That distinction will soon be an anachronism.
I gather there’s an important distinction to be made between:
A. “The Feds are being too oppressive - we assert state’s rights to increase the freedom of our citizens.”
and
B. “The Feds are not being oppressive enough - we assert state’s rights to limit the freedom of our citizens.”
The “B” version gets used, I gather, some 95%+ of the time. Actually, aside from some scattered and halfhearted attempts at medical marijuana, I can’t offhand think of a recent “A” example.
The whole same sex marriage example, as discussed before. Besides that, it happens all the time. Mass. and Conn., for instance, give disabled people more protection against discrimination that the federal government doesn’t. Iowa makes it easier to prove employment discrimination on the basis of gender than the feds. California bans discrimination based on marital status. New Mexico gives someone accused of a crime more rights. Tennessee makes it harder for the police to search your car, and so on.
A bill stating that fertilized eggs are human beings is about as intelligent as a bill banning the use of pillows in support of dust mite rights.
I wonder if Ryan, Bachmann or any supporters of this bill can spell Zygote.
Missed edit.
In Ryan’s essay, he actually compares the mindset of pro-choice, or legal abortions, to the mindset of the Dred Scott v. Sanford case. :rolleyes:
Sounds like he gets his quotes from the same place Palin does. At least his equal 100! 
On the issue of abortion, it boils to down to how one defines “citizens”.
Locrian: I don’t doubt those poll numbers. What he leaves out is that there is is a good chunk of the electorate who consider themselves “pro-life” but still don’t want to make all abortions illegal.
Yes. Z-Y-G-O-T-E.
What exactly was “too far right” about Nixon after Watergate and GWB during the last years of his presidency? Was it TARP or the auto bailouts?
Even if one chooses to include a fetus in that definition, the issue is what to do when citizens have interests that are in conflict. After all, a trespasser may be a citizen, but that doesn’t mean a homeowner citizen has to tolerate a trespasser’s unwanted presence.
The National Catholic Reporter argues that in the presidential race, the true pro-life candidate is not who you think it is:
This is similar to an argument in a current GD thread on abortion – the “real” pro-lifer is not the one that wants to put women and doctors in jail, or in back alleys. They are instead the ones who work to make abortion as unnecessary, and therefore as rare, as possible.
True. But he can’t drag someone onto his property and then shoot him dead for trespassing. Well, maybe they can do that in Texas, but not most places.
At that point, it was that Nixon had proven himself a crook, and Bush had proven himself a total failure.
Those that continued to support Nixon and Bush did so because their ideologies rendered any other option unacceptable. The fact that Nixon was a crook and Bush had made a mess of the country in ways that were obvious to the other 73% were secondary to them.
Regardless of how they got onto your property, their continued stay on your property is at your pleasure, as I understand it.