Fred Thompson was on Meet the Press (The link is a collection of YouTube videos) yesterday (11/4). I have been skimming through various blogs and media thoughts on how Fred did. It is a mixed bag.
Among Republicans If you are a Fred man, Thompson did fantastic. If you are passionate supporter of another GOP candidate, the Meet the Press interview was a lack luster interview. If you are an undecided Republican or trying to give a balanced analysis of the interview, Thompson did okay without making any mistakes or gaffes and so did okay.
There seems to be a consensus that GOP pro-lifers are divided depending on the level of interpreted dedication to pro-life, as in a scale between absolute to anti-abortion as a means of contraception. Indeed social conservatives may be divided in general on the same scale: the concept of a Christian absolute morality or the view of Christian morality as a cultural foundation for the basic rule of law in America.
The division point is Thompson’s dedicated belief on Federalism; i.e. certain laws that affect communities in a State should not be imposed on a divergent community in another State. After the Civil War, State’s Rights was narrowly defined in that Federal National Law is enforced (or should be) uniformly across the nation of the United States of America. Thus the Federal government via the US Congressional Representatives and Senators (with the meddling of Activist Judges) uniformly legislate the Rule of Law even if it is ridiculous to a few States that may strain local communities.
Thompson’s view of Federalism is to allow States decide the Rule of Law as determined by the voters on a local State basis. I generally support that idea; however I do see problems. For example there is the issue of homosexual same sex marriage. Undoubtedly California would enact such a law. Undoubtedly a majority of States would define marriage between a male and a female. Would California’s marriage laws (hypothetically) force another State that does not recognize same sex marriage as a legal marriage? In the long run that decision would go through the Courts and end up in the Supreme Court on a decision on how that works.
Another example of Federalism being abused is a reversal of some laws enacted by Liberals that were actually good: e.g. Civil Rights for minority Americans (particularly African-Americans) which ended cultural segregation in America. Remember the “Whites Only” signs or “Blacks to the back of the bus”?
So there are some potential kinks in the Federalism thinking of Thompson yet I must reiterate I do think it is a good foundation to solve social issues that polarize America if politically reasoned balance is implemented.
Among Republicans If you are a Fred man, Thompson did fantastic. If you are passionate supporter of another GOP candidate, the Meet the Press interview was a lack luster interview. If you are an undecided Republican or trying to give a balanced analysis of the interview, Thompson did okay without making any mistakes or gaffes and so did okay.
There seems to be a consensus that GOP pro-lifers are divided depending on the level of interpreted dedication to pro-life, as in a scale between absolute to anti-abortion as a means of contraception. Indeed social conservatives may be divided in general on the same scale: the concept of a Christian absolute morality or the view of Christian morality as a cultural foundation for the basic rule of law in America.
The division point is Thompson’s dedicated belief on Federalism; i.e. certain laws that affect communities in a State should not be imposed on a divergent community in another State. After the Civil War, State’s Rights was narrowly defined in that Federal National Law is enforced (or should be) uniformly across the nation of the United States of America. Thus the Federal government via the US Congressional Representatives and Senators (with the meddling of Activist Judges) uniformly legislate the Rule of Law even if it is ridiculous to a few States that may strain local communities.
Thompson’s view of Federalism is to allow States decide the Rule of Law as determined by the voters on a local State basis. I generally support that idea; however I do see problems. For example there is the issue of homosexual same sex marriage. Undoubtedly California would enact such a law. Undoubtedly a majority of States would define marriage between a male and a female. Would California’s marriage laws (hypothetically) force another State that does not recognize same sex marriage as a legal marriage? In the long run that decision would go through the Courts and end up in the Supreme Court on a decision on how that works.
Another example of Federalism being abused is a reversal of some laws enacted by Liberals that were actually good: e.g. Civil Rights for minority Americans (particularly African-Americans) which ended cultural segregation in America. Remember the “Whites Only” signs or “Blacks to the back of the bus”?
So there are some potential kinks in the Federalism thinking of Thompson yet I must reiterate I do think it is a good foundation to solve social issues that polarize America if politically reasoned balance is implemented.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment