much more traditional time period, after Labor Day,
2) Because no one pays much attention to news in July and August, and
3)It pushed Newt's possible entry into October when it would probably be too late for him - Newt had initially planned to enter in September if he ended up doing such.
Most sane people will accept Fred being anti-Roe and having a solid voting record as sufficient pro-life bona fides.
Until Roe is overturned, Hunter's bill would probably be a clay target in the courts.
Hunter has been proposing the Right to Life bill since 1996, getting more and more cosponsors. He is the real deal. And speaking of the courts, who do you trust would unequivocally put pro-lifers on the bench?
I want federalists on the bench. Such persons would overturn Roe. And help trim down the size of federal government by looking to the 10th.
I don't want activists of ANY stripe on SCOTUS. They will be tempted to uphold political agendas that come before them, instead of just upholding the law.
I’m probably more conservative than Fred Thompson, but like Duncan Hunter, I have absolutely 0% chance of being the next president of the United States (unless they scrap the primaries and install a lottery system).
..Federalism, does not empower the states to violate a fundamental right which permeates our foundational documents— taking of innocent life...
You can say that all you want. However, that does not revoke Roe. It does not recognize the personhood of a fetus. Like it or not, SCOTUS is the current arbiter. Any legislation would have to survive SCOTUS. Any amendment would require 3/4s of the states to ratify - can you find 38 states that would do such in this day and age?
I will push for what I think is possible now (getting Roe overturned), and hope that incremental steps will create momentum for larger steps later as public mood swings against abortion.
No, actually. Roe V. Wade left open the possibility that the legislature could define personhood, which was not explicit in the constitution. There is a very real chance, especially with a conservative leaning court, that any challenge to the Right to Life Act would fail. Like I said, it must be on all fronts. And one of those fronts MUST be a amendment to overturn R.v W. as well. Life is not a states right issue if you understand the unborn to be human beings.
So you define all those who see the unborn as human lives as activists? The only activists are those trying to obscure that FACT.
Nonsense. Hunter has a chance and that chance grows by the day.
I want federalists who will uphold the Constitution and determine if laws presented to them are consistent with such. I don't want an activist reading even if I agree with the end result. It just means activists of a different slant can tilt it back the other way next time.
On privacy grounds? Ain't gonna happen.
Roe's main premise is that the unborn are not persons vis a vis the Fourteenth Amendment. Even Blackmun admitted that if the unborn were persons, the Fourteenth applied.
"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment."
But, in response to the clear words of the Fourteenth Amendment...
["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."]
They found this:
"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
Privacy was simply the excuse.
The right to privacy is a very real one, and has been recognized as "the right to be left alone," all the way back to the Marshall court.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." - the Fourth Amendment
In its broader sense, though, it is unenumerated, as are many rights. That's why we have the Ninth Amendment - to preclude the violation of rights just because they're not listed. [For example: You have a right of privacy that assures that you can raise your children pretty much the way you see fit. That is not listed in the Constitution, but the right is an obvious natural right that few are dumb enough not to see as self-evident.]
But, they made this largely unenumerated right, privacy, trump a God-given right that IS enumerated repeatedly in our Constitution, in the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and in prior founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the God-given, unalienable right to live.
IOW, they misused the right to privacy. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
And, even if by sheer political force you did overturn Roe on the basis of privacy, we would be worse off than before in many ways. The personhood of the unborn would still be unprotected and unestablished, and the very real right to privacy would have been declared nonexistent.
No truly “federalist” position calls for the alienation of the God-given rights to life and liberty by any individual or state.
Hence my tagline...
Exactly. With Ronald Reagan's platform declaring the self-evident personhood of the unborn as the unshakable core of every argument.
I hate to tell you this, but the fedgov has taken many, many strides away from originalist federalism, and you ain't gonna get back to the future in one giant leap that I can see.
Overturn Roe, and states can start to overturn abortion. Demand a total federal ban on abortion, and I sincerely doubt we'll make any progress.
So in that regard, overturning Roe is a federalist position. It removes an activist clamp on action at the state level to ban abortion. I'd rather start with the possible, even if it isn't a full ban.
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.