Posted on 10/29/2007 7:04:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I’ll send you Kleenex.
Doesn’t seem like two thirds of both houses deem it necessary, now does it?
And it’s not hard to tell when a “Huck” is really just a “Nit”.
Please take your brand of crap somewhere else.
Yeah, I see what you mean. And listen, I totally understand the problem with runaway judiciary power, but...
what does he suggest? On the one hand, he says leave it up to the states. On the other hand, he's basically discounting what a state gubmint decided. if he's a federalist, what business is it of his how a state arrives at their policy? It's their policy. Does he not believe state courts should interpret their own constitutions?
And he says he wouldn't support civil unions in NH? What's he talking about? Shouldn't his answer be that if NH wants gay marriage, it's up to the people of NH to decide? Seems all over the map on it.
Nor does 3/4 of the states - YET...
Ah yes, more reasoned arguments. lol.
Save the kleenex. You’ll need em.
Ah, a member of the “Hunt Club”. I should have known.
A certifiable delusional engaging in psychlogical “projection”.
I wasn't making an argument. I was stating facts.
You're overreacting. Ridicule is the easiest form of criticism. Sometimes it works great. You Duncanista`s have worn it out!
>>>>>As for the rest of your post, look in the mirror. Name calling. Typical.
In serious political debate, its downright juvenile to use terms like "develop a crush on one and reach for the pom poms", "Grab the pom poms" and "make the kool aid".
Doesn't sound like you're "interested in substance", or that you're mature either. Sounds kinda silly.
Can you even read?
What Thompson was asked, and what he said he could not support, is a FEDERAL civil union law.
Either grow a pair of eyes, a brain, an affinity for the truth, or take your soap box to some other crossroad.
He believes legislation (to make law) should be left up the the legislative bodies, not the court system.
The MA legislature refused to pass this law...the courts were usurping the legislature’s powers granted to them.
He doesn’t like judicial activism.
Frankly, I thought the court was very arrogant in ordering the MA legislature to create law.
BTW, gay marriage and civil unions are two different things.
“Seems all over the map on it.”
So do you...with your agenda.
He’s a Duncanista?
Now I understand. ;o)
BTW, Huck, I really like Duncan.
Well, it’s pretty sad. But you’ll see. That’s the one convenient thing about being right and outnumbered. Truth will out. I don’t have to argue about it. I just have to be patient. But you’ll tell yourself a new lie when that day comes I’m sure.
The Massachussetts state goverment didn't decide it, their Supreme Court has usurped legislative powers to force it's views on that state. They've also prevented the state's voters from overriding their decision by preventing constitutional amendments doing so from appearing on state ballots.
Thats all you sour grapes, sourpusses from the “piss ant” contingent have to offer.
Worn out rhetorical BS!
In the context of this thread, I'm being branded a Duncanista as a way to shut me up. You can see how certain posters, comfortable since they outnumber me, take potshots, attempt to shut me up or bully me out of the discussion. And why? Because I don't buy the hype on Thompson.
The one thing they seem unable to consider is this: What if Fred's not the guy? What does THAT do to conservatism, to the country, to the war on terror, etc. What if he's a lousy campaigner? What if he's an ineffective executive? What if he isn't even as appealing as people think he will be?
Nope. They've annointed him, without a single vote being cast. I guess that's how this game works. As Rush says, follow the money. That's what these people seem to be doing.
As for me, I haven't made up my mind yet. I am STILL willing to be convinced by Fred, but after 6 months of observing him in action, I have started to harden against him. I don't think he's what people think he is. I don't think he will win. I am not convinced he's really a leader or an executive.
Anyway, time will tell. I can see that knocking Fred is a sure way to get the hens pecking at you, so I'll learn my lesson. Doesn't change what I think. And I wish when Fred fails that I could remember their screen names and come calling. But life's short and I won't bother on it.
As for Hunter, I just think it's pretty obvious he's the most conservative guy out there, and he's not a kook like Alan Keyes, or a dweeb like Steve Forbes (going back a few elections.) He seems like a viable candidate to me. I don't get why he's been rejected. They don't send money because no one else sends money. Isn't that what being a sheep is all about?
