[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well I'm glad we've established the category of (caps) BAD LAW.

So long as you're clear on that now.

Just to be clear, your opposition stems from the process by which it was passed?

Yes.

Surely libertarians would embrace the right to reproductive choices without government micro-management?

Yes, and by upholding Roe v. Wade we uphold that the federal government has the right to determine such things.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes, and by upholding Roe v. Wade we uphold that the federal government has the right to determine such things.

Are we talking about the same thing? RvW establishes that the govt has very little right to determine such things.

[smacintush]

So why doesn't the Republican (libertarian) govt move to solidify the effect of RvW by legislation, removing the issue?

huh?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Are we talking about the same thing? RvW establishes that the govt has very little right to determine such things.

No, it legitimizes the governments role in determining such things. The body that created this right (out of thin air I might add) also can take it away. Theoretically. What's to stop a future court from "interpreting" that the constitution protects the life of the fetus from destruction?

They shouldn't even discuss it in my opinion. In my view the Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the court shouldn't even hear further cases concerning that issue. The states should handle it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

I don't agree with the premise that RvW is making new laws. I do believe that the ussc has an obligation to interpret the constitution, which they did. If the other branches of the govt or the people believe that they overstepped, they could clarify by amending the constitution, or by appointing judges who would rule differently. The fact that RvW has stood in the face of this shows that there is no overwhelming opposition to the ruling.

Of course. Many people support abortion rights, so they either don't bother to investigate how rotten the decision is, or they decide that the ends justify the means.

Originally Posted by peeb 

So why doesn't the Republican (libertarian) govt move to solidify the effect of RvW by legislation, removing the issue?

Because nobody is seriously thinking of getting rid of it. By talking about it but not actually doing anything, they can get props from people who oppose it without being vilified too badly as an enemy of women or whatever.

[driven]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Who would win in a hot dog eating contest: 1864 Abraham Lincoln or 2008 Hillary Clinton?

I'd give that win to Monica.

[Big Mac]

Saying that a Libertarian would want to pass a law in accordance with Roe v. Wade is the funniest conception I've heard around here in a while.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, it legitimizes the governments role in determining such things. The body that created this right (out of thin air I might add) also can take it away. Theoretically. What's to stop a future court from "interpreting" that the constitution protects the life of the fetus from destruction?

They shouldn't even discuss it in my opinion. In my view the Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the court shouldn't even hear further cases concerning that issue. The states should handle it.

That's like saying that the first amendment establishes the government's right to rule on speech issues, and therefore it's right to take away free speech. The court ruled that the government has no right to regulate abortion in the way it was, just as it has ruled in the past that the government has little right to regulate free speech. It's not giving government legitimacy, it's taking it away. It's saying that even state government has not right to trample people's reproductive freedom - a very libertarian perspective.
Even libertarians are for constitutional rights that protect people from government intervention in their lives. There is no way to spin the 14th as allowing government intervention.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Saying that a Libertarian would want to pass a law in accordance with Roe v. Wade is the funniest conception I've heard around here in a while.

Why? A libertarian would not want government to regulate people's reproductive freedom. RvW protects people from government passing laws interfering with their choices - that's libertarian.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Why? A libertarian would not want government to regulate people's reproductive freedom. RvW protects people from government passing laws interfering with their choices - that's libertarian.

That depends on that particular libertarian's interpretation on when a) life begins, b) life can be classified as human, and c) human life has rights of its own. Since there is absolutely zero chance that we're going to have a productive conversation about those things, it's probably best if we just drop the subject altogether... IMHO, of course.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

That depends on that particular libertarian's interpretation on when a) life begins, b) life can be classified as human, and c) human life has rights of its own. Since there is absolutely zero chance that we're going to have a productive conversation about those things, it's probably best if we just drop the subject altogether... IMHO, of course.

Indeed it does, but that was not the objection that was raised about it previously. If the objection to rvw is on whether it preserves the rights of the unborn, that is different to an objection based on it being inappropriate for govt to rule at all on this issue.

[driven]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Indeed it does, but that was not the objection that was raised about it previously. If the objection to rvw is on whether it preserves the rights of the unborn, that is different to an objection based on it being inappropriate for govt to rule at all on this issue.

Agreed on the objection part .... and agreed that everyone needs to move on to warmer waters quickly.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Indeed it does, but that was not the objection that was raised about it previously. If the objection to rvw is on whether it preserves the rights of the unborn, that is different to an objection based on it being inappropriate for govt to rule at all on this issue.

