So does Denny's wife.
Posted on 09/13/2007 7:22:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
If the St Petersburg Times writes an article not snarkily nasty to conservatives it must be that the editor was out sick that day.
The SPT os a master of the hate republican spew. Even my young boys noticed during the election that the Democrat was always taller and better looking in a picture next to a short, weird looking Bush.
Fred is going to be in Port Richey tomorrow. And at the Lakeland gun show Saturday. I missed the tickets for the Port Richey dinner, but my son might try to get to the gun show.
Isn’t the TVA a depression era FDR rural electrification project? Contrast the expense of reservoir projects to the Lake of the Ozarks which became a major rec area and vitalized a depressed area in addition to generating power.. When government won’t allow building vacation homes on the pristine shorline that does not happen, and you get a white elephant
help me understand one basic tenent of this discussion. a federalist is someone who wants to LIMIT federal gov’t and put more power into the hands of the states?
By the way I saw Cheney is going to be here tomorrow also.
So does Denny's wife.
Well, a few days ago someone posted a scorecard and Thompson was one of the lowest spenders of the GOP field, if not the lowest.
I thought I kept the chart, but I didn’t. Maybe someone around here has it.
I don't think the "Interstate Commerce" clause would justify the ban on people transporting themselves for an abortion. But even without such a ban, the shifts in local attitudes would have a pretty significant effect.
On a related note, while there would be a massive uproar if the government were to try to make non-marital sex illegal, there's little complaint about most governments' prohibition against taking money for it. I wonder if such a principle could be applied to abortion. If an doctor really believes that an abortion is necessary to save a woman's life, the Hippocratic Oath would compel that his willingness to perform it not depend upon getting paid. On the other hand, few abortionists would be willing to hawk their services for free.
Ketchup on shrimp? What are you, a grade schooler or something? Slap some hot sauce on them babies!
Too, it allows states to try out different ideas of governance - like having 50 laboratories in better governance before trying to impose a 1 size fits all solution at the federal level.
The kicker is that it has to be a tough love kind of thing. As soon as the federal government starts bailing out failing states, problems only perpetuate (like Louisiana/New Orleans). Better to let them fail and suffer the consequences until they get their acts together. ... at least to some extent.
A third aspect is to keep the States and Federal governments somewhat at odds with each other - as with the 3 federal branches - fighting amongst themselves for power versus fighting against the people for power.
Not exactly. A federalist wants to restore the balance between federal and state government that is described in the Constitution and further explained by our Founders. So, a federalist might well call for strong federal immigration authority or a strong national defense, because these are issues our Constitution enumerates as federal powers.
However, the feds have usurped so much state power that in practice, that yes, a modern day federalist spends most of his/her time talking about returning rightful Constitutional power to the states.
Further confusing the issue is the fact that in our Founders' time, the federalists were the ones calling for a strong central government -- which was eventually enshrined in our Constitution (they were fighting the anti-federalists, who wanted all meaningful power to reside with the states). However, the Federalists of that time made it perfectly clear that even the strong central government was to have only limited, enumerated powers. They did not expect that the states would permit the federal government to infringe upon their powers in the way that it has.
the feds have gotten out of control, imo, and fred seems to have the right thinking about this issue. the laws that new yorkers need are not necessarily the laws people in nebraska need. abortion, gun-rights, education, should all be left to the states, imho. thanks again.
So in comparison to todays 'nanny socialist over-reaching' central government, Federalism favors a weaker central government .
It's all relative to the alternative. Perhaps "Constitutionalist" would be closer to the real meaning, but that word has been perverted by too many generations of lawyers trying to convince us we are too stupid to understand what it really means.
I wouldn’t put gun rights in that category, as they are enumerated in the Bill of Rights and as such, are protections that apply to all US citizens. Some people believe that the BoR was only applied to the states with the fourteenth amendment (I tend to disagree, but I am not enough of a Constitutional scholar to take a dogmatic stand on that). All of that aside, if states are not permitted to enact their own laws abridging fundamental freedoms of speech and religion, they likewise cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
Thanks for your post — I’ve read the federalist papers and some of the anti-federalist papers, but I need to read an in-depth bio about Hamilton. I’m reading a bio of John Adams right now, and it’s fantastic. I’ve historically sympathized more with the anti-federalist point of view, but realistically I’m starting to believe that we would have returned to foreign tyranny by now if we hadn’t established a United States. Now we just have to figure out how to get rid of tyranny imposed from within. :) <- rueful smile
Bwahahaha -- isn't that the truth!
I agree with your assessment of Fred Thompson.
The only hard question this conservative will be asking Fred Thompson, should we chance to meet, is “what can I do to help you win the Presidency?”
true, but i was talking mainly about penalties imposed for crimes with guns and the like. should have clarified. of course i am a strong proponent of the 2nd amendment. just read an interesting paper on NYS enacting the tough gun control measure in the late 70’s. so i had state-invoked punishment on my mind.
Well, supporting a law that unconstitutionally infringes on free speech is perfectly consistent with federalism. Isn't it?
(P.S. Despite this rather egregious black mark against him, I still like Thompson better than I like the other top-tier candidates)
What would you have? The TVA, while not as efficient as it could be, does provide power almost everywhere throughout the Southeast where similar areas in China and the former Soviet Union has yet to accomplish providing that to their lowest tier of peasants. The TVA helped lift the South to its feet after the oppression of the Reconstruction era and gave it the means to compete in the areas of technology and mechanization that the Northeast took for granted.
History aside, some attempts have been made to decentralize the TVA but unreliable local governments/business interests and the capricious events of nature and economics have kept its mission viable and necessary. Geographically, no other agent actually understands and is able to keep the normally unstable Mississippi River under control to ensure safe, consistent shipping while protecting all the communities along its length. While Roosevelt’s Works Project was a hodgepodge of hits or misses the TVA has truly shown its worth over time.
Sounds like Thompson’s got a little ‘Paul’ in him. Good thing.
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.