Now Amit Singh is the kind of Republican I can live with. Best of luck in the campaign! Great answer here : I am against torture not only because it is un-American but also because I do not believe it is effective. Those who undergo torture can give false intelligence and mislead our efforts.

See, torture is morally wrong. However, let's look at the principle of lesser evils. If you torture individuals (Tenet, the ex-CIA guy, believes it works 70-80% of the time), you prevent future terrorist attacks from occurring. You prevent attacks, and then you save lives. It work with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (who wanted to bomb the Sears Tower, and I work next to it right now). Let's also analzye history. In 1979, there was the Shah of Iran (pro-American), and Jimmy Carter was all about human rights. Yes, the Shah was evil, and it was morally wrong to have this guy in. However, Carter encouraged Khomeini to enter, and as a result, Iran is all radicalized with Shiite surrogates killing innocent civilians in Iraq, Lebanon, and other places. Aggressive tactics work; wiretapping prevented those Pakistani Brits from using their IPODS to blow up Americans two years back. Yes, these tactics may be morally wrong, but at the same time, America needs to protect itself. Iraq may have been wrong to invade, but Bush is right about this. Plus, look at any Arab torture cell, and it's worse off than here. I mean, a girl gets lashed in Saudi Arabia for being with another man (it wasn't her fault...which was this year). And people don't get upset at that, as we do at Bush? You get lashed if you drink beer and get caught in UAE (because of Sharia law). Human rights violations in UAE against Indians & Pakistani's. But no one complains about that?

Andrew McCarthy from National Review on our torture cells
It is also among the most humane, complete with halal meals, a bursting library, lush recreation facilities, communal prayer breaks and even white-gloved U.S. soldiers - Muslims only, please - delivering to each detainee a Koran (U.S. government-issued, even though the inmates believe it commands them to kill Americans)."

One of the biggest problems with H1-B visas is that they are not being processed quickly enough and the backlog continues to grow. The United States has a large demand for high-skilled labor which is going unfilled, and talented engineers from all over the world who used to come to America are now headed elsewhere. The US needs to maintain its technological dominance, and we need to foster the best talent from here at home and recruit from all around the globe.

I think you are referring to Green Cards. H1-B visas are usually processed fast and the problem with them is not backlog but not enough numbers. GCs are the ones that have humongous backlog. There are different bills proposed for these two problems in the Congress.

I support the deal because I believe it will benefit both countries. India’s demand for energy is growing and nuclear technology has proven to be clean, safe and cheap. The United States will also benefit from being able to provide more services to India and improve trade relations with the world’s largest democracy.

Speaking of this, there was a recent news report which got very little publicity and I am unable to find it again. The gist was that some US congressmen had asked specific questions about the deal including and the government did provide answers about the same. However, the catch was that the Government also instructed these congressmen to not make those answers public and keep them confidential. Thus it makes one suspect whether there is more to the deal than meets the eye. It could be that the Governments of both India and the US have something in there which they do not want the public to know or it could be that there is something which the US government does not want the Indian public and government to know. In either case, I was for the deal till recently, but now I feel I want to know what the heck is going on!!

great answers. i haven't switched my residency to VA yet, and now i'm kicking myself. i would have loved to give him my vote. i hope he makes it through!

I mean, a girl gets lashed in Saudi Arabia for being with another man (it wasn't her fault...which was this year). And people don't get upset at that, as we do at Bush? You get lashed if you drink beer and get caught in UAE (because of Sharia law). Human rights violations in UAE against Indians & Pakistani's. But no one complains about that?

Those are certainly complain worthy events, but dare I say, we expect that kind of behaviour from the Saudi government or UAE because it makes no pretense of being equal, fair, sane, normal, etc.

We have higher standards for ourselves and that is why the outrage is higher.

This guy is almost the perfect candidate.

Unfortunately he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and is against Stem Cell funding. That is a little too much pandering to the extreme right for me.

"I think his campaign handled the situation poorly. He should have simply apologized immediately but hindsight is 20/20."

Part of the reason, I'll be voting for the other guy. And yes, I'm in the 8th.

6 · Jane Roti Dough said

I mean, a girl gets lashed in Saudi Arabia for being with another man (it wasn't her fault...which was this year). And people don't get upset at that, as we do at Bush? You get lashed if you drink beer and get caught in UAE (because of Sharia law). Human rights violations in UAE against Indians & Pakistani's. But no one complains about that?

Those are certainly complain worthy events, but dare I say, we expect that kind of behaviour from the Saudi government or UAE because it makes no pretense of being equal, fair, sane, normal, etc.