True, but my point was that it is entirely conceivable and reasonable that a Libertarian would want to pass laws that others might see as restricting reproductive rights.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

So what is it about McCain that 'Conservatives' are against? Is he a Marxist, by chance?

He's left of Hillary.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

He's left of Hillary.

And this is a bad thing?

Hillary's pretty far right, she even supports banning violent video games.

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As long as you and others think the way you do they have NO incentive to ever change their behavior.

Your approach gives them no incentive, either. They'll just continue to borrow more and more money, putting more and more of a burden on future taxpayers and on our country's economic health.

The only solution is to vote for people who will be fiscally prudent. However, the Republicans in this forum seem to have lost all interest in that. Bush cuts spending on tiny programs by 1% and increases military spending by 30%, and the conservatives declare victory.

[Buckaroo]

McCain, may win the nomination, but he will loose the election.

Millions of Republicans will make sure of it.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tie 

Hillary's pretty far right, she even supports banning violent video games.

I'm not sure how you figure. It seems like it's usually Democrats who support censoring popular media. (To confirm that this was not a perception bias on my part, I just looked through the Wikipedia article on video game censorship, and every single name listed as being in favor was a Democrat.)

[peeb]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

True, but my point was that it is entirely conceivable and reasonable that a Libertarian would want to pass laws that others might see as restricting reproductive rights.

The only reason I can see that they might is if they thought that doing so was protecting the rights of others. So, if their objection to RvW was on the grounds that it ruled in favor of the wrong people's rights, that's one thing - if the objection was that the govt had no right to rule on the constitutional issues, that's a different issue entirely - I'm just trying to establish which one of these is the libertarian objection to Roe vs Wade.

[Buckaroo]

Come to think of it, Hillary was once a Republican. That was before she met Bill.

I suppose anything is better than McCain.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

McCain, may win the nomination, but he will loose the election.

Millions of Republicans will make sure of it.

I don't know. As wretched of a choice as it is, I can't see rational people preferring Hillary. If it's Obama, then yes, Dems will win by a landslide.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's like saying that the first amendment establishes the government's right to rule on speech issues, and therefore it's right to take away free speech.

I would agree if the right to free speech was invented by the supreme court and injected into their interpretation of the constitution.

The court ruled that the government has no right to regulate abortion in the way it was, just as it has ruled in the past that the government has little right to regulate free speech. It's not giving government legitimacy, it's taking it away.

No, it doesn't say that it has no right to regulate. It applied the right to privacy to abortion. It created a right that wasn't there. You reinforce my point when you said:

It's saying that even state government has not right to trample people's reproductive freedom - a very libertarian perspective.

The court in it's decision in Roe v. Wade, created a right that does not exist. This is different from stating that the government should "stay out of it." If they were to "stay out of it" then they wouldn't be imposing the decision on the states as well. This is a centralizing decision, not the reverse.

Even libertarians are for constitutional rights that protect people from government intervention in their lives. There is no way to spin the 14th as allowing government intervention.

I don't speak for libertarians, but IMO if you think that most libertarians agree that the Supreme Court was right in Roe v. Wade then I think you are delusional. Most of the opinions of the libertarians I have read are against Roe v. Wade on the grounds that the federal government has no authority to deal with it.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by tie 

Your approach gives them no incentive, either. They'll just continue to borrow more and more money, putting more and more of a burden on future taxpayers and on our country's economic health.

I know. I'm just sick of the bullshit lefty excuses for why cutting taxes is a bad idea.

The only solution is to vote for people who will be fiscally prudent. However, the Republicans in this forum seem to have lost all interest in that. Bush cuts spending on tiny programs by 1% and increases military spending by 30%, and the conservatives declare victory.

I think that you'll see the general election turn out just like the primaries. The Republicans will stay home. A great many are disgusted with how the right has handled the budget.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I would agree if the right to free speech was invented by the supreme court and injected into their interpretation of the constitution.

Well I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here - I don't accept that RvW invented a right that was not there. I'd like to hear more about why you think this in the light of the ninth or the fourteenth's reservation of rights to the people and rights to liberty. As I understand it RvW is the supreme court ruling that the government has little right to regulate abortion either because a) it is a right not given to the govt in the const, and therefor reserved for the people (as claimed by the district court) or b) because of the 14th's restrictions on govt action to restrict the liberty of the people. The 14th clearly gives the people the right to liberty and due process.
However, whether the right to reproductive liberty is covered under this is, I suppose, arguable, if you want to interpret liberty in a very narrow sense. It's not my understanding that libertarians would want to do that though.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

No, it doesn't say that it has no right to regulate. It applied the right to privacy to abortion. It created a right that wasn't there.

