Fred Thompson On Federalism
By haystack Posted in 2008 — Comments (82) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
[Promoted to the front page because I think federalism is one of the most important aspects of America's continuing struggle for the best government we can have. - John Steele]`
Fred Thompson, as you know, has not declared yet whether he is "officially" in the running for President of the United States. His detractors have been quite busy, furthering unsubstantiated claims of one non-scandal after another. Some have even accused him of not being the real deal. My personal favorite among the many hollow criticisms of this man is that he is not conservative enough for we Conservatives. This is especially entertaining when it comes from less-conservative types on the right...and, dare I say, from ANY of the Dems.
So, while Fred continues gaming the FEC-imposed rules and regulations for exploratory committees and testing the waters teams, he took a little time out to provide some commentary on his ideas of Federalism.
For those who are already dead-set against this man, continue on about your business. For those undecideds, a review of Fred's thoughts are in order. For the "already-on-boards," enjoy a look at WHY you chose wisely.
In the opening paragraphs, Fred quickly points out the Founders' original context and perspective when they laid down the design of our nation.
The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of human beings entrusted with power.
The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law, and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.
He rightly points out the idea that the framers understood the inherent risk of assigning power, and that our rights DO in fact come from our Creator and NOT from our Government. Especially given our current Government, comprised of these power hungry narcissists focused far too much on their personal achievements and the retention of their positions "on high" in Washington, MANY of the less admirable qualities of human beings are evident everywhere we look.
In suggesting that ours is "a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first the people, then the states, and finally the national government", Fred gets right to the base of what has gone so wrong with our modern corps of political heroes. They have, as Stephen King's Roland Deschain of Gilead suggested in King's Dark Tower series, "forgotten the face of their Fathers."
A government strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of 1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.
The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and what does not.
This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency.
Sigh...you just don't hear the political scum of modern times talk this way...
Consider these thoughts on the now-abandoned "Contract with America" and this most recent debacle with Immigration "reform:"
When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining responsibilities – above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic responsibilities.
We saw some improvement in the post-1994, "Contract with America" takeover of Congress – strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But in recent years we’ve seen backsliding.
The recent immigration bill was a case in point. That bill failed, and it failed for good reason. The federal government simply had no credibility on the issue.
The promises of the 1986 immigration bill have not been fulfilled. Current laws have not been enforced. The federal government has been failing in its fundamental responsibility to control the borders. Worse, when state officials have tried to act with reforms of their own, federal authorities have gotten in the way. In the end, many in both parties in Congress have learned a lesson: promises about immigration reform aren’t worth much unless you have credibility. And in this case there’s only one way that credibility can be regained. Federal leaders must do their job and secure the borders of the United States.
Exactly. I ask, again, what value does reform hold when the new bill is as bad as the old bill, and a new one is justified by saying the old bill was so bad it didn't DESERVE to be enforced? That is just absurd.
One of my greatest divergences from this President is this No Child Left Behind nonsense. As a Texas resident having suffered through the education system here before AND after the "impositions" of the NCLB legislation, let me tell you-it sucks. Fred has a Federalist approach to Education worth a glimpse:
Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal government buys authority over state and local matters with tax-payer money and ends up squandering both the authority and the money while imposing additional burdens on states.
Between 1970 and 2005, federal spending on education increased nearly 150 percent without results to match. The No Child Left Behind law itself increased federal funding by some 26 percent, while creating 50 new educational programs nationally, imposing almost 7 million hours and more than 140 million dollars in compliance time and costs. The classrooms of America, where the learning actually takes place, receive but 61 cents out of every tax-payer dollar appropriated.
A little more federalist confidence in the wisdom of state and local governments might go a long way toward improving America’s public schools. The most encouraging reforms in education are occurring at the local level, with options like charter schools. And often the best thing Washington can do is let the states, school districts, teachers and parents set their own policies and run their own schools.
It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals for the state to meet in exchange for that funding. However, it is not a good idea for the federal government to specifically set forth the means to be used in order to reach those goals. Adherence to this principle would make for fewer bureaucracies, fewer regulations, and less expense, while promoting educational achievement. There are bills pending in Congress that would move us in this direction, and I hope Congress gives them the attention they deserve.
I hope so too, but I have my doubts..after all..."it's for the CHILDREN!!!!"