We have higher standards for ourselves and that is why the outrage is higher.

So you're telling me that you'd rather see more people die in terrorist attacks rather than "waterboarding."

I wish I were in his district. Hell, I wish he were running for President.

5 · ensure said

i would have loved to give him my vote.

er, is that what the kids are calling it these days?

7 · love nature said

This guy is almost the perfect candidate.

Unfortunately he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and is against Stem Cell funding. That is a little too much pandering to the extreme right for me.

Another man telling us women what we are allowed and not allowed to do. Sounds very familiar from his party. I'm tired of it and that is why I vote Democrat.

12 · desi chica said

7 · love nature said

This guy is almost the perfect candidate.

Unfortunately he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and is against Stem Cell funding. That is a little too much pandering to the extreme right for me.

Another man telling us women what we are allowed and not allowed to do. Sounds very familiar from his party. I'm tired of it and that is why I vote Democrat.

Maybe females should stop sleeping around or perhaps use condoms or birth control pills.

13 · Rahul S said

Maybe females should stop sleeping around

Rahul, be careful what you wish for...

14 · Manju said

13 · Rahul S said

Maybe females should stop sleeping around

Rahul, be careful what you wish for...

I hope Amit, Rahul, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell do not get what they wish for. Rahul, I also hope your sisters and daughters make sure to use condoms and pills.

13 · Rahul S said

Maybe females should stop sleeping around or perhaps use condoms or birth control pills.

yeah, men like you are incentive enough to abstain or use birth-control.
heaven forbid an accident should compound what should only be a night's worth of regret.

ps: heard of rape? torn condoms? missed pills? what's that you said? you never make a mistake? or have bad luck? ah, sorry, my bad.

Maybe females should stop sleeping around or perhaps use condoms or birth control pills.

In India most abortions are undertaken by married women who are not sleeping around, with anyone other than their husbands. The husband or his family usually don't want her to give birth to a girl, or another girl, if they already have one or more. Sex selected abortions.

Over here abortions take another cultural form, but either here or in India, there is NO WAY, it will ever be made illegal. In India it is not even an issue, don't see why it is here, when you consider that India is supposed to be the more religious and "moral" of the two countries.

But yeah, I agree with you on condom use. No love, no glove, even for hubby dearest.

In case of rape or incest, that's fine to abort. I mean if a girl lives in the inner city, and doesn't know better, fine. But if it's a girl sleeping around, and wants to abort, that's her f****** problem. She's a murderer in my book.

No love, no glove, even for hubby dearest.

I meant; no glove, no love.

Most men don't want to wear even one condom, what to speak of two at a time, but that does the trick for 100% surety.

I don't recommend pills, they have serious side effects.

I hear there is a non-invasive procedure for men that can be reversed later when they decide to father children.

That would probably be the most ideal, for women at least. Don't know how men would feel about that, but probably not great. So what then, I guess it's back to the 2 glove rule.

Abstinance is not sustainable long-term since most people nowadays do not marry until their 30s anyway.

I could see taking a vow of celibacy for a few years in your teens or 20s, but when you are looking at more than a decade of being single, no, not possible.

And then you have people who are married but do not want to have more than x number of kids (usually 1 or 2). Sometimes they go for abortions as well. That's when I say the man needs to get a procedure done.

18 · Rahul S said

In case of rape or incest, that's fine to abort. I mean if a girl lives in the inner city, and doesn't know better, fine. But if it's a girl sleeping around, and wants to abort, that's her f****** problem. She's a murderer in my book.

That's her f***** problem? What century are you from???!!! Amit will never get my vote, espicially with arrogant men like you supporting him.

There are cases where the father wants her to have the baby and she doesn't, isn't ready for motherhood. In that case she could be paid by the father to carry the child to term and then he could legally take charge of it as the sole parent.

There are so many alternatives to abortion, but still, I think it should always be made safely available. And it will be, there is no question about it. Politicians oppose it for votes. They know there is no way it's going to be made illegal in this country - ever.

In India it is not even a political issue. I'm surprised it is one here.

This guy is too liberal (according to Virginia electorate) in terms of pro-life issues. Plus it's the home state of George Allen Macaca. Not to be cynical, he's not going to be victorious. He should take a few notes from Jindal (maybe except the converting part) in playing to his electorate.

I am a virgin and can not get sex. That is why I am opposed to women sleeping around. If I can not get any, then noone else should either. And ladies I am single and available.

12 · desi chica said

7 · love nature said

This guy is almost the perfect candidate.