That depends on how you read the thing - the ninth clearly refers to rights which are not enumerated in the constitution, and privacy is not much of a stretch.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The court in it's decision in Roe v. Wade, created a right that does not exist. This is different from stating that the government should "stay out of it." If they were to "stay out of it" then they wouldn't be imposing the decision on the states as well. This is a centralizing decision, not the reverse.

I don't understand how you can say this. It struck down the government's right to regulate the issue, instead reserving the right to make this decision to the individual. This is the government staying out of the decision of the individual to make a choice about their reproductive life. The govt can neither compel nor prevent abortion in many circumstances, and must 'stay out' of the decision. The supreme court is not legislating, but rather striking down legislation.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't speak for libertarians, but IMO if you think that most libertarians agree that the Supreme Court was right in Roe v. Wade then I think you are delusional. Most of the opinions of the libertarians I have read are against Roe v. Wade on the grounds that the federal government has no authority to deal with it.

Precisely, which is why the supreme court struck down the legislation. Neither the state nor federal governments were found to have the authority to legislate, and the right was reserved to the individual.
I can totally understand why you might not agree that people should be given the liberty to make reproductive choices, and that the state or federal government should step in to make them, but I don't see how you can call striking down such a law anything but libertarian.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I know. I'm just sick of the bullshit lefty excuses for why cutting taxes is a bad idea.

I think actually cutting taxes would be a good idea, but simply passing them on to future generations is a bad one. Supposing my household decides that it wants to cut its monthly expenditure (taxes) - if we were to do that by simply not paying the credit card and wracking up future debts that we expected our children to pay, I don't think people would be very impressed. Running on a platform of 'handouts now that your children will pay for' is not tax cuts - it's payment deferral, and it's irresponsible because governments that balance the books are penalized and governments that tax future generations who can't vote yet to reward current voters are rewarded.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I think that you'll see the general election turn out just like the primaries. The Republicans will stay home. A great many are disgusted with how the right has handled the budget.

I am a republican and the only reason I would not vote is because I think none of the candidates are any good at all. I will most likely vote still, but I am not looking forward to having any of the current candidates as our next president.

[Jawbone54]

As an independent conservative, I've sat back and watched this entire thing unfold. I've already commented on how I'm not McCain's biggest fan, but I noticed something else today...

McCain will likely ignore criticism from the more conservative side of the Republican Party, believing they represent an increasingly marginalized segment of the party. He'll think that he has the support of the majority of Republicans, when in fact, at least half of them seem to have been content to stay at home, dissatisfied with the lackluster candidates that they've seen from the so-called "conservative side." I just wonder if they'll get off the couch for the general election.

Unless the next 4 years prove disastrous, or something significant happens within the Republican ranks, it may prove impossible to ever again see a true conservative in the White House (although one could argue that we may be living in that era right now).

[peeb]

It may actually be a good thing for a sane Republican to take power - there is so much clean-up needed at this point that anyone assuming power will be very unpopular as they attempt to pick up the pieces of the last seven years and repair the worst of the damage.

[Buckaroo]

A lot of Republicans will vote, but leave the President section blank. I know I will vote, but I will NOT vote for McCain.

[peeb]

A vote for McCain is a vote for Karl Marx!

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

either because a) it is a right not given to the govt in the const, and therefor reserved for the people (as claimed by the district court) or

As far as I know this was not a part of the decision at all.

b) because of the 14th's restrictions on govt action to restrict the liberty of the people. The 14th clearly gives the people the right to liberty and due process.

The decision was rendered on the basis of the 14th amendment.

However, whether the right to reproductive liberty is covered under this is, I suppose, arguable, if you want to interpret liberty in a very narrow sense. It's not my understanding that libertarians would want to do that though.

This is where the philosophical differences about the constitution come in.

Many, like me, believe that it is perfectly obvious that the constitution wasn't written to be re-interpreted as times change. It was written to be followed as written and when necessary, altered via the amendment process.

According to Rehnquist:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.[1] ”
From this historical record, Rehnquist concluded that, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Therefore, in his view, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Now, if one believes that the constitutions amendment process is to be respected and not circumvented, this seems very clear.

