PART 1 OF 2

I believe we sometimes do not dig down deep enough to fully understand why some politicians take the positions they do. I also believe there are often different approaches taken by Governors and by Congressmen, as they seek to get things done.

Having been used to being the top dog in their state, Governors generally seem to try to exercise greater control and dominance over their Party’s members in the Congress - and attempt to rule over them more.

Congressmen, on the other hand, have to work with each other and nudge things along in order to get things accomplished. They know you don’t simply tell the Congress what to do - you rather convince them - sometimes one at a time. And, you are sometimes labeled as a “compromiser” for doing so.

I think that Congressmen have generally made better Presidents than Governors. I think Governors Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and even President Bush (who I generally have supported) have been weak in working with Congress. The exception is President Reagan who, as once the President of the Screen Actors Guild, learned to work convincingly with people and was legendary in working with Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill in getting things done. He functioned with the Congress more as a Congressman would than as a Governor.

Consider that Ford, Nixon (prior to his Watergate problems), Johnson and Kennedy seemed to be able to work quite well with Congress.

Here’s a case in point. Both Senator Fred Thompson (who I vigorously supported) and Senator John McCain (who I voted against in the primary) have angered top Evangelical religious leaders because neither are in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning abortion. This stance by them has been used by these leaders to label them as being “soft” on right to life issues, even though their voting records show otherwise.

Few have taken the time to find out WHY these right-to-life candidates have opposed a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. The media has offered little help in presenting their rationale, as the full answer will not fit with clarity into a 1 minute sound bite.

But, in an in-depth interview, Fred Thompson explained his reasoning - and I thought it was brilliant. I’ll try to put forth his explanation and rationale as best as I can.

He said Senators deal in what is possible to accomplish - not just what sounds good. Of course, it sounds great to be for such a Constitutional amendment, but one is just shooting with blanks and wasting time and effort that could be channeled otherwise to really accomplish something - by trying to accomplish something that sounds great - but is virtually impossible to achieve.

Before Roe vs. Wade, abortion issues were left to states’ rights. A Federalist like Thompson readily agrees with this position. The 10th Amendment, part of The Bill of Rights, states that any powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution - nor prohibited from the states by the Constitution - are powers reserved to the state. As such, the banning of abortion is a states’ right issue - as it was before the Supreme Court, through Roe vs. Wade, improperly hijacked it to a federal issue.

Understand this - both Thompson and McCain want Roe vs. Wade to be overturned. Period. No ifs, ands or buts - or wiggle room. They both want to see it stricken down.

But, Thompson opposes a Constitutional amendment banning abortion for the following reasons (and I suspect McCain sees it this way, as well):

1. If such an amendment was possible and ever enacted, a future president could conceivably seat liberal Judges on the Supreme Court who could then overturn the Constitutional amendment - declaring it unConstitutional. Then, we would be back where we started.

2. If Roe vs. Wade was struck down, the abortion issue would then automatically go to the states according to the 10th Amendment (as it did before), as the Constitution would neither have those rights delegated to the federal government, nor prohibit the states from having them as their rights to deal with.

3. Hopefully, 15 to 20 states would ban abortion rather quickly. This would be a huge accomplishment and would save many babies’ lives. And, such a goal is achievable. Perhaps more than 20 states would ban abortions, in time.

PART 2 CONTINUES BELOW

PART 2 OF 2

4. If a state legislature will not ban abortion, residents of that state can vote them out and vote others in that will vote as they wish. If the Governor will not sign such a bill, but will veto it, he too can be replaced by the people. The people are in ultimate control of this issue, then, in all 50 states. The people are not in control at all, at this point. Not seeking a Constitutional amendment - but seeking the striking down of Roe vs. Wade and letting the people in the states have ultimate control through their elected legislature results in more abortions being banned nationwide.

5. Some quickly are dissatisfied with this, as the states who refuse to vote to ban abortion cannot be forced to do so by the federal government (without a Constitutional amendment) and they can decide to allow abortions in their states.

But, consider this. It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. That means, 38 states have to agree to the amendment - or there is no amendment. So, the states that concern some by not voting to ban abortion in their state (if it becomes again a states’ rights issue) certainly would be among those who refuse to ratify the amendment.

So, under this scenario, 37 states could be willing to ban abortion in their states but, if just 1 of the remaining 13 states refuses to go along, NONE of the states would be able to ban abortions within their own states. As many as 37 states would be forced to allow abortions - when they could ban them if the pathway chosen was “states’ rights” and not a Constitutional amendment.

A Constitutional amendment is not going to happen. it is not realistic to believe that at least 38 states will ratify an amendment in a reasonably short amount of time. But, realistically, 15-20 states or more could ban abortions speedily if all of the effort was just mobilized behind getting Roe vs. Wade overturned.

And that will only be accomplished by a non-Democrat president. John McCain is the only non-Democrat running who is electable in the general election.

Think of how many millions of babies will be saved if 15 - 20 states or more ban abortions. Think of how many will needlessly die if 30 states ratify the amendment, and we wait many years for the final 8 states to come aboard.

When a state ratifies an amendment, the amendment stays in limbo and inactive until it finally achieves the vote of the final state that trips the trigger - no matter how long that is. The last amendment passed was the 27th amendment - which puts limitations on Congressional pay raises. It took over 202 YEARS to pass. Maryland first ratified it in December of 1789, and New Jersey finally tripped the trigger with the vote comprising 3/4 in May of 1992. Illinois and California added their votes over the top within 60 days after New Jersey. Nine states still have not ratified the amendment.

But, many states ratified it years earlier. Imagine if the amendment was to ban abortions, and many states, willing to ban them state-wide, had to wait 202 years for an amendment to pass. Imagine how many babies would be slaughtered in the meantime. But, states in favor of the ban could have had those laws in place within months, if the goal was the striking down of Roe vs. Wade through the appointment of conservative Judges - not the passing of a Constitutional amendment, as so many religious leaders demand today.

Senators seem to get this a lot quicker than Governors.

See why Thompson and McCain are not in favor of a Constitutional amendment? it would make all states wait to ban abortion until 38 states agreed - rather than allowing states to get it done individually almost immediately - thereby saving more babies’ lives.

But - can’t you hear the rhetoric? “I am in favor of a Constitutional amendment banning abortion, but my opponent is not.” Doesn’t quite tell the whole story, does it?

See why Fred Thompson couldn’t fit the whole story into a 1 minute sound bite? That’s also the reason he wouldn’t “raise his hand” in the Iowa debate concerning his complete views on Global Warming. Some issues are complex - and need to be adequately explained.

Again, if we are going to eliminate a candidate on the basis of some of his positions, we should dig deep to really find out why he holds those positions or advocates a particular strategy. We might be pleasantly surprised.