Going forward, Fred suggests we first "codify the Executive Order on Federalism first signed by President Ronald Reagan" which "required agencies to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution" and further suggests that "[t]he next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected."
I hope he sticks to that should he clear the general in '08...and for now I will take him at his word.
In closing, he says this:
It is not enough to say that we are "for" federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions together.
I couldn't agree more.
I do not have attribution at the moment, but I believe I have seen his commentary (ABCRadio blog I think?) that indicates he supports the line item veto...extensively on these same Federalist notions of not allowing Congress to bury and attach unrelated items to the intentions of the bills to which they always get attached.
What he has that will pass Constitutional muster I am afraid I do not have...but I will look and I will ask for any supporting references.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
haystack
This is one of those topics that I really hope become a major source of debate. The topic of responsible spending, when faced with out of control Congresscritters is something that I think has to be a major theme for Republicans to win the next election.
Accountability has been missing in the Federal budget process and as Harry Truman put it, "The Buck Stops Here" is not a bad position for the Chief Executive of the United States Government to take on.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
One of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, was that the King made his governors' funding independent of the locally elected legislatures, removing the executive's accountability to the legislature.
The power of the purse still rightfully rests with the Congress, I believe.
Maybe on the Federal level there is a question, but I would point out that here in CA there is a line item veto. I forget it was passed as a State Constitutional measure or what, but it exists.
It's not being used by the Governator, but that's another rant.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Our budgeting is just weird, heh. We have line item veto and a supermajority requirement to pass a budget, which combine to skew the balance of power pretty far away from the legislative majority leaders.
Not sure I'd want to see it applied nationally, even if I do happen to enjoy watching it when Republicans are the benefiting minority.
Neil,
It's a beautiful thing isn't it?
And that guy who you were backing for Lt. Governor, and Governor before that, the unelectable Tom McClintock is going a good job of bollixing up the Governator. Sad part is that Republican Senators in CA are doing such a poor job of explaining why they are being so hard headed right now.
Hint: Balanced budgets are required by law, we are just doing what the people say they want and is the right thing to do.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
Hint: Balanced budgets are required by law, we are just doing what the people say they want and is the right thing to do.
I said that once to a guy at Pacific Research Institute, and he corrected me. It seems the Governor is obliged to propose a balanced budget, but the state legislature is not obliged to pass one. They take his balanced budget, add expenditure, subtract income, and agree that.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Neil,
One real good place to catch up with the MSM coverage of CA politics that you may not have:
A great compilation of news sources for CA.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
I try to read it every day, though I don't always manage to. Sure it's biased, and the sources it links to are even more biased, but it's very thorough anyway. Thanks for pointing it out thought, if I didn't already read it I'd definitely start!
Great site, glad you already knew about it, maybe others interested in the goings on in the Golden State will pick up the link. I also try to read it once a day.
Waiting to see when the coverage of the next move by the CA Republican party to self destruct gets reported; the Son of Prop 22 proposition to outlaw Civil Unions which is gathering signatures now.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
If he's like me, then he sees no possible way to have a line item veto short of a new Constitutional Amendment.
You are probably right about the Constitutionality of a line item veto but Fred could require that gigantic appropriation bills be separated into lots of small (vetoable) bills and could require that each one in its text specifically authorize the President to NOT spend the money. If he vetoed bills that did not meet these requirements, Congress would eventually learn.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
And unlike Franz's humble servant, I think it's possible. The President just has to say "I will veto any bill that spends more than X dollars, or funds more than one Executive department," and stick to it.
I especially like Fred's final argument
It is not enough to say that we are "for" federalism, because in today’s world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. ... {Emphasis added - JRS}
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Are you still disillusioned enough to believe our supposedly conservative elected officials are actually FOR smaller, less intrusive government? It wasn't too long ago many on this site supported that abomination of a Constitutional Amendment.
Frankly, many Republicans aren't that federalist anymore, and thats why they don't like Fred. Abortion, taxes, and marriage left to the states to decide????? BLASPHEMY!!
But even I can decimate the argument that abortion should be left to states. It's just such a silly notion really that aborting babies or keeping them to term is a simple matter of choice, not unlike whether to buy a red car or a blue truck.
When and how did people start to buy this line of "reasoning"?
But it should, along with education and a myriad of other things that are none of the federal government's business.
