He wants the states to decide independently. What other issues does he opt out on?

Evidently he opts out on a safer world as well... let the other countries decide what they want to do...

skatchkins wrote:He wants the states to decide independently. What other issues does he opt out on?

No, he supports a constitutional amendment over turning Roe v Wade but he realizes this is a longshot

The easiest way to ban abortion is to let the states decide individually. There is alot better chance of some individual states making abortion illegal then their is to have 26 states agree and ratify the constitution

Also, alot of people see abortion as a moral issue. It is nearly impossible to enforce morals on people through a law. Instead it needs to be a change of heart. This can start in a place like Arizona where we make abortion illegal and can slowly spread throughout all 50 states. It is an issue with the heart, not with the law.

Its still passing the buck.....let someone else worry about it cause it will be too hard this way

AZLugz wrote:Its still passing the buck.....let someone else worry about it cause it will be too hard this way

I can see how it could be seen that way. But the way I look at it, what is better, 1 state where abortion is illegal or 50 where its not

Do you think that on issues other than marriage and the life of the unborn that the Constitution should be brought into conformity with the Bible, which is what that quote seemed to suggest?

No, I was specifically talking about those two issues. Those were the only two issues I spoke about in the speech, and that was the point. I’m not suggesting that we say, “Okay, the Bible says you should tithe, so now in the Constitution we’re going to amend it to say everyone tithes.”

Those were the two issues that I felt like are talked about in the political realm. I support both the human rights amendment and a marriage amendment, and the reason that I do is because I think we need to codify in our Constitution that which has been acceptable and accepted view of what life and what marriage means. Frankly, if it weren’t being challenged, it wouldn’t be necessary. But it is being challenged. Now you have states that are passing same-sex marriage laws or civil union laws.

And you also have states that not only practice abortion, but if Roe v. Wade is overturned, we haven’t won the battle. All we’ve done is now we’ve created the logic of the Civil War, which says that the right to the human life is geographical, not moral. I think that’s very problematic. That’s why I think that people like Fred Thompson are dead wrong when he says just leave that up to the states. Well, that’s again the logic of the Civil War – that slavery could be okay in Georgia but not okay in Massachusetts. Obviously we’d today say, “Well, that’s nonsense. Slavery is wrong, period.” It can’t be right somewhere and wrong somewhere else. Same with abortion.
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/228/story_22873.html

Guess I disagree with Huck on this still. Alot of Americans see abortion as a moral issue. Most Christians see it as murder since life begins at conception. Everyone else usually sees it as a womens right and choice.

I do not think you can force moral issues on people through a man made law. It has to be a change of culture, a change of views and most importantly a change of heart.

The only true federal crimes are those listed in Article I (treason, piracy, and counterfeiting); all other crimes are left to the jurisdiction of the states under the 10th Amendment.

There are a lot of laws that are about Moral issues and we have to regulate morality in the law too. Moreover tho, it is a case of is it a life or not, if so, it is murder, if not, it isn't....so, when does it become a life...maybe we should say it has to be a productive life, now we can abort anytime...ooo, even farther, they have to be a productive life to society, so we can still abort after the birth if we find we are not happy with them.......



Where does it become life and if it is at conception, why would you not allow it to have the same rights as any other person

Personally I like what he had to say there!!!

AZLugz wrote:Moreover tho, it is a case of is it a life or not, if so, it is murder, if not, it isn't....so, when does it become a life...maybe we should say it has to be a productive life, now we can abort anytime...ooo, even farther, they have to be a productive life to society, so we can still abort after the birth if we find we are not happy with them.......



Where does it become life and if it is at conception, why would you not allow it to have the same rights as any other person

Personally I believe life begins at conception. Most Christians believe the same way. However most non Christians believe life begins at birth.

Lets also look at this statistic, only %35 of adults in the US identify themselves as born again Christians. An even smaller number of %8 identify themselves as evangelical. That gives us a total of only %42. Given that most non-christians believe life begins at birth it is obvious we are in the minority. Clearly we are facing an uphill battle trying to convince people to amend the constitution and outlaw abortion.

