Protecting Life
Fred Thompson is pro-life. He believes in the sanctity of human life and that every life is worthy of respect. (1) He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned. He consistently opposed federal funding to promote or pay for abortion and supported the Partial Birth Abortion Act, the Child Custody Protection Act, and President Reagan's Mexico City policy. While Fred Thompson supports adult stem cell research, (2) he opposes embryonic stem cell research. He also opposes human cloning.
Supporting Marriage
Fred Thompson believes marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and that this institution is the foundation of society. As such, he supported the Defense of Marriage Act when he served in the Senate. (3) He supports a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society.
Protecting our Kids
While censorship is dangerous, obscenity is not legally protected, and laws against it should be vigorously enforced. Parents need to be empowered to protect their children from inappropriate matter, whether on TV, in video games, or on the computer. And we must do all we can to fight the explosion of child pornography over the Internet.
Limiting the Role of the Judiciary
For many years, the judiciary has been too eager to engage in social engineering under the guise of interpreting the Constitution. Fred Thompson is a lawyer who understands the difference between interpreting the law and making it. He is committed to appointing judges who understand and respect that difference and who will only interpret and apply the law, not make it. When President Bush needed someone to shepherd the nomination of John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States, he turned to Fred Thompson, who steered the Roberts nomination to its successful confirmation. John Roberts represents the kind of judges Fred Thompson would seek to appoint as President.
(1) He had a 100% pro-life voting record in the Senate and believes Roe v. Wade was a bad decision that ought to be overturned.
This is the federalist/states'-rights position. Roe v. Wade was a decision which was based upon nothing that is to be found in the Constitution. Fred is morally opposed to institutionalized abortion-and his rhetoric and record reflect that-as are a good many Americans...some of whom may not realize that a President can do very little (if anything) regarding the issue beyond the appointment of Supreme Court justices. And any impact such appointments might have could manifest beyond a President's term of office.
At any rate, should the Supreme Court overturn that bad decision, what happens?
Does abortion immediately become illegal? No.
Do the state laws in effect at the time of the decision resume? No. (And for those who don't know it, there never was a federal law prohibiting the procedure.) The issue would return to the states, their legislators, and the residents of the respective states to decide.
Fred has declined to endorse a proposed amendment to ban abortion on that basis-states' rights. Never mind that it has no realistic chance of getting through Congress (2/3 in each chamber) and ratified by at least 38 states, and never mind that a President has no part in the amendment process under the Constitution. Endorsing a dead-end amendment would be pretty stupid anyhow.
(2) ...he opposes embryonic stem cell research.
Again, this is a moral objection to such research-and taxpayer funding of same. A President cannot ban it outright on his own, and it'd be a trick to get a Congress which send him a bill which would do so.
(3) He supports a constitutional amendment to prevent activist judges from misreading the Constitution to force same-sex marriage on any state and on our society.
And here again, states' rights. It's not a question for the federal government to decide-either way. Neither bar it or explicitly allow it-but...an amendment making it clear that, under federal law, same-sex marriage will not be recognized, while the states are free to decide the issue for themselves...makes sense to me, anyway. It puts the question out of the reach of the federal judiciary and leaves it up to the states.
Finally, no amendment outright prohibiting same-sex marriage nationwide would pass Congress, much less be ratified by the states. And again, a President can do no more than endorse an amendment-or not. Somehow I doubt Truman supported term limits, even if it didn't affect him.
I'm not a spokesman for Fred or his campaign-I want to make that clear-but I believe I've refined somewhat the federalist/conservative positions he's taken.
No comments:
Post a Comment