If one believes that the constitution was intended to be re-interpreted as we see fit, then yeah I can see how one might read new rights into the document.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As far as I know this was not a part of the decision at all. The decision was rendered on the basis of the 14th amendment.

The SC ruled on the basis of the 14th, upholding a DC decision that cited the 9th.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

This is where the philosophical differences about the constitution come in. Many, like me, believe that it is perfectly obvious that the constitution wasn't written to be re-interpreted as times change. It was written to be followed as written and when necessary, altered via the amendment process.

Sure, but it is the role of the SC to adjudicate this - you may not like the outcome, but it's hard for me to see how you are arguing that the SC had no jurisdiction in this case.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

According to Rehnquist:
Now, if one believes that the constitutions amendment process is to be respected and not circumvented, this seems very clear.

Sure - Rehnquist is entitled to that opinion, but it was not carried by the rest of the court- you can argue that they decided wrong, but I thought that your argument was that they should have declined to rule?

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If one believes that the constitution was intended to be re-interpreted as we see fit, then yeah I can see how one might read new rights into the document.

I can see how you could potentially make that argument, but there is a very serious problem with that approach - would you apply the same logic to the thirteenth amendment? Clearly constitutional amendments have been used to withdraw powers from the states. I guess your argument hinges on whether the authors of the 14th intended this. Well, maybe, maybe not, we can't tell, which is why we need the SC to decide.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

If one believes that the constitution was intended to be re-interpreted as we see fit, then yeah I can see how one might read new rights into the document.

This is sort of like say "the framers never specifically intended people to have free speech on the internet, so we should not read that right into the document". Well, no, they never did intend that, that doesn't mean that we don't re-interpret it.

If we could interpret the document literally without re-interpretation in the context of modern society, we would not need a supreme court.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

This is sort of like say "the framers never specifically intended people to have free speech on the internet, so we should not read that right into the document". Well, no, they never did intend that, that doesn't mean that we don't re-interpret it.

If we could interpret the document literally without re-interpretation in the context of modern society, we would not need a supreme court.

You're trying to suggest abortion didn't exist until the 1990s? Because otherwise I don't see your point.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

The SC ruled on the basis of the 14th, upholding a DC decision that cited the 9th.

Yes but though it was upheld, it wasn't based upon the 9th.

Sure, but it is the role of the SC to adjudicate this - you may not like the outcome, but it's hard for me to see how you are arguing that the SC had no jurisdiction in this case.

It's the "agree to disagree" thing again I guess.

Sure - Rehnquist is entitled to that opinion, but it was not carried by the rest of the court- you can argue that they decided wrong, but I thought that your argument was that they should have declined to rule?

I don't think they should have, but they did. Unless you got a way-back machine the only way to make it right is by a new decision, which means looking at the grounds for overturning it.

I can see how you could potentially make that argument, but there is a very serious problem with that approach - would you apply the same logic to the thirteenth amendment

I don't see the parallel.

[ebuddy]

One thing to note (and I don't know if it's been mentioned somewhere in this 7-page thread) is the ACU rating of the candidates. The American Conservative Union has given the following lifetime rankings;

McCain; 82.3%
Hillary Clinton; 9%
Obama; 8%

It should be noted that McCain's overall score has been hurt most recently with leftist-leaning ideals, but where does it matter? Global Warming? No. Campaign finance reform? Meh. Immigration? Okay this is a biggie.

Supreme Court appointees? YES. Hawkishness on budget? YES.

Now, if it comes down to two choices; Hillary or John, I think many will feel dirty either way. As it stands now I still maintain that I'll likely not be voting, but all those who've been so critical of McCain will now become his biggest fans. To see the reaction at Romney's concession speech (basically a, I'm McCain's running-mate now speech) there was booing and hissing at him giving up, but the reception to McCain was warm and passionate. Interesting. You'll see a lot of people moving toward the McCain camp because... well they have no other choice.

Me? Not sure yet.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The Democrats helped just as much.

Did the Democrats appoint Drownie?
Did the Democrats institute a policy of torture and extreme rendition?
Did the Dems appoint Rumsfeld to the Pentagon?
Harriet Miers to the Supreme court?
Alberto Gonzales to the Justice dept?
John Negroponte?
Did the Dems invent "signing statements?"
Did the dems neglect the Vetrans Administration to the point of ruin during a war?
Did the Dems utterly bypass the already-weak FISA laws?
Did tne dems institute NCLB, then refuse to fund it?

