Thursday, August 23, 2007

Just what amendments is he against?

I heard Fred Thompson on NPR last weekend, then saw him on PBS. Fred ("I'm not really a law-enforcement official, I just play one on TV") was at the Iowa State Fair, "testing the waters." He made a point of telling the crowd that he was "pro-Second Amendment."

That's interesting, because it implies that there are amendments that he's against. I think that's something we should know about, because if he were elected President, he would have to swear to uphold the entire Constitution.

So tell us, Fred, how do you feel about the other amendments? Are you against the Third, which forbids quartering troops in private homes except in times of war? (That might not go over well with the Repub right.) We wouldn't be surprised to find that you've got your doubts about the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which tend to stand in the way of law-enforcement agencies' desire to do whatever they please.

But how do you feel about the Eleventh Amendment, which forbids citizens of one state from suing another in federal court (an Amendment that has been misinterpreted by the courts since it was enacted)? Or the twelfth, which provides for election of the President and Vice-President on one ticket? (The Amendment that gave us Deadeye-Dick Cheney.) Do you favor the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which ended slavery, enshrined equality before the law without regard to race and extended voting rights to all Americans? (Being as you are from the Old South, this seems a fair question to ask.)

Now, Fred could be against the Eighteenth Amendment--the one that inaugurated Prohibition--because it was repealed by the Twentieth. But he'd better be pro-Nineteenth, because that was women's suffrage, and more than half of the voters are women.

So, Fred, let us know--how do you feel about all the Amendments to the Constitution you want to uphold, protect and defend?

3 comments:

Duayne (in SD) said...

First of all you need to know that I enjoy reading your blog. It is one of a very few liberal blogs that actually use a reasoned and logical approach to your opinions. Of course I believe the foundation of that reasoning is in error - but we can save that for another time :)

The real reason for having to state that someone is PRO 2nd Amendment is simply that it is under attack by those that would repeal it.
(http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/04/18/second_amendment/index.html and http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070319&s=wittes031907)

If any of the other rights guaranteed by those other amendments were under the same type of attack, I would be pro those also. (For the record, though a conservative I am against many of the attacks on our liberties by the Patriot Act).

For my personal edification, are there any gun laws you are aware of that have actually reduced gun crimes?

Granny said...

You ask me awhile back after reading my piece "If this is the best we have, the United States is in serious trouble!" just who I would vote for.

Although I am still undecided, I have leanings towards Edwards. Only time will tell for sure who I will vote for. There is still plenty of time for the candidates to step up to the plate and either prove themselves worthy of the job or prove what asses they can be and that they should NOT be in the Whitehouse.

http://inthenickoftime-sanityrules.blogspot.com/

The Old New Englander said...

Thanks for the compliment, Duayne. As I'm sure you guessed, I had my tongue in cheek--at least partially.

On your question about gun laws reducing crime, I think New York's Sullivan Law did--the number of shootings, anyway--a good deal. Of course, we can't really say, can we, because the family member who can't get a gun out and shoot his spouse/parent/child after a fight doesn't become a statistic. Nor do we read about the bank robber who can't get a gun and so doesn't get into a shooting match with an over-zealous security guard.

I'm actually sympathetic to the argument that each state should decide for itself what it wants to do about guns, although I think the proliferation of concealed-carry laws is terrible. But the interstate transportation of guns for the purpose of facilitating crime, or with the intent to sell to anyone who wants one, in defiance of local law (meaning that the seller knows that a high proportion of the weapons will pass into the hands of criminals) ought to be tightly controlled and violation of the law vigorously prosecuted.