The federal government should maintain an army and a navy, deliver the mail, guard the borders, collect customs duties, and stay out of our lives. The entire federal government ought to fit in an abandoned stripmall outside Otumwa Iowa with space left over for a Dunkin' Donuts :-)
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
Sorry, but the premise that children in the womb are not Life is a no-go. It's a nonstarter. It's invalid. It's one of those things that was constructed out of whole-cloth.
But come to think of it, I know some people who don't qualify as human lifeforms by my definitions of life. Perhaps out of whole cloth I shall fabricate a standard of justice and punishment at my neighborhood HOA. Some of those people need to be disposed of.
next to Leon I may be the stongest opponent of abortion around here. I'd like to see it abolished in all its forms. But until the Court steps up and recognizes the inalienable right to life inherent to the fetus, I think the matter should be decided by the several states, not mandated by the courts.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
on abortion as you and Leon.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I oftentimes wish I was in law. Because I don't know what it takes to get to that point. But I hope someone will get it done.
I concede your point that according to current law and established interpretation of said law, the states would be appropriate. But that's because I assume you know. I don't really.
But however we got to this point must surely be ridiculous. I mean, when did the court step up and decide to recognize that the fetus was NOT life, with inherent inalienable rights to said life? I mean how hard can it be to go back to whenever that happened and point to it, laugh, then stop laughing because it really is quite sad, make fun of the people who caused it to happen for being complete morons, and then you know, "fix" it?
... threadjacking haystack's excellent analysis of Fred and federalism.
However, if you'd like to diary the subject I'm sure you'll find plenty of players; abortion has long been a very active topic in these parts :-)
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
I am all for FDT's sort of "Federalism". But the thing is, we start with certain premises or presuppositions. Everyone does it. Every ideology does it. The smarter people are those that are aware of what their premises are.
That adult human beings qualify as the life that is to be protected by the federal government is a good one. Most would hold to that. That children after conception also qualify for this protection is also a very reasonable presumption. And there is absolutely no GOOD reason to think otherwise.
There are reasons, sure. Just no good reasons. Heck, I'm sure I have "reasons" for wanting to do all sorts of things that run contrary to various laws (which for the sake of argument I will presume to be "good" and "useful") which I could argue are ambiguous in interpretation.
No sale. At least not without a VERY specific definition of what "life" means. Implement the wording you're promoting and the left will say that feeding people trans-fats are destroying their life and the feds need to be involved to protect said "life". And on and on.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I was not intending to craft actual legislative language. But the best communicators and wordsmiths among us could most assuredly do so in such a way as to preclude any possibility of left, agenda-driven-interpreting, malfeasance, and other such shenanigans.
MrMosis
So are you willing to go prohibition of the death penalty a matter of only Federal control also? After all, the death penalty is also a taking of a life and to be fully consistent you would have to oppose that too.
As far as I know, the only fully pro life organization if the Catholic church, and they oppose both abortions and the death penalty which is a fully consistent pro-life position.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
I don't have a real strong opinion on capital punishment. I do not believe it is inherently wrong, any more than I believe war is inherently wrong. But those are my philosophical and theological positions. The way I apply them to my governing philosophy is more pragmatic. And I am a bit agnostic as to whether capital punishments serves effectively as a deterrent.
But with all that said, I am fine with states handling that matter. In fact, if the Constitition needs some clarifying language to distinguish between criminals and new life, or between just convicted criminals and non-criminals, as relates to protecting life as opposed to ending it as a means of just punishment, well I would be fine with that.
I am not to religious about the Constitution, or our government, compared to many conservatives. It, in and of itself, is not a sacred thing. It's a handy and convenient thing though. And so I am all for refining it, making it better and more effective- towards the ends of promoting the sort of society and culture I find desirable.
-------------------------------------------------------
"I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
I think if he keeps talking like this, and convinces people that he believes it, he will garner a great deal of voter support. My sense of the American people, of all political stripes, is that in their heart-of-hearts they also believe in 'first principals.'
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
jsteele
Go back to the campaign of 2000 and ask why McCain resonated so well with the electorate. It was "Strait Talk", the ability to tell people the truth in such a manner that people believed him.
People know that out of control spending by the Federal Government is bad. But they see Republicans and Democrats feeding at the trough in equal measures. Coming out and speaking that truth and saying he will try do something about controlling all spending is a strait talk.