Thank you for the link to Reagan’s executive order on federalism. Here is some additional detail that brings us ‘round full-circle: in 1998, the ‘toon signed an executive order that overturned the Reagan federalism order that you cited. In response, Fred Thompson introduced the Federalism Enforcement Act of 1998, which was designed to counteract the ‘toon and restore Reagan’s original executive order. Below is an excerpt of his remarks introducing his bill:
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federalism Enforcement Act, a bill to promote the principles of federalism and to restore the proper respect for State and local governments and the communities they serve. I am pleased that Senators Nickles, Craig, Thurmond, and Hutchinson have joined me as cosponsors of this legislation.
-snip-
Our Founding Fathers had grave concerns about the tendency of a central government to aggrandize itself and thus encroach on State sovereignty, and ultimately, individual liberty. Federalism is our chief bulwark against Federal encroachment and individual liberty. Our Founders also knew that keeping decision making powers closer to home led to more accountable and effective government. Their federalist vision is clearly reflected in the 10th amendment, which states:
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.
The legislation I am introducing today requires agencies to respect this vision of federalism when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It will preserve the division of responsibilities between the States and the Federal Government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution and established in Executive order by President Ronald Reagan.
The Reagan order on federalism had it right. It directed Federal departments and agencies to refrain from imposing one-size-fits-all regulation on the States. It held that the laws passed by Congress were not presumed to preempt State law unless done so explicitly. It required agencies to assess the impact of agency action on federalism. But the people running the executive branch today, from the top on down, do not seem to feel the Reagan order applies to them. They made this abundantly clear when they tried to revoke it with Clinton Executive Order 13083.
In May, President Clinton quietly signed Executive Order 13083, which by its terms claims to promote federalism. Ironically, this order that is supposed to promote better communication between Federal and local government was issued in secret—without even talking to State and local officials at all. Worse still, the order would seriously undermine federalism and effectively turn the 10th amendment on its head. The Reagan Executive Order 12612 promoted the 10th amendment and set a clear presumption against Federal meddling in local affairs. The new Clinton order would create, but not be limited to, nine new policy justifications for Federal meddling. The list is so ambiguous that it would give Federal bureaucrats free rein to trample on local matters. The new Clinton order also would revoke President Clinton’s own 1993 Executive Order 12875 that directed Federal agencies not to impose unfunded mandates on the States.
Understandably, State and local officials were deeply offended by the Clinton order and the White House snub in drafting it. On July 17, the major groups representing State and local officials sent a remarkable letter to the President, urging him to withdraw the order and to restore the Reagan federalism order and the 1993 unfunded mandates order. On July 22, several of my colleagues and I supported State and local officials by sponsoring a resolution calling on President Clinton to repeal his new order. That resolution passed the Senate unanimously. The House also has voiced opposition to the Clinton order. Congressman McIntosh held a hearing, and joined with six of his colleagues to introduce a bill nullifying Executive Order 13083.
The White House had a chance to extinguish the firestorm of protest from Governors, State legislators, mayors, county executives, and other local officials around the country by permanently revoking Executive Order 13083. Instead, the White House chose to preserve some wiggle room by `suspending’ the order on August 5, leading some to ask if that action is permanent or just an effort to delay the order until the opposition dies down. If the President can admit that he made a mistake in signing his federalism order, he should permanently revoke it, plain and simple.
Unfortunately, the White House has yet to correct its insult to State and local officials and the communities they serve. Instead of revoking the Clinton order, the administration is preparing for belated consultations with State and local government representatives. This effort at damage control does not hide the fact that the Clinton order is an open invitation for Federal interference in local affairs, and in the administration’s eyes, it is still on the table.
In light of this threat to the tenth amendment principle of a limited Federal Government, Congress must stand ready to act. The Federalism Enforcement Act is necessary to ensure that the current administration exercises some restraint when regulating in areas that affect our States and communities, and respects the principles of State sovereignty and limited Federal Government on which our Nation was founded.
-snip-
Last I checked, the Mass. Supreme Court is part of the Mass. gubmint. As for what does or doesn’t appear on their ballots, that’s their business. Federalism. Try it sometime.
Incorrect. But I am amazed at the hostility towards Duncan Hunter. What is the reason for it?
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.