Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fred's Federalism Clashes with Potential Allies
FoxNews ^ | 9/5/07 | papasmurf

Posted on 09/05/2007 3:43:28 PM PDT by papasmurf

The influential Arlington Group, a coalition of prominent leaders of the so-called "religious right, has decided to withhold their planned support for the fledgling campaign of former Senator Fred Thompson.

(Excerpt) Read more at update08.foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: carlcameron; foxnews; fredthompson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last
They just don't get it, do they?
1 posted on 09/05/2007 3:43:31 PM PDT by papasmurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

No, they don’t.


2 posted on 09/05/2007 3:45:37 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf; Politicalmom; SE Mom; Clara Lou; jellybean; 2ndDivisionVet; ejonesie22
Pinging FRedhead pingmasters!

Security. Unity. Prosperity.
The POWER of FRed!tm

3 posted on 09/05/2007 3:47:09 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

He’s pretty damn clear that he wants Roe v. Wade reversed.

It would be then up to each State. The overwhelming majority of States have laws on the books outlawing/limiting abortion.

Not sure what else one can do under the federal structure, except have a Constitutional Amendment, which will never happen.


4 posted on 09/05/2007 3:49:20 PM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Kol Hakavod Fred Thompson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
Here is the deal, there is no doubt that Fred is a federalist, but on issues like abortion, he doesn’t play games like say, Ron Paul. Fred still votes pro-life, even if there may be questions on if the bill is more appropriate to the State level. Fred has always voted pro-life, period.
5 posted on 09/05/2007 3:50:01 PM PDT by mnehring (Cox/Craig 2008! Don't stall!!! (At least it makes more sense than Ron Paul.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

Oh that will be like a fart in the wind...

After her thighness gets the Dem nod, they will be chomping at the bit to pull the lever for Fred...


6 posted on 09/05/2007 3:50:46 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (I don't use a sarcasm tag, it kills the effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

“Thompson adamantly opposes gay marriage but thinks that it should be left to the states to decide whether or not to amend their constitutions to ban the practice.”

I agree. Leave the Constitution alone!


7 posted on 09/05/2007 3:51:27 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

“The influential Arlington Group...”

It’s way too early to worry about the Arlington group’s support. I imagine the Cupcake Maker’s Association is also withholding support.

I’m also witholding my support for anyone, as if that means anything, although I would support a candidate who’s in favor of cigars, chocolate fudge (for the ladies) and bourbon.


8 posted on 09/05/2007 3:54:16 PM PDT by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
but thinks that it should be left to the states to decide whether or not to amend their constitutions to ban the practice.”

Isn't that the Constitutional way to change the Constitution anyway?

Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof...

9 posted on 09/05/2007 3:54:36 PM PDT by mnehring (Cox/Craig 2008! Don't stall!!! (At least it makes more sense than Ron Paul.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

10 posted on 09/05/2007 3:55:17 PM PDT by NapkinUser (Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
That ‘influential Arlington Group’ happened to be 9.11Truthers for Paul.. //sarc
11 posted on 09/05/2007 3:55:26 PM PDT by mnehring (Cox/Craig 2008! Don't stall!!! (At least it makes more sense than Ron Paul.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
Here we go "fledgling campaign"

Gee, doesn't it start tomorrow?

Give me a break, exactly who will they endorse? someone who has no chance?

Let's see, the front runners are Thunder thigh's, The Gun grabber, the Insane one and let's not forget Mr hair oh and Obama.

12 posted on 09/05/2007 3:55:45 PM PDT by #1CTYankee (That's right, I have no proof. So what of it??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

Did I miss it, or was this so called group not named in the story?


13 posted on 09/05/2007 3:57:30 PM PDT by mnehring (Cox/Craig 2008! Don't stall!!! (At least it makes more sense than Ron Paul.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

14 posted on 09/05/2007 4:00:02 PM PDT by GQuagmire (Giggety,Giggety,Giggety)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: #1CTYankee
Which one of those is the pathological liar? Hint: He always relate personally to a position by a "past experience".

Security. Unity. Prosperity.
The POWER of FRed!tm

15 posted on 09/05/2007 4:01:40 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

The Arlington Group.

Sorry I didn’t post it more clearly.


16 posted on 09/05/2007 4:03:14 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

I’ve never heard of the Arlington Group. What are they, and what do they do?


17 posted on 09/05/2007 4:03:22 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
No, you posted it verbatim, I think I read the article as if that was a description, not the title (ie, a group from Arlington.)

Sorry for my misunderstanding..

18 posted on 09/05/2007 4:04:27 PM PDT by mnehring (Cox/Craig 2008! Don't stall!!! (At least it makes more sense than Ron Paul.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
"Which one of those is the pathological liar? Hint: He always relate personally to a position by a "past experience".