Unfortunately he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and is against Stem Cell funding. That is a little too much pandering to the extreme right for me.

Another man telling us women what we are allowed and not allowed to do. Sounds very familiar from his party. I'm tired of it and that is why I vote Democrat.

Spare us the feminist crap. The father should have a say in the child's fate.

I am a virgin and can not get sex. That is why I am opposed to women sleeping around. If I can not get any, then noone else should either. And ladies I am single and available.

Two things are required to woo women, Rahul S, good looks and a good personality.

11 · i miss rahul said

5 · ensure said

i would have loved to give him my vote.

er, is that what the kids are calling it these days?

Nope, I used the right V word. :)

25 · Jane Roti Doe said

Two things are required to woo women, Rahul S, good looks and a good personality.

er, what about that glove Jane. 3 things.

24 · desiriksha said

12 · desi chica said

7 · love nature said

Spare us the feminist crap. The father should have a say in the child's fate.

Then maybe the father can carry the baby in his body too.

Seriously, I am all for letting father's have a say, but it is usually the men that want the abortions. Thus the point is that anti-choice legislation is ridiculous.

That can be negotiated later. I'm talking first stage attraction here. Either Rahul has it or he don't.

29 · Jane Roti Doe said

That can be negotiated later. I'm talking first stage attraction here. Either Rahul has it or he don't.

I would guess that he don't.

29 · Jane Roti Doe said

Either Rahul has it or he don't.

well, if he hasn't gotten it, he doesn't have it.

It's simple. Why should we reward risky behavior? Why should the government bail out Bears Stearns? It's idiotic. People who are brought (middle class or better) should know better than to partake in irresponsible behavior. All I said is that if you're sleeping around with numerous partners, and have an abortion, that's murder. Simple as that. I'll give pass to a person in the barrio or ghetto who don't know any better. I think that's a fair assessment.

32 · Rahul S said

It's simple. Why should we reward risky behavior? Why should the government bail out Bears Stearns? It's idiotic. People who are brought (middle class or better) should know better than to partake in irresponsible behavior. All I said is that if you're sleeping around with numerous partners, and have an abortion, that's murder. Simple as that. I'll give pass to a person in the barrio or ghetto who don't know any better. I think that's a fair assessment.

So if a girl is a slut and gets pregnant and aborts its murder. But if a girl is dumb and lives in the ghetto and aborts its not murder. And if a girl rapes and aborts its not murder.

er, sounds a tad bit illogical to me.

Amit's a good guy from what I can see, but I do wish he were pro-choice.

I think we are also overlooking an obvious issue here as well. He's against funding stem cell research. The majority of Americans are for it, even those that are pro-life. Let's not let the religous right stop us from great medical advances, all because of their holier than thou attitude.

It's murder (in my book), but due to their circumstances, it's fine. Wedlock rates hurt African American and Hispanics a lot. Last time I checked, it was 70% for Blacks, and getting up there for Hispanics. Their ultra promiscuous behavior and lack of parenting account for this. Most of us have two parents (middle class and upper middle class families), and we're raised with a better understanding. Author David Frum agrees with me, but he says it in a more politically correct manner.

19 · Jane Roti Doe said

what to speak of two at a time

two at a time is not recommended for condoms. but two at a time otherwise is ok. pretty great even, i've heard.

24 · desiriksha said

The father should have a say in the child's fate.

not the republican party though.

32 · Rahul S said

Why should we reward risky behavior?

Most people don't think of abortion as reward. Should state-funded healthcare insurance (any insurance for that matter) cover people for accidents that happen during other risky activities (hunting, skiing, bike riding, drag racing --whatever)? If the answer is yes, then they should provide abortions. It is a medically-indicated procedure.
Insurance is a risk-management instrument, not a weapon for the moral police.

Hey Amit - I hope that we see many more candidates like you running in both major parties. Best of luck to you!

Get away from employer based health care and force insurance companies to compete for business from individuals directly. That way we can stick it to the insurance companies when they don’t give us the service we want.

Thanks to him for answering the quests but I don't buy this answer to the health care question. Because what you'll get is what happens in the airline industry, that is, everyone essentially colluding together to provide the same level of service.

For something like health care you need a governing body to regulate PRICE & QOS (quality of service)

36 · nun said

19 · Jane Roti Doe said

what to speak of two at a time

but two at a time otherwise is ok. pretty great even, i've heard.

