Remember back when Fred Thompson didn’t-but-really-did endorse an amendment to the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage? Yes, well now that he’s in the race officially, he wants to win your socially-conservative vote.
“I would support a constitutional amendment which says some off-the-wall court decision in one state, that recognizes the importance of marriage in that state, like Massachusetts, which is a good state, do not come to another state and have it recognized in that state,” Mr. Thompson said. “You’re not bound by what that other state does.”
“My concern is under the full faith and credit clause that some court — in the second state — is gonna say that you’re gonna have to recognize that marriage. That should not be the case,” Mr. Thompson said.
… “The second part of my amendment would also state that judges — judges could not impose this on the federal or state level, unless a state legislature signs off on it.”
So, parts of the federal Constitution pose the risk of giving him an outcome that
won’t win him votes he doesn’t like. In the name of federalism, he proposes that we scrap that bit of language, but only in the context of marriage, because he wouldn’t think of toying with the Constitution in the future to meet some undetermined threat to our sensibilities. He holds the Constitution sacred. He’s a prudent federalist.
As to the second part, why don’t we just do away with courts? Obviously we’re uninterested in legal scholarship. The masses know how individual rights should be offered. You want to claim a right, put it to a vote. Until the populace agrees, through the legislature, you are merely requesting special rights. That’s un-American. How dare you?!
Fred Thompson clearly does not understand that our government is a three-pronged system of checks and balances. He can’t be trusted to respect the independence of the judiciary from the legislative, so I shall assume he can’t be trusted to respect the independence of either branch from the executive. Eight years of that is enough.