I could go on.

Sure, I wish a lot of them had opposed his wrongheadedness more virulently, but Bush strong-armed Congress with his "9-11! Us or them!" mentality that really had a lot of politicians hunkered down, for fear that they'd be smeared as "weak on Trrrrrsts" if they didn't support his every noxious whim. My way or the hiway is not the "bipartisanship" he promised during the 2000 campaign.

[vmarks]

It's a thread about McCain.

I can answer the things you listed, but you, along with others, need to recognize that this thread is about McCain.

Originally Posted by chris v 

Did the Democrats appoint Drownie?

No, they had Nagin and Blanco.

Did the Democrats institute a policy of torture and extreme rendition?

Nancy Pelosi did sign off on waterboarding, so if you consider that a policy of torture then the answer is yes.

Did the Dems appoint Rumsfeld to the Pentagon?

Rumsfeld is a hero.

Harriet Miers to the Supreme court?

She didn't get very far, did she. Republicans have a mixed history with Supreme Court appointees. Even Reagan appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, who gave us such things as 'penumbras' and the confused ruling of Gratz v Bollinger (the notion that it's ok to use race in university admissions today but that at some point in the future it will not be ok. But when?)

Alberto Gonzales to the Justice dept?

No, Janet Reno. Waco and Ruby Ridge.
Jamie Gorelick. Aldrich Ames.

John Negroponte?

Madeline Albright, Warren Christopher.

Did the Dems invent "signing statements?"

Signing statements go back to President Monroe.

An important legal statement in support of the use of signing statements was developed by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton in 1993 (i.e. while the Democrats still had Congressional majorities). Nussbaum stated that the Department of Justice had advised three prior presidents that the Constitution provided authority to decline to enforce a clearly unconstitutional law. The entire 1993 memo may be found here: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/signing.htm

Here's the link I drew that from- Presidential Signing Statements

Did the dems neglect the Vetrans Administration to the point of ruin during a war?
Did the Dems utterly bypass the already-weak FISA laws?

Yes. The Clinton administration did so. See Janet Reno, Jamie Gorelick and Aldrich Ames.

Did the dems institute NCLB, then refuse to fund it?

It was co-written by Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Congress was responsible for funding it. That's what Congress does. I'm surprised that this glaring problem wasn't fixed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in the first 100 days of their holding office.

I could go on.

You could. So could I. Democrats either shared responsibility for every Republican thing you have listed and find distasteful, or have done something similar or worse in the past.

Sure, I wish a lot of them had opposed his wrongheadedness more virulently,

They didn't oppose, they went along willingly or actually initiated some of these things you're upset about.

but Bush strong-armed Congress with his "9-11! Us or them!" mentality that really had a lot of politicians hunkered down, for fear that they'd be smeared as "weak on Trrrrrsts" if they didn't support his every noxious whim. My way or the hiway is not the "bipartisanship" he promised during the 2000 campaign.

That claim of fear and refusal to speak up went away about March 2002. It was over when editorials decrying the with-us-or-against-us sentiment started being published.

The bipartisanship-as-practiced-by-Bush unfortunately never went away, it was what was responsible for NCLB and the brand-new prescription drug entitlements being created - co-written by leading Democrats.

Reaching across the aisle does not mean doing what the opposing party wishes, but that's how Bush and McCain (it's a thread about McCain, remember?) practice it. Instead, it's an opportunity to work together with those on the opposing side of the aisle for conservative goals. Or it least, that's what it should be, if the President is a conservative. Bush isn't. McCain wouldn't be.

So, ON TOPIC, does McCain deserve the Republican nomination?

[driven]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So, ON TOPIC, does McCain deserve the Republican nomination?

Yes.

[chris v]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

So, ON TOPIC, does McCain deserve the Republican nomination?

Sure, why not? If he gets the majority of the support of the party, then let him have at it. I don't think he deserves to be president.

The "Clinton did it" school of excuses is now 8 years old. I get the impression with conservatives, that if Hillary gets elected, all the problems she inherits will be Bill's, and not Bush's. I'm not absolving any democrats of complicity, and you made some points, but I'm amazed by the ability to gloss over the fact that Bush has had 8 years to fix all the horrible things Clinton did, and has somehow been utterly powerless to do so. I rate him Worst President Ever, not because he's a Republican, but simply because he's the Worst President, Ever.

Question: If McCain wins the presidency, will HE be able to undo all the horrible things Clinton did?

