I disagree somewhat on the flag burning, in that the flag is a federal responsibility, and if there ARE going to be rules about it, they should apply equally, not be decided by states.
But since I also think abortion is a violation of a basic inalienable right of all people to life, I think that a federal prohibition would not violate what the founding fathers considered state’s perogatives.
bump
The framers clearly intended that bitterly controversial social issues should be worked out in the ordinary processes of state and local politics. The HLA would plainly flout that aspect of the constitutional plan. Neither a balanced budget amendment nor a flag-burning amendment is remotely analogous.
As originally written the Constitution even left the states free to infringe basic human rights by providing for one human being to own another. It took a war which left hundreds of thousands dead to resolve that matter on a national basis. The framers had it in mind that most issues would be defused with less fuss through a decentralized process of discussion and compromise.
Abortion is certainly a violation of a basic inalienable right. It doesn’t follow, however, that a federal prohibition mandating that abortion be criminal in all fifty states would be consistent with the Constitution’s federal plan nor that it would be a good idea.
Fred is absolutely correct to turn away from the HLA. It can’t pass, and even if it could it shouldn’t. The HLA would only reinforce the great cultural divide that Roe v. Wade opened up.
Roe short-circuited a serious debate we need to have about abortion. If we focus that debate on the HLA and whether abortion should be criminal nationwide the forces of life will lose it. Even if they won they would only empower a pro-choice resistance movement that would mirror the pro-life movement Roe inspired.
The debate we need has to be focused on enacting reasonable, life-saving regulation, state by state. That process can persuade people and help move the culture closer to full appreciation of life’s incalculable value.
Fred is pointing the way here and NRTL plainly understands that. Nobody else in the field of candidates has been able clearly to say that Roe was wrongly decided and must be overturned. Nobody else has record that proves he understands this. That’s where the rubber hits the road in the fight for life.
The HLA is an artifact of a time when the pro-life movement hadn’t yet figured out either the magnitude of the task it faced or the right tools for attacking it. It’s long past time to let it go. Certainly the pro-life movement can’t afford to fall into an idiotic internecine spat over a silly relic like the HLA.
For starters, a fetus is not a person under current US law. You clearly don't understand the 10th Amendment or Article 5. For your edification. (Btw, isn't this a new position for you? LOL)
Amendment 10
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.
That means abortion is a states rights issue. This idea goes back to the beginning of the nation. The Framers/Founders called it Federalism. Something most conservatives and candidate Fred Thompson support. Now, if you want a Reagan style Human Rights amendment added to the Constitution --- which I would support --- you'll have to go through a process that is outlined in the Constitution itself. A process that has been successful only 17 times in our history.
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; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
“I disagree somewhat on the flag burning, in that the flag is a federal responsibility, and if there ARE going to be rules about it, they should apply equally, not be decided by states.
But since I also think abortion is a violation of a basic inalienable right of all people to life, I think that a federal prohibition would not violate what the founding fathers considered state’s perogatives.”
No, Murder is part of the State’s porfolio of powers, there is no federal law against murder. When the Supreme court ruled in the Roe vs. Wade case, it snatched what is clearly a State perogative and made it Federal, they violated their constitutional power.