You mean Willard?

He,he.

19 posted on 09/05/2007 4:06:34 PM PDT by #1CTYankee (That's right, I have no proof. So what of it??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

Well let them vote for the charlatan doormat, I bet that would be better.


20 posted on 09/05/2007 4:07:37 PM PDT by Tarpon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

No, they do in fact “get it.”

“Thompson adamantly opposes gay marriage but thinks that it should be left to the states to decide whether or not to amend their constitutions to ban the practice. This tracks with his generally Federalist positions on issues like tort reform.”

On a great many issues, I could be classed as a federalist, wanting states to decide. However, over the issue of homosexuality, the country needs to be all one way are all another. Otherwise we have caos. As a evangelical Christian conservative, I cannot endorse a postion that allows homosexuality to be “legitamized” by legal recognition of either “marriage” or “domestic partnership.” I like Senator Thompson. However, I believe his stand on this is so much because of his federalism, but because he doesn’t want to deal with it. He may have come from Tenn. but he has spent way too much time in Hollywood where common sense morality is thrown out the window. If he thought a little more like someone from Tenn. he might not try to dodge this....it is just too important and issue to evangelicals (the base of the party). Besides, there is NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to engage in homosexual practice. The recent decision throwing out Texas sodomy laws was again an example of a SCOTUS making law contrary to the people’s wishes.
I guarantee that the drafters and signers of the Constitution never intended homosexuals to be considered “married” or even acceptable. George Washington drummed any caught in the Continental Army out of service.


21 posted on 09/05/2007 4:14:59 PM PDT by Sola Veritas (Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sola Veritas

You said it. Some see this issue of a constitutional ban as “big government”. How is one extra amendment prohibiting an immoral practice “big government”? When values as sacred as marriage are under attack by the left, we have to stand up for them and put and end to leftist threats. Letting the states decide one by one would take way too long, and this is something that the country needs to be together on.

As Dennis Prager said, “As the Left breaks down the self-discipline of Judeo-Christian religions, more and more laws are needed simply to keep people from devouring each other.” We need a law to keep people from engaging in homosexualtiy, and the quickest and surest way is to add an amendment. The whole country would have to follow through on it, and there’d be none of this recognizing gay unions in some states and not others crap. JUST BAN IT NATIONWIDE!

Which is more of a threat—”big government” or an attack on marriage? The latter.


22 posted on 09/05/2007 4:21:52 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All

And another thing, the only reason there already isn’t an amendment about this is because the founding fathers would’ve assumed people to just not engage in that kind of behavior, because in those days everyone had a general sense of morality and good and evil. Now that people have lost that, we need an amendment standing up for marriage and barring the sickos from being recognized as “married.”


23 posted on 09/05/2007 4:24:07 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: G8 Diplomat

Sorry, one more thing: It’s not big government coming from the left, it’s “big government” used for the purpose of upholding basic morality that has held society together. If that’s necessary, so be it. Better to add another amendement than to let society slowly fall apart for the sake of the “it’s the states’ right” crowd.

ALso some states would not likely ban, Massachusetts for example. With an amendment they’d have to.


24 posted on 09/05/2007 4:27:52 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

I like the way you think! Fudge and bourbon; great combo!


25 posted on 09/05/2007 4:29:35 PM PDT by Vor Lady (Through the gates of Hell, as we make our way toward Heaven....Primo Victoria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

No, they don’t get it, not even close. Perhaps the candidates should include a ‘teaching moment’ in each debate. Too many voters don’t remember the details of their high school government classes.


26 posted on 09/05/2007 4:29:58 PM PDT by tennteacher (Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

No, they don’t get it, not even close. Perhaps the candidates should include a ‘teaching moment’ in each debate. Too many voters don’t remember the details of their high school government classes.

EVEN CATTLE KNOW NOT TO STRAY TOO FAR FROM THE WATERHOLE.


27 posted on 09/05/2007 4:33:14 PM PDT by tennteacher (Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G8 Diplomat
Well, then, I'm confused.

"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."
28 posted on 09/05/2007 4:34:02 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

The power to ban homosexuality was not delegated to ANYONE because it was assumed people knew not to do that back in the founders’ days.

So then who does that power belong to? Why not the United States? It’s more efficient and ensures that every state has to follow through on it.


29 posted on 09/05/2007 4:35:50 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: G8 Diplomat

I don’t how, in a secular society, you could regulate or legislate morality.


30 posted on 09/05/2007 4:37:24 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

The ban would only prohibit gay unions from being recognized, i.e. gays can’t get married. It would not prevent them from engaging in gay behavior. That we would have no way to enforce. That would be on the consciences of those who engage in it, and it’s their problem.


