Posted on 10/29/2007 7:04:22 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
It's ok, though. Time will tell and truth will out. And won't you be shocked when it happens. Like I say, it's a shame Fred's not the guy. If conservative issues are the key, I don't get why you and others don't support Hunter. He's the best guy out there on the issues, isn't he? And yet socalled conservsatives by into the socalled first tier/second tier dichotomy when not a single vote has been cast. Sad.
Yes, states vote to ratify Constitutional Amendments, presidents do not...
“I think Fred uses federalism as the lazy man’s out. No sense being up to speed on anything. It’s all up to the states!”
It used to be that people had read the Constitution with enough comprehension to understand that it isn’t the President’s role to be micromanaging the country like a petty dictator. The president’s role SHOULD be simple, command the armies and veto all the crackpot legislation. You are looking for a Clintonian hyper-presidency, an absolute disaster to liberty.
“I am getting a little tired of his Federalism excuse, I really don’t find it inspiring, “
You probably won’t find the Constitution very inspiring then either. Maybe a BigGovernment RINO like Mitt is more to your liking?
Instead of behaving like an informed conservative, you sound like a perpetually pi$$ed off 10 year old Duncanista. A juvenile! News flash -— Hunter`s candidacy never even got off the ground. He’s out of cash and just about out of time.
If enough conservatives ignore the most viable and reliable conservative running — Fred Thompson -— we’re gonna wind up getting Giuliani. Not what I want.
Put it this way: If you were hiring a manager for the Yankees, would you require that he have a very deep grasp of the game of baseball? Sure you would. Ideally a former player. Doesn't mean you want him to grab a bat and write himself in the lineup. But it doesn't mean the Wendy's night manager can do the job, either.
The result of the Civil War was the abolition of slavery not abolition of the states. The states are supposed to be able to set their policies so long as they don't violate the US Constitution. Federal and some state judges routinely ignore the tenth amementment and other parts of the constitution and impose their personal policy preferences on the states with absolutely no constitutional justification.
I favor giving issues back to the state legislatures. There is no reason why all issues should be decided at the national level. That's one of the reasons why politics is so polarized these days.
It’s so funny how someone can completely misrepresent another person’s views. That wasn’t very bright to tell me how I think and state it as if was a fact. If that’s the case, I can’t believe anything you have to say about either Fred or Mitt. It’s never a good idea to tell a person what you think that he or she thinks.
States vote to ratify Constitutional Amendments, presidents do not...
LOL. It's a circular argument. You're basically saying I'm not going to send Hunter money because he doesn't have any money. So you send money to the guy who DOES have money? I don't get it. I honestly don't get how a TV actor with nothing to show for himself is thrust into the lead among conservatives, when there's a real conservative in the race. It's just strange to me.
As for the rest of your post, look in the mirror. Name calling. Typical. I just don't get what makes people think Thompson is "viable." No votes have been cast. What are you basing the viability on? Fundraising? And yet, that's all speculative. He built up some hype over the summer, grabbed some dollars, and voila, he's a frontrunner?
I'm interested in substance. I realize that's immature. I will take your mature advice and accept that really it's just about finding a bandwagon with a lot of cash, and papering over anything unpleasant. Grab the pom poms, make the kool aid. It's how come nothing improves. You'll see.
We're not delusional.
It's not just judges. Presidents do it. Congress does it. Hell, they all do it. The so-called hero of the SCOTUS, Scalia, is absolutely off his rocker when it comes to the Commerce Clause. I think Clarence Thomas, nominated by the one term tax raiser, is the closest thing in all of DC to an actual Constitutionalist. But I'm probably mistaken there. He's probably soiled as well. They all are.
That will be tough to do in a state like mine (Oregon, believe it or not!) that defines marriage in the state constitution as between one man and one woman.
IIRC, every state where this has been on the ballot has passed a constitutional amendment such is this.
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, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress...
Baloney. Politics were just as polarized during George Washington's administration. By the time Jefferson and Adams squared off, it was as ugly as ever. Jefferson had his own bought and paid for agenda driven newspaper. Nothing changes.
Yeah: )
Well said, Paleo Conservative.
Federalism is beyond the grasp of some folks.
Reread what Fred said.
He wasn't wrong.
The courts have gone crazy, NOT the legislatures...yet.
More ad hominem. How surprising. I'll have a good laugh at your expense when Fred falls flat. Sadly, though, that may not happen til the general election. Oh well, I'll drown my own sorrows in your dejection when the time comes.
Presidents do not vote on Constitutional Amendments, state legislatures vote to ratify them...
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.