The quickest and most effective way to do this is to follow what the constitution says, over turn Roe Vs Wade as it violates the 10th amendment
The constitution clearly says that the only laws that should be federally mandated are those against treason, piracy and counterfitting.

Lets look at what the 10th amendment says The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That makes it pretty clear that our government has no right to make any laws regarding abortion, same sex marriage, federal smoking ban or any other law based on the whim of politicians. Our constition is clear that these issues should be decided by the local states, not by the federal government.

Once the decisions are returned to the states and the people, then we can start making a real impact. It is alot easier to convince one state that abortion is wrong then it is to convince 50.

Cut and paste job, or do you always put your "%" in front of your numbers instead of behind them?

Wow. This is an interesting article on several levels.

It talks about the number of abortions declining in the US (as if 1.2 MILLION abortions a year is a "good number".)

Later, it discusses that one of the reasons for that is a tremndous increase in the "medication abortions" since 2000. The inferrence is that more peopel are taking the "morning after pill" and "avoiding" the need for surgical abortions... just sad. Really really sad.

alanzona wrote:Cut and paste job, or do you always put your "%" in front of your numbers instead of behind them?

hah dont they go in front? Ive always done it that way. Thought since the $ goes in front of a number the % would to? :)g)

It makes no sense about life begining at birth. If that is the case, why is there are time from for abortion. If it is not a life till birth, why it is TWO counts of homocide to kill a woman in her 8th or 9th month. Why can you only have an abortion in the first part of the pregnancy......its just a lump of flesh till it pops out, get rid of it anytime. That is politcal talking out of both sides.....we want it this way so we can justify it with this.....who cares about the flaws in the argument, joe average won't catch us on it



As far as US laws not being allowed by the constitution.....that is a joke, there are tons of them, they can not use that arguement to forbid laws they want to exclude and not go back and say that all federall law should be deemed unconstitutional....Pick and choose don't work...is it right or wrong...

The constitution is supposed to be a living document that will change with the times of the world, it was never meant to be cast in stone, that is why Bills and amendments are there

AZLugz wrote:
The constitution is supposed to be a living document that will change with the times of the world, it was never meant to be cast in stone, that is why Bills and amendments are there

Im going to disagree on this one too. The constitution is meant to be read as is, and not only applied in certain areas or changed on a whim. It can be changed but only by a 26+ state approved amendment

Guess who said this?

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a "living Constitution."

More fun Huck facts

He claims to be hard on illegal immigration

Huckabee opposed the DREAM Act which would give college grants to illegal immigrants writing on his campaign website that “it would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all. Because once we open that door even a crack, we'll never get it closed again.” However he favored and defends the same type of scholarships in Arkansas
Source1
Source2
Source3

What? You working for Fred Thompson / John McCain now? }:)

alanzona wrote:What? You working for Fred Thompson / John McCain now? }:)

I think thompsons going to be dropping out pretty soon

Ill start posting up fun stuff about mccain and romney on monday :)=)

Thanks, buddy.

Yeah, Thompson did what McCain needed him to do in South Carolina, so he's done his duty <dry cough> by taking enough conservative votes away from Huckabee to allow McCain to take the state... he can go back to Hollywood now.

I like McCain, it just stinks that he was in it for one major state and only took away instead of added... kind of like Edwards right now. He is the best thing that Clinton has going for her. An large majority of Edwards supporters say that Obama is their second choice... every state he stays in only help Hillary. Both the Johns are starting to tick me off... }:(

offroadaz wrote:Im going to disagree on this one too. The constitution is meant to be read as is, and not only applied in certain areas or changed on a whim. It can be changed but only by a 26+ state approved amendment

Guess who said this?

I firmly believe that the Constitution must be interpreted according to its original meaning, and flatly reject the notion of a "living Constitution."

Yes, he is talking about the main body of the Constitution, I specifically stated Bills and Amendments, the "Living Document" reference was to that portion only, hence the reference. BTW, in His speech you posted to start all this, he also states "Amend" the constitution, not change the main body.

Lets stay with apples and apples here