31 posted on 09/05/2007 4:39:36 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

If by “they just don’t get it,” you’re referring to the Thompson camp, no, they don’t.

I think that would be blindingly obvious after what just happened in Iowa where a judge legalized gay marriage there until an injunction was put in place to halt it. And given time, that ruling will take hold if action isn’t taken. Frankly, I don’t like to wait until my car is sailing over the cliff before I turn the steering wheel.

Fred Thompson accepts federalism as blind dogma when frankly, there is a role for the federal government.

He’s as wrong as it gets on tort reform on the same grounds. Either that, or he just sides with his trial lawyer buddies and supports their continued raids on corporate America through the loopholes of venue shopping. Right now America’s corporations are spending more defending themselves from lawsuits than they are on Research & Development. And we’re supposed to remain atop the global economy that way, eh? Masters of efficiency, no doubt.


32 posted on 09/05/2007 4:45:05 PM PDT by CheyennePress (Tennesseean for Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G8 Diplomat
Then why not let the States initiate the process... Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof...
33 posted on 09/05/2007 4:47:54 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: All

Another thing: There are two laws governing us here; the Constitution and the natural law, that is, morality and good and evil. The latter has precedence over the former. If, by the way it was written, the Constitution technically grants the US no power to stand up for morality (that is, ban gay unions), then we have to defy that when under desparate times, that is, when marriage is under attack. Our allegiance to morality should come before our allegiance to the Constitution.

HOWEVER, as I said, the Constitution never really did give the states or anyone the power to ban gay marriage because it was assumed that there would be no need to ban it because no one did it! Now it’s a different story, and someone needs that power. The US ought to get it, so EVERY state would have to repsect that ban.


34 posted on 09/05/2007 4:52:25 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Fred's Federalism in Action

DES MOINES, Iowa - A Polk County judge on Thursday struck down Iowa’s law banning gay marriage and ordered the county recorder to permit gay and lesbian couples to marry.

Less than two hours after word of the ruling was publicized, two Des Moines men applied at the Polk County recorder’s office for a marriage license, and for the first time the application was accepted. The process of granting a license to marry in Iowa takes three days.

Gary Allen Seronko, 51, was listed as the groom and David Curtis Rethmeier, 29, the bride on the application.

“I started to cry because we so badly want to be able to be protected if something happens to one of us,” Rethmeier said.

Deputy Recorder Trish Umthun said she took five telephone calls from gay couples after the judge filed his ruling Thursday afternoon.

“They say we heard about the judge’s ruling,” she said. “If we’re a same-sex couple can we apply for a marriage license?”

Umthun said she told them they must bring a witness to sign documents with the couple.

The office, which opens at 7:30 a.m. Friday, is expecting a rush of applications.

Gay couples from anywhere in Iowa could apply for a marriage license in Polk County, the state’s most populous county.

The ruling by Judge Robert Hanson concluded that the state’s prohibition on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional. He ordered the Polk County recorder to issue marriage licenses to six gay couples who filed a lawsuit.

“This is kind of the American Dream,” said plaintiff Jen BarbouRoske, of Iowa City. “I’m still feeling kind of shaky. It’s pure elation. I just cannot believe it.”

Ahhhh, yes. The American dream. Men kissing their man brides in the cornfields of Iowa. Brought to you courtesy of the failure of a state to amend its Constitution and a single activist judge.

Blind ideology is just that: Blind.

35 posted on 09/05/2007 4:52:50 PM PDT by CheyennePress (Tennesseean for Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress

So, why can’t Iowa solve this problem?


36 posted on 09/05/2007 4:55:21 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
Then why not let the States initiate the process

Fine by me, but two thirds of both houses aren't going to deem it necessary to add an amendment. Not with Democrats in control, that is.

Also, see post 34
37 posted on 09/05/2007 4:56:37 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

The same way Massachusetts can’t solve their problem—the liberals won’t let them.

A Constitutional amendment would ensure that the liberals in each state currently opposing bans and blocking conservatives from getting the bans back in action, would HAVE to submit to a ban on gay marriage.


38 posted on 09/05/2007 4:59:11 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Heard on Kudlow and Company today that FDT is going to announce his FLAT TAX PLAN for America on the Jay Leno Show....anyone else have any news on this???
39 posted on 09/05/2007 4:59:16 PM PDT by Fred (Democrat Party - "The Nadir of Nihilism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

Lots of negative Thompson stories out from Fox today, eh? They didn’t have a lot of credibility with me after the amnesty cheerleading, but they’re losing even that with their blatant pro-Giuliani, anti-everyone-else reporting. It’s a shame.