People know that health care is expensive and growing more so every day. They get that message from their employers every year when their part of medical insurance coverage goes up. They know that some of the very politicians, R and D, are beholding to the insurance and legal profession for their election to office.
People know that Social Security is a scam, and with all the boomers retiring, there is probably not going to be enough money to go around.
People know that Regan was right when he said, "What ever your problem is, government is not the answer".
Maybe Fred is going to be a strait talking kind of guy that tells people the facts, and maybe tells them that some of the problems are not going to be easy or cheap to fix, but he is going to try to fix them.
Maybe he won't, we are going to find out soon if Fred is going to light up people like McCain did with his "Strait Talk", too early to tell.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
I would love to see this government downsized where I can live in a RedState and enjoy the benefits of my belief in the laws passed by that legislature instead of these "bi-partisan" laws we get federally, oh for that day...................
Be careful, "progressives" don't like that term :-)
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
and what liberals will do when you say "state rights" is they will immeadiately throw mud .. "oh state rights .. like slavery and segregation?"
That's the danger in using those terms or at least what you should be ready for.
People have rights. States have powers granted through the Constitution by the people. When people talk about "States Rights" what they are really talking about is the return of Federally usurped powers to the States.
And in spite of what the Lefties say, that does not include the power of enforcing segregation. The 14th ammendment is quite clear, and it was pure judicial activism that gave us that convoluted "Seperate but Equal" crap.
Great article, great thinking! However, that being said, why would Fred pick 'jihad' Spencer Abraham as his new campaign manager. Abraham is pro-jihad, pro-islam,-pro muslim, and pro-illegal immigration. This guy is definitely the worst pick to lead Fred's campaign. This guy is already driving voters away from Fred and, as they say, he's not even running yet! Go to debbieschlussel.com log of 7/25. Hot Air today has a link also directly to the piece. What a shock! What about his wifey chasing away other good people from his campaign staff?
The guy who threadjacks. It's just rude. There is another blog already on that topic - go post there.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
Federalism is great and Fred knows what it means. Refreshing!
They SHOULD get rid of No Child Left Behind. It is an unfunded federal mandate that looked great on paper. Have you ever tried to teach a child with Down's Syndrome (Trisomy 21) in a mainstreamed math or science class? These educational curriculum people must have gotten spaghetti, instead of brains when they were given out. States are having to do more and more compliance stuff, and not as much teaching. Teachers are now councilors, they have their planning time usurped, they are treated like 2nd class citizens and No Child Left Behind was ultimately a BAD idea. Also, the role of the federal Department of Education should be greatly reduced and let states try what works, not get buried in unworkable, unfunded, untested programs. Stop busing kids all over the place, EXCEPT when they have a school that is not performing well and give ALL of them the right to transfer to a better school. Charter Schools, religious schools, other private schools and home schooling are all viable alternatives given the general state of affairs in public education. It is no wonder most of our engineers and doctoral students are coming from other countries and we have fallen greatly in our responsibilities to educate our citizens. Federalism would further favor nominating non-activist judges to the Supreme Court and other high courts. Not social engineers and lawmakers from the bench. Thanks Fred for reminding us just what federalism is and what it is not. Hope to see you in the White House soon.
... so I guess I am kinda pro-Islam and pro-Muslim. Comes with the territory.
I take it you have a problem with that ...?
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
and don't try to implement Sura 47:4.
I think most people on this site differentiate between Political Islam and Personal Islam, although both are in the Koran.
And I think he should answer that question. In his next post, please.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I'd like some sort of link that indicates that Spence Abraham is some sort of jihadist. Your post borders, just borders mind you, on the type of hate-speech that will get you banned around here.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/96sens.html
Not exactly what I am looking for in a campaign that will need to focus on the GWOT
he is a jihadist because he did not vote in favor of a measure (that he KNEW was going to pass 96-4)?
Nice link.
Hope you never get on my jury!
I never said Spence was a jihadist. I did say that for a Republican, he is "soft" on terrorism, both domestically and abroad.
I say that having voted for the man twice.
that was from Oct 2000 -- before we were attacked, and he DID happen to have a huge Muslim population in MI -- during a campaign in which he was fighting for his political life.
But that aside, how about we focus on ISSUES rather than looking for ways to undermine the other Republican candidates for purely infantile reasons.
GOD keep us safe from our own idiot partisans!
whether it occurred before 2001 or after. I can't believe people can be so dismissive of this.
