Replies

Sorry, we’re not Europe who has a telephone book for a proposed constitution. This does not rise to the level of constitutional necessity. And who knows how a liberal judge would twist even the simplistic wording, if they think that the 2nd applies only to state militias.

“Sorry, we’re not Europe who has a telephone book for a proposed constitution.”

Thank you. I am in no way in favor of using our Constitution to define words that people have known the definition of since the dawn of civilization because it is politically expedient.

This does not rise to the level of constitutional necessity.

BINGO!

100% legally WRONG.

I have been to the bar conferences where the lawyers and judges have calculated they can essentially eradicate the common law definition of marriage via rulings.

You don’t know what you are talking about because an amendment is codifying the common law definition of marriage as One man and One woman. This, under statutory interpritation principles gives it the broadest protection.

It is not a narrow construction issue.

Marriage is ALREADY a federal issue via taxation, inheritance and immigration.

The fact Fred Thompson is getting firmer about dissing the marriage issue only speaks to his other stances.

this is a dealbreaker litmus test.

Fred Thompson better speak for himself instead of these surrogages. Either he is for a marriage amendment or he should just stop wasting our time and go home.

Sorry, we’re not Europe who has a telephone book for a proposed constitution. This does not rise to the level of constitutional necessity. And who knows how a liberal judge would twist even the simplistic wording, if they think that the 2nd applies only to state militias.

Interesting...so, are you a Republican? Because, if you're not a Republican then maybe you should butt out of the REPUBLICAN Primary. And if you ARE a Republican, maybe you should stick to candidates who support the Party Platform. Did you know that support for the Federal Marriage Amendment is in the Republican Party Platform? Thompson's view is in opposition to the platform. Maybe you should consider that. Or not, if you're not a Republican. And if you're not, then I don't know what you're getting all worked up over. You shouldn't be voting in our primary anyway. If you are, then maybe you should stick to the platform.

Speaking of Republican Party Platform planks, I find it interesting that Fred Thompson is reported to have fought to REMOVE the Ronald Reagan Pro-Life plank from the GOP Platform. No wonder evangelicals and others who are pro-life aren't exactly thrilled with Thompson.

No such amendment would ever pass...why would FDT back it?

Why is it the business of the Federal Government? The Feds don't even have a nationwide law against murder...the federal law on murder only applies to federal lands.

Such an amendment is clearly contrary to the intent of the constitution...as surely as the Roe v Wade interpretation of "privacy" is.

“Sorry, we’re not Europe who has a telephone book for a proposed constitution. This does not rise to the level of constitutional necessity. “

Indeed.

Dear Mr. Thompson,
As a man of law you certainly know that our Bill of Rights, and our Constitution is not to be used to restrict the people. But only to restrict and define the government period.