I would love to be part of that twosome. ;) And if you take my virginity and I get you pregnant, I will even change my opinion on abortion. :)

Seriously, give me a call. My number is 1-900-LOSER4U

Why is everyone going at it over abortion here? Did Amit not say he just wanted the states to have control over their own laws? He wasnt making a Roe v Wade aregument based on religious morality; he made it based on a belief of an abuse of Federal power. But even if you dont buy that argument, hes running for Conrgess, not the Senate. He would have no control over that issue either way, because he would have no say over judges.

And stem cell research... hes not for banning it. Hes againtst throwing tax payer money at it. There is a reason why virtually no private money is going into it; because its a politically motivated science with little practical results at this point. Remeber, its government chosing of tecnologies to appease the masses that has led to the ethonal fiascal and food price inlfation. Corn, wheat, and rice have all doubled in the last couple of years partially due to the exact types of policies that federal funding of stem cell research is... that is federal involvment in technology development and subsidising innefective products. Government, by historical record is really bad at picking winners.

I'll give pass to a person in the barrio or ghetto who don't know any better.

Please, condoms are passed out for free in the 'hood.

They know what to do.

By saying they don't is treating them like ignorant ass kids or animals.

And, 'hood girls are usually the ones who have their babies, not abort them. Though the government would probably prefer that they abort them. So really, your arguments don't make sense.

You want blacks and hispanics to abort but whites not to?

Sounds racist.

44 · Jane Roti Doe said

And, 'hood girls are usually the ones who have their babies, not abort them. Though the government would probably prefer that they abort them. So really, your arguments don't make sense.

You want blacks and hispanics to abort but whites not to?

Sounds racist.

Those born & raised in economically distressed situations, I could understand (including hickvilles as well). Here's equal opportunity for you, my liberal friend.

Voters have a right to know where our politician stands on issues (regardless if they are running for senate or congress). I think many people don't want Roe v. Wade overturned and returned to the states because they do not think it was an over extension of federal power, but rather a protection for women and doctors against certain states criminalizing them. People have every right to be upset even if someone says they just want to return that power to the states. I personally do not want women in Mississippi or Louisana to have to resort to coat hangers and have their doctors thrown in jail.

Im in no way saying that voters dont have the right to know where politicians stand. Nor am I saying that everyone or even most people think it was an over extantion of federal power. All I am saying, is we have people making accusations on this post over moral and religios arguments that he is making, when he is not putting forth that argument at all, as well as comments about not supporting a candidate due to this issue.

So this means a few things:

1.He is not trying to enforce morality on others, but rather there is an argument over how the Federalist system should work. How we treat teh abortion issue also has implication on other issues. One can easily make the argument that by "stretching" the constitution to make a rulling on abortion int he way that it did, we have opened up a precident for greter federal power in other areas. He is running on a limited government platform. If he is going to be consistant, it has to work both ways, not when it is only convienint for the left or the right. He wont use federal power to mandate abortion rules, nor will he use to to racially profile.

2.He is not running on this as an issue; it seems to me it is pretty apparent this is not the reaosn why he is running.

3. Because he is running for congress, and not the senate, and therefore has no power over this issue, it is very stupid to support or non support him over the abortion issue. There are many other problems that the country is dealign with right now, and making a decision whether to vote for somone or not based on an issue that he wouldnt even have any control over is stupid in my opinion. It's this kind of voting behavior that gets us corupt bastards in office on both sides, because they rally around their one improtant issue tot heir district and voters dont take into consideration the whole picture.

Those born & raised in economically distressed situations, I could understand (including hickvilles as well). Here's equal opportunity for you, my liberal friend.

Liberal? Ha. Ha. That right there shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Funny, nobody who knows me in real life would ever refer to me as "liberal".

Amit seems like a nice young man with a sense of humor. Hope he wins in the fall.

Yikes! This wasn't the discussion I was expecting since I am far from an "I know better than thou" morality candidate. Perhaps I can explain myself a little further. I do not believe in big government. Both fiscally and socially I believe in responsibility and freedom ¬ you should have the final say over your life and not some politicians doing whatever they can to pander to a lobbyist for money so they stay in office.

1) Stem Cell Funding - I did not say I would ban stem cell research but rather not use federal tax payer money to fund it. Private companies could continue to perform research much in the same fashion Celera Genomics worked to map the human genome. If you believe in such efforts then invest in those companies with your money. I disagree with taking money from someone else to pay for something they oppose even if it is something I agree with.