Think of all the screwed up lefties who did the right thing and signed the letter. Spence Abraham was one of a handful of people who refused. Not a lot of political courage there.
The fact that people like Boxer, Reid, et al did the right thing but a high-profile person on Fred's campaign did not is a big deal.
and the need for leaders to take a consistent stand against it. This "I have a lot of X kind of people" in my district/state is exactly what I am NOT looking for in leadership.
...of you plumber? Spence is not on the ticket, he is on the tactics end of a campaign as an operator.
This ideological purity crap is turning otherwise reasonable people into Paulite-level lunatics. Stop it.
I was criticizing the logic used to defend Spence.
However, to be fair, Spence is no plumber. He is a former Senator who will likely not be working the mail room . . . or the plumbing.
And by the way, if my plumber said something about how Arafat is morally equivalent to Israel, I would ask him to leave.
...where he said any such thing. He didn't sign a letter that would have angered some people he counted on to counter the UAW goose-step vote in Michigan (where being a Dem means never having to work for 45% of the vote). While that would count as personal political cowardice, that does not make him out to be the terror-supporter Debbie (T*ts on a Chair) Schlussel makes him out to be.
TOAC's argument is a bit loose, as is her wont, and seems based more on conjecture and tertiary connections. That and the fact that the Abraham Group were realty advisors for that hotbed of Islamist Terrorism, QATAR!!!!
I need more than TOAC's usual twist before I consider Spence a bad American or before I see his hiring in an operational role a bad move.
but you really should consider how infrequently the Senate gets things right. Only one democratic Senator failed to sign the letter. Such a rare concensus, and yet Spence's signature is nowhere to be found. Spence was in the bottom 5% percentile on a rudimentary test of right and wrong. Thats a big failure.
Last time I checked, terrorism was a substantive issue, THE substantive issue for many people. Will the blame America first crowd get to set a course for appeasement, or will a Ronald Reagan step forward and properly identify those who kill innocents as evil, even though there may be "political reasons" to soften the tone?
I am from Michigan. Will you support my campaign if I take a more nuanced stance on the GWOT? Its always a tough election over here. Moreover, the next attack hasn't happened yet.
This is about principle. You may not respect my principles, but I am not idiotic. To me, the horse-race, party politics, and other distractions are secondary to the fact that Western civilization is under attack.
I think Fred signed up Spence because of political operations accument and not policy ideas. I hope that is true, but people who are not please with the decision to take on Spence are hardly idiotic.
Jihad Spence: Fred Thompson's Pan-Islamist Campaign Manager
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/07/jihad_fred_fred.html
He asked for a link and I provided one. That previous poster is right. Spencer Abraham is an islamist sympathizer and has no business being anywhere near a presidential campaign while we are fighting a war against the islamists.
Local management of schools makes a lot of sense, and of course that's what the Constitution really mandates.
I think there's a role for the federal government to create national standards. When students move from one state to another I would want some assurance that grade 5 in California is grade 5 in Maine. Being able to compare apples-to-apples reduces frictions and uncertainties in the system.
There is also a role in consolidating information about schools, part of which is national testing. One of the engines of the free market is open information and transparency, so I can see the federal government an ideal owner of this information in that 1) they can standardize the measures across the states, and 2) once we restore federalism, it won't have any skin in the game to manipulate the numbers.
One of the tensions against the federalist approach is that the states are getting smaller and smaller everyday. I've lived in lots of states in my life, so that's my bias!
Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe. - Reid Bryson, speaking on Global Warming
that supports your argument on education.
Pull ALL federal money out of "education" and do away with national standards, etc and let the market take care of the situation.
Sorry but the feds involvement adds nothing but cost and inefficiency to any process.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
... growing up as an Army brat I spent a fair amount of time shuffling from one school system to another long before the idea of "federal/national standards." As I recall, each new school system seemed to do just fine figuring out what "Grade 5" meant all on their own.
There are a lot better "owners" of national performance testing data than a federal bureaucracy. The feds do not need to do this.
One of the tensions against the federalist approach is that the states are getting smaller and smaller everyday...
'Splain please? Their roles are getting smaller but that's because Washington keeps encroaching. Smaller roles however doesn't seem to have had much impact on their tendency to spend money either. But most of that may be spending to meet federal reporting and record keeping!
Sorry, no sale.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
What does the Constitution say?
Nothing.