40 posted on 09/05/2007 5:00:59 PM PDT by ellery (I don't remember a constitutional amendment that gives you the right not to be identified-R.Giuliani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G8 Diplomat
Sorry, I don’t subscribe to the notion that the central government should be telling sovereign states how to conduct their business. If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that's their business (and as a resident of Indiana, I say more power to them).
41 posted on 09/05/2007 5:04:47 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf
Here is a list of orgs that make up this group

* American Association of Christian Counselors, Tim Clinton, President
* American Family Association, Don Wildmon, President
* American Family Association Michigan, Gary Glenn, President
* American Values, Gary Bauer, President
* Bott Radio Network, Richard Bott, Vice President
* CatholicVote.org, Raymond Flynn
* Citizens for Community Values, Phil Burress, President
* Coalition of African American Pastors, William Owens
* ConservativeHQ.com, Richard Viguerie
* Coral Ridge Ministries, Dr. D. James Kennedy, President
* Covenant Marriage Movement, Phil Waugh, Executive Director
* Faith 2 Action, Janet Folger, President
* Family Research Council, Tony Perkins, President
* Focus on the Family, Dr. James Dobson, Chairman
* Free Congress Foundation, Paul Weyrich, President
* Free Market Foundation, Kelly Shackelford, President
* Liberty Council, Matthew Staver
* Liberty University, Jerry Falwell
* National Association of Evangelicals, Ted Haggard, President
* National Coalition for the Protection of Children/Families, Jack Samad, President
* Salem Communications Corporation, Stuart Epperson
* Southern Baptist Convention, Dr. Richard Land, President
* Traditional Values Coalition, Rev. Lou Sheldon, President



So is Carl Cameron waiting for this org to endorse his guy, Rudy Giuliani???
42 posted on 09/05/2007 5:05:00 PM PDT by Fred (Democrat Party - "The Nadir of Nihilism")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

Of course they don’t. Social ‘conservatives’ believe morality should be legislated at the national level, contrary to the intent of the Framers


43 posted on 09/05/2007 5:06:24 PM PDT by billbears (Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. --Santayana)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

>>>So, why can’t Iowa solve this problem?<<<

An ounce of prevention might actually be worth a pound of cure, you know.

Or you like the idea of giving the US Senate one crack at passing a marriage amendment after a runaway activist judge has declared gay (or whatever type have you) marriage legal.

Because I’ll just tell you, that’s all we’ll get. Once it’s legal, there’s no going back. And the country will pay a heavy price for destroying what has been implied in traditional marriage in every society on earth for as long as man has kept history.

And you ask why Iowa can’t solve this problem. Well, all that takes is a brief look at the way government works. Because one ruling by the US Supreme Court that bans of non-traditional marriages are unconstitutional is all it will take to destroy Iowa’s marriage amendment. Further, marriage is something has is granted federal rights and benefits. It should be protected at the federal level.


44 posted on 09/05/2007 5:06:50 PM PDT by CheyennePress (Tennesseean for Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that's their business

When marriage is under attack I see no problem with an amendment interfering to put an end to that attack. Our primary allegiance should be to morality, not the Constitution.

Some of us aren't willing to let society fall apart more than it has already via gay marriage just for the sake of the "states rights" crowds. If you won't do something about it, we will.
45 posted on 09/05/2007 5:08:58 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CheyennePress

It is a huge travesty when we allow judges to make law and decide it.

This is a failure of the State of Iowa, not FRed Thompson.


46 posted on 09/05/2007 5:10:05 PM PDT by papasmurf (I'm for Free, Fair, and Open trade. America needs to stand by it's true FRiend. Israel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Morality reigns supreme to the Constitution, and if it’s under attack why should the national government not have every right to stand up for it if the states won’t?


47 posted on 09/05/2007 5:10:27 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

>>> If Massachusetts or Iowa want to become magnets for sodomites, that’s their business (and as a resident of Indiana, I say more power to them).<<<

Until a US federal court judge strikes down that pretty little DOMA act Indiana (and every other state) passed. Then it doesn’t really matter what the people of Indiana think, does it?


48 posted on 09/05/2007 5:12:00 PM PDT by CheyennePress (Tennesseean for Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: G8 Diplomat
And when the "morality" which trumps the Constitution is determined by leftists, we end up with Roe v. Wade. Sorry, I'll take freedom over the central government's concept of morality.
49 posted on 09/05/2007 5:13:38 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
I don’t subscribe to the notion that the central government should be telling sovereign states how to conduct their business

Generally it shouldn't. But if that business the states are meddling in is immoral, the central government ought to have the right to tell them to knock it off via an amendment. Morality first, Constitution second.
50 posted on 09/05/2007 5:14:50 PM PDT by G8 Diplomat (It's campaign season. Let's rumble!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-161 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson