Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Machaon who wrote (121643)	1/10/2001 1:46:16 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

If we allow each state to create it's own laws then we may end up like the old Soviet Union.........no longer a union but many individual countries. If we had left slavery up to individual states we would probably still have plantations with slaves in the South. All Americans are granted certain rights by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so the federal gov't should be required to enforce the policy of those documents. If the Republicans truly believe in States rights then why didn't they support the decisions of the FLorida Supreme Court in our "election" in Nov.?

To: Machaon who wrote (121643)	1/10/2001 1:53:20 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

First, the committee listened to testimony on the matter. Second, the decision to call for impeachment, and subsequently to impeach, is ipso facto a decision on the part of those who voted affirmatively that there was sufficient reason to impeach. There is no constitutional requirement formally to debate that issue, anyway. Whether there is a religious basis or not is immaterial. There is a basis in common legal reasoning. Since you do not explain why it would be a disaster to allow states to legislate on the matter, I have nothing to respond to.......

To: Machaon who wrote (121643)	1/11/2001 1:28:38 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

"<< I myself would like to see the matter returned to the states to be argued out in the legislatures. >> That would be a disaster. 50 states with 50 different "reproductive freedom" policies" And how would that be a disaster? That was the situation before Roe v. Wade. It is to a large part what we have now - some states have more or less strict allowances for abortion. Many women in PA for example, go to NJ because the laws are more lax. It being such a divisive issue, it is in the best interest of both pro-life and pro-choice camps to fight it out in the states, where there is a greater chance of having one's voice heard, and affecting an outcome. If it remains on the federal level, then all bets are off if Roe v. Wade is overturned. On the state level, there is probably a greater chance of maintaining the legality of abortion on the grounds that it seems most Americans, though they might agree it distasteful and horrid practice, do not want to return to the days of back-alley abortion quacks. Returning the issue to the states might be distasteful, for God forbid one would have to stoop to political activism for a cause. And on the state level yet. Who gets publicity for state-level causes? <sarcasm off here> Derek