Here is an interesting read on how it all came about.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
I'm wondering why the issue never came up in the federal courts. If there were people who thought it unconstitutional, why not have it declared so. If there is no court precedent, then one could legitimately challenge the existence of all today's federal education involvement.
If I recall correctly, Bill Bennett and John Kasich, among others, suggested it. I've never figured out why it was dropped from public discussion.
One could argue that the tenth amendment actually doesn't limit the federal government a whole lot given the Reconstruction-era Constitutional amendments that end with a sentence giving authority to Congress to pass legislation to enforce certain rights. To most Democrats, every item favored on their political agenda is a right under one of those amendments.
the moment of live birth, too.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
No, not really. Science clearly and explicitly defines life to begin at fertilization. Any other definition violates the establishment clause. It's not a debatable issue. They might, however, argue about when there is a "person" to whom the right applies. That's what Barbara Boxer wants to do implicitly via FOCA. Not that I support him for President, but Ron Paul has drafted bills each Congress to define a person to include all human life. Of course, no such laws would follow the Constitutional provision without the proper enforcement also being prescribed on a federal level.
Also, the right to life was not meant to apply to the unborn since abortion was legal for quite some time after the Constitution was written and amended. As I recall, states were still in the process of restricting it after the fourteenth amendment was "ratified." I also do not believe the restrictions were originally adopted as a means to "comply" with such a right.
It violates the establishment clause, huh. I wonder why nobody has every noted that in an argument in the federal courts. As for it not being a debatable issue, you really should take that up with the DNC.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Actually, I suppose it would only in some circumstances. The only alternative is to define it arbitrarily, but we end up with a definition that makes as much sense as legislating the earth is flat. Similarly, those who argue that the beginning of life is not scientifically defined as beginning at fertilization may as well be arguing the earth is flat.
so I can abstain from threadjacking.
But this is not a matter of science. Science has absolutely nothing to say on this matter. Science can not tell us when life begins any more than science can tell us that life is sacred.
These are First Principles. We have to start the day assuming that life is sacred. We have to start the day assuming life begins at conception.
Similarly, note how Fred! reminds us of the following concerning the origin of our "rights":
Above all, the Framers enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that rights come from our Creator and not from our government.
Science can not show that our rights come from our Creator. This is our presupposition. As it was that of the framers. It is important to reiterate this fact- that we all operate on a set of certain philosophical beliefs. They are in our Constitution. There is therefore no need to shy away from standing up for the rights of the unborn, with vigor.
Continuously noting this truth sheds lights on an important and in fact essential underpinning of our way of governing. Of the Constitution and its original, intended interpretation and meaning. And indeed, of the concept (or interpretive principle) of federalism.
There is a branch of science called biology that literally means the "study of life." It defines what life is and when it begins. It does NOT define the value of life, whether life should be protected, or what "rights" exist. We're talking strictly about simple scientific definitions, not their implications.
That said, the founders must not have recognized a right to life for the unborn since abortion was legal for a very long time after the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But they didn't quite have the technology we do today to identify life in the womb and to discern using the scientific criteria that it does indeed begin at fertilization.
"Whaaaaat???"
Science does not do this. The study of life biology may be, but biology must necessarily remain silent on when life begins.
Science may be useful at determining when a "fetus" is "viable". It may tell us when hearts start beating. It may tell us when brain cells start interacting. But that is all very inconsequential.
Please tell me you too have not fallen pray to this notion that science can give us answers to these questions. Well, don't feel too bad. 99% of the population is probably mired in this red herring as well.
The strange thing is, at face value what you say I am in agreement with. Perhaps we are talking passed each other, because I have no idea how you could disagree with my arguments. There may be a definition for "life" in some biology books, but this would have no bearing on any of the matters at hand here. The definition in the biology book is strictly for the purpose of keeping all the biologists on the same page, so they can all run and reproduce experiments and interpret results in the same way.
As for abortions being "legal" in times passed.... well I was not aware that this was universally true, nor that knowledge of this truth is common knowledge. Who in the world had abortions on this continent in 1775?
First you say science doesn't say anything; then you say it does to keep biologists on the same page. It can only be one or the other. Defining what life is (a necessity for the existence of biology) defines when life begins. Science may only do it to keep biologists on the "same page," but it's still as much a scientific fact as saying the sun is a star. Indeed this fact may not have bearing on the matter at hand here. It may be inconsequential, but it defines life to begin at fertilization. The baby takes in nutrients, grows, exchanges gases, etc. and is thus alive by definition. Science can never tell us the value of human life. That is something people don't seem to realize when they use the phrase "when life begins." It's clear when it begins; people need to ask a different question to avoid sounding ignorant.