[driven]

There is plenty of blame to be spread across the 8 years of Bush *AND* the 8 years of Clinton *AND* the 4 years of Bush 41.

I actually think McCain will make a decent president.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You're trying to suggest abortion didn't exist until the 1990s? Because otherwise I don't see your point.

Not at all,my point is simply that we can't really take seriously 'what the framers intended' because so much has changed. We have to reinterpret in the light of our current situation.

[jokell82]

As a conservative, McCain scares me more than Hillary or Obama.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Yes but though it was upheld, it wasn't based upon the 9th.

This is semantic, I guess, but my point is that the DC ruling was based on the ninth. Since it was upheld, albeit on a different basis, the ruling based on the ninth is still valid.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't think they should have, but they did. Unless you got a way-back machine the only way to make it right is by a new decision, which means looking at the grounds for overturning it.

That's fine - I can respect you wanting the court to rule differently, but since the court ruled that the govt has little right to legislate around reproductive rights, I'm having a hard time seeing your position as a libertarian one.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

I don't see the parallel.

A constitutional amendment was used to overturn laws that were in common practice.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rumsfeld is a hero.

I almost fell off my chair. Rumsfeld is a traitor and a lunatic. The only person he is a hero for, perhaps, is Osama Bin Laden.

[subego]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

It's a thread about McCain.

[entire post not about McCain snipped]

So, ON TOPIC, does McCain deserve the Republican nomination?

Moderate thyself.

[besson3c]

Did you guys hear the crazy things that Romney said during his "I'm suspending my campaign" speech... I'm *so* glad that that clown is not being considered a viable candidate based on what he was saying.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by chris v 

Sure, why not? If he gets the majority of the support of the party, then let him have at it. I don't think he deserves to be president.

The "Clinton did it" school of excuses is now 8 years old.

I did not cite Clinton because he is Clinton. I cited his presidency because it was the most recent example of a Democrat President. I also cited Monroe, over a century ago.

I get the impression with conservatives, that if Hillary gets elected, all the problems she inherits will be Bill's, and not Bush's. I'm not absolving any democrats of complicity,

and I am not absolving Republicans

and you made some points, but I'm amazed by the ability to gloss over the fact that Bush has had 8 years to fix all the horrible things Clinton did, and has somehow been utterly powerless to do so.

Well, you can spend your time trying to undo damage done by your predecessor, or you can move your own policies forward, I suppose. You can probably attempt to do both, but I think the urge to move your own policies forward is pretty compelling. If your policies center on undoing the things the previous guy did, and the previous guy was pretty popular (we can face it; Clinton was charismatic) then people will wonder why the heck they elected you in the first place.

Additionally, externalities to the office require that you act in ways that your predecessors may not have needed to. (Clinton had a few hurricanes, but no Katrina. Clinton had a 1993 WTC attack, but not a 2001 version. At the same time, Bush didn't have an Murrah Federal Building.)

I rate him Worst President Ever, not because he's a Republican, but simply because he's the Worst President, Ever.

That title belongs to FDR.

Question: If McCain wins the presidency, will HE be able to undo all the horrible things Clinton did?

I don't expect that he'll try. I expect him to compound the damage.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

A constitutional amendment was used to overturn laws that were in common practice.

The thirteenth was created for the purpose of abolishing slavery. It's a very specific purpose. There was no re-interpreting, they adopted a specific new amendment.

That's what they should have done with abortion. That's what amendments are for. This is the problem with decisions like this. They totally circumvent the way the constitution is supposed to work. It's apparent to ME, and many others, that neither the drafters of the constitution nor those that created the 14th had any reason to include reproductive rights. Whether because it just wasn't an issue or because of a repressive and puritan view of women's rights is irrelevant. The point is that the ability to abort a child wasn't considered a right. This is exactly the type of situation for an amendment.

Letting the court sort out how the old amendments apply to new issue is another thing altogether. It's silly of you to even mention the internet. Abortion isn't new.

So, maybe slavery is a good parallel after all. Perhaps you would prefer if the court had simply "read into" the constitution differently? Perhaps they should have saved themselves the trouble of the amendment process?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Did you guys hear the crazy things that Romney said during his "I'm suspending my campaign" speech... I'm *so* glad that that clown is not being considered a viable candidate based on what he was saying.

I heard stuff that I can see you disagreeing with, but I don't think I heard anything "crazy." Care to elaborate?