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.
ping
It is the national flag.
If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.
The states could not do that without a reversal of the court decision; that was the purpose of the constitutional amendment. But why would a ban on burning the national flag be a question of state law anyway?
Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments...
I don't believe he said that was his concern.
...he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
Again, it is the national budget. How do states rights fit into balancing the federal budget? What state remedy is there?
This is a pretty sophomoric line of arguments from the Washington Times.
...voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate...
Oh really? Which ones are those?
It's hard to believe they published this trash.
LLS
It is a key endorsement by one of, if not the biggest, Right to Life Group.
Congratulations to Fred Thompson.
Is he a Federalist or NOT
“You would have to change 20 to 25 votes in the Senate,” says Dr. O'Steen [of NRLC]. “You’d have to replace 20 to 25 senators to pass an amendment even there. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress [and] three-fourths of the states to ratify [an amendment to the Constitution], so it’s not practical to think that there would be a human life amendment passing Congress during the next presidential term — and of course, the president doesn’t have a vote.”
I support the flag-burning amendment. It’s our national symbol, which stands for the principles embodied by the United States of America.
However, one of those principles, in fact the foremost principle, is that our rights to life and liberty are God-given, and therefore unalienable.
All persons are made in God’s image. That’s why each and every one has infinite value.
It’s nonsensical to think that a piece of cloth that represents these priceless principles is more valuable, more worthy of protection, than the principles themselves.
A living human being deserves more protection than a symbol. You can make a new flag, but you can never replace a single unique individual person.
The concerns regarding Fred are minutia. He is facing a devout liberal, a liberal in denial (who may or may not be an android), and a pro-life liberal. Fred is the ONLY candidate in the race with a conservative RECORD. Regardless of any perceived deviations at times, he is the only candidate who has been at all consistent.
I wonder who, among the front runners, the editorial board at the Washington Times thinks should have been given the nod? Maybe the editors should add up the dents and dings for all the front runners on the issue of abortion as well as other issues of importance to the majority of conservatives and see who looks least like an acne scarred teenager. I have, and I think Fred looks really good in comparison.
Trying to pull down a conservative candidate to prop up your one percenter does neither him nor Senator Thompson any favors, and makes it that much more likely that Rudy “Sanctuary City” Giuliani, Mitt “Gay Marriage” Romney or Mike “Open Borders for Jesus” Huckabee is the nominee. Is that what you want?! BTW, I understand that Fred and Duncan are friends. Did you know that?
Ridiculous. The Times may be building the ramp for a shark jump to join with the rest of the media.
And again, who really cares about endorsements? None of us should. We should, rather, think and study and think some more - for ourselves - not follow what Group A or Council B has told us to think.
It is interesting that the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) has chosen to endorse Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson, a man who once offered legal advice to a pro-choice group,
Nope. There's a difference between "offering legal advice" and being assigned a case by the firm.
voted against key pro-life issues in the Senate
Do what? Exactly what "key pro-life issues" did FDT vote against? The answer: none.
and now espouses convoluted reasons for rejecting constitutional protection of the unborn.
Convoluted only to those who don't understand the original purpose and intent of the Constitution.
Recently, Mr. Thompson refused to support a constitutional amendment that would protect innocent life by restricting the availability of abortions. The sanctity-of-life amendment was a core plank in the Republican Party's 2004 election platform, and yet Mr. Thompson said he could not support it, saying his objection stems from his federalist views.
What nonsense. If you can't come anywhere near actually passing the amendment, then you aren't protecting anything except your props with the pro-life wing of the party. FDT's way is THE way that little babies' lives will be saved. If you, dschapin, were REALLY pro-life, you'd support Fred's federalism way - because THAT is what is already producing results.
However, in 1995 he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. If he were concerned about states rights he would have let them issue their own laws on the matter.
Um, the FEDERAL flag is a FEDERAL issue - if you don't believe me, look up the parts of the US Code already on the books concerning such things as the proper display and treatment of the flag.
Also, if Mr. Thompson were concerned about cluttering the constitution with superfluous amendments, he would not have supported a 1997 constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.
Actually, since Congress is specifically delegated spending powers at the federal level, the BB amendment would most definitely NOT be superfluous. Instead, it would be correctly fixing a deficiency at the federal level in the federal Constitution.
You DH people are getting both more desperate and more craven.
Who do I listen to on this...
Where do I turn for guidance...
Washington Times or National Right to Life...
Do I listen to a newspaper editor or a group of folks who have dedicated their lives and careers to saving the unborn...
Man it is indeed a tough call... (Yes , I am rolling my eyes and whistling)
..we think it is interesting
The hyper-hypocrisy on this issue of the Romney campaign aside, here’s why “I’ve always been for life” Mitt didn’t get the National Right to Life Committee endorsement...
They remember what he did to the last pro-life group that tried to endorse him, the last time he ran for public office.
Massachusetts Gubernatorial Debate
November 2, 2002
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4
Watch the whole amazing thing, or to see how Mitt feels about being endorsed by a pro-life group in particular, fast forward to 3:45 of the video.
It makes me happy that Thompson worries the NYT.