Do a Google search on the history of abortion. You will find that Britain only outlawed it in the 1860's in part because science WAS able to determine life began at fertilization! Going back even more in time, people in many parts of the world thought of infanticide the same way people here today think of abortion. In the US, states individually began to prohibit abortion in the mid-1800's. Why would they have needed to prohibit it by law if it didn't ever happen? Massachusetts has the distinct privilege of being the first state to prohibit abortions.
In any case, it is quite clear that it was up to states to make these laws. It was not done in response to a court order, federal law, or Constitutional amendment.
This is all well and good but I'm pretty sure all the other GOP candidates could agree 100% with the ideas laid out here. There are no specific proposals, no plans, nothing. Just empty talk that can get everybody to nod in agreement.
Fred Thompson seems to think that the coronation will proceed as planned even while everything is crashing down around him. The allegations are not unsubstantiated. And he is dodging all the meaningful questions. Plus, now we have his wife antagonizing the staff and centralizing all the decisions. Not good.
Fred can think like Thomas Jefferson but if he can't even get his house in order he might as well go back to the sitcoms.
Well said Chad. He needs true conservative professionals and votes to get elected not an inexperienced wife getting in the way - already. The people he has around him have to improve drastically, otherwise - bad advice & no votes. Maybe Newt, huh?
is a) not running for office; and b) far, far from inexperienced in ways political. She may be a looker, but she's no trophy wife. Google it.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
So, you think McCain would agree that the first significant immigration task is to secure the borders??
And Rudy and Mitt would tag education as the typical Fed Gvt overeach??
And Brownbeck and the Ark Reverend would agree that states should act as independent political laboratories?
Maybe not!
In general terms they would all agree.
But then they would go out of their way to explain why their favorite pet issue should get special treatment. Much like Fred Thompson did with Campaign Finance Reform. Would Thomas Jefferson be in favor of limiting free speech? No. Does it respect the letter of the constitution? No. But because it was popular at the time, or for whatever reason, he went for it trumping all these federalist considerations.
Unless we get down to specific issues this discussion is more appropriate for a seminar, not a presidential election. But Fred Thompson is deliberately staying away from any specific issues so he can continue to be all things to all people.
Thompson will talk about what he plans to do when his campaign begins. Thompson will also talk in broad terms about what America needs.
I trust his house will be in order, as you phrase it, by the time he announces. Remember, that's what he's doing now, and that's why you are personnel changes and position changes in Team Thompson.
I am not committed to Fred Thompson or to anyone, but I'm not sure what Thompson's recent set of detractors want out of this. Work to restore our country's federalism sounds like a nifty goal to me.
Vote in the FreedomWorks GOP presidential straw poll online at
http://www.freedomworks.org/strawpoll
Voting begins Tuesday, July 31st.
One of the things I like about Fred is that he is educating the public. As a presidential candidate (to be) he has a bully pulpit to tell people what they should know - not just what they want to hear. As President, Fred will have an even bigger bully pulpit to educate Congress about what it should do.
"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
I'm not sure I agree, however, that it is appropriate for the Federal government to fund local education at all, beyond funding specific research projects for mandated federal responsibilities, like defense research and development. It's hard to see how the federal government can fund local school districts and refrain from the natural impulse to then start micro-managing local school districts. Better, I think, for local school districts and universities to be funded locally and by the state governments, so that that can retain their autonomy.
Realistically, however, that may no fly politically, so maybe what the senator is suggesting is the most that we can hope for at this time.
The more I hear about his theoretical stand on the Constitution, the more that I like him, but I want to see him give specifics, and would like to hear him respond to detractors before I can believe in him.
I was burned to badly by the people telling how great Bush would be. Until he enters debates and does interviews as a candidate for office, he will remain vaporware to me.
haystack
Great, Fred is into the 10th Amendment, long time sense I heard of a Republican bringing that up, which is great.
Do you know where Fred stands on fixing whatever it was that Rudy did not like about the line item veto and pushing hard for a new version of it that will pass Constitutional muster?
_______________________________
None of the Above !