2) Roe v Wade - Of course abortion is a complex and emotional issue and no one should believe any woman takes the decision lightly. My disagreement with the Roe v Wade court case is that it is an over-extension of the powers of the federal government and, thus, un-Constitutional in my opinion. My opposition is based on my interpretation of the powers granted to the federal government by the people through the Constitution and not over the morality of the issue. If the states handle it as they used to, some states would allow abortions and others would not, but many would adopt policies which will allow states to learn from one another. I personally believe the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice movements work against each other too much even though they want the same thing, fewer unwanted pregnancies. I wish there was a Pro-Natal movement that assured every child coming into the world would be loved and taken care of.

3) Torture - We are trying to value one's rights and life versus the greater good. I do not think the treatment of prisoners at Abu Gharib made us safer. I definitely understand the predicament our interrogators are put in, and I'm not saying giving a suspect a gulab jamun to get them to say the truth will work, but they do have tools at their disposal that are effective but not torture. When I travel abroad during my work with the Intelligence Community I have a card saying the United States follows the Geneva Conventions and if I was to be captured for some reason, my captors should abide by those same rules. I'm sure many would say terrorists would never abide by those guidelines but why should Americans compare themselves to such lowlifes?

1. If I oppose the Iraq War, why are you taking my taxes and paying for it? Atleast Stem Cell research will do the Country a lot more good than the current war.
2. Opposition to Slavery was considered an over-extension of Federal power.

I hope Amit does win. I have a lot of respect for people who are true to themselves, even if I disagree with them.
No Piyush to Bobby.

Unfortunately, you're on the wrong end of the spectrum Amit to be a 'small' government person.

The expansion of the Federal Government that has occurred with the past 8 years has directly been a result of the Republican Party and it's massive mandated percentage based effort to privatize government services. More so, it's come as a result of defense contractors competing for contracts outside the defense arena. There is no need to look further that the financial reports of the top 5 contractors in the DC area to understand where Federal money is flowing.

Additionally, the entire growth of the non governmental private industry intelligence industry has resulted in companies like Blackwater which for all practical purposes have been above the law.

I would hazard a guess that your own company listed as a minority business has gotten awarded contracts on that basis and you subcontract out the work to other companies.

The Republican Party is the "Big Government" Party or perhaps I should say the Corporate Welfare Party.

3. Torture is an acceptable tool to extract information. Classifying your enemy low-life and dehumanizing them is part of all wars, don't fall in that trap. Finally read up on Chamberlin (see the Chris Matthews interview?)

48 · Jane Roti Doe said

Those born & raised in economically distressed situations, I could understand (including hickvilles as well). Here's equal opportunity for you, my liberal friend.

Liberal? Ha. Ha. That right there shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Funny, nobody who knows me in real life would ever refer to me as "liberal".

Piyush would say that you're a lib.

amit was a very good sport for participating like that! he's a very moderate and enlightened republican, and like many of you, one that i could live with. he's not the "old-money, former-frat boy, bully with the trophy wife" republican. also, he's so proud of his brownness, unlike piyush.

if i could ask amit some things it would be:
1. bomb pakistan's baluchistan/nwfp province?
2. should we increase the number of seats in medical schools in the usa?
3. energy independence - would you support a more stringent gas guzzler tax to, perhaps, offset the price of gas?
4. less tax cuts for rich and more for middle/lower classes?

51 · DesiInNJ said

2. Opposition to Slavery was considered an over-extension of Federal power.

and the racial eugenics movement was pro-choice. so its a wash.

Another man telling us women what we are allowed and not allowed to do. Sounds very familiar from his party. I'm tired of it and that is why I vote Democrat.

No actually its another man telling the Federal Government what they have no jurisdiction over. People apparently just want their preferable result with little regard for procedure. That is how a Republic dies and becomes a Federal Democracy. I am a man who doesn't want to tell a woman what to do but it should be done in the proper manner.

2. Opposition to Slavery was considered an over-extension of Federal power.

The 13th Amendment, ratified December 6th 1865

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime where the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist in the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

How come so many conservatives who talk about smaller government rely on government contracts for their revenue?

60 · UPS said

How come so many conservatives who talk about smaller government rely on government contracts for their revenue?

also, a party which hates government can't possibly do a good job managing government. republicans hate government.

at what point does state's rights supercede a federal law? if he feels this passionate about the constitution, then doesn't this nullify his respect for the constition?

Piyush would say that you're a lib.

I'd prefer to be a lip, drinking that nectar.

Rahul S., I'm curious about your opinion regarding sex selective abortions in India and elsewhere with regards to the Indian diaspora.

62 · Jane Roti Doe said

Piyush would say that you're a lib.

I'd prefer to be a lip, drinking that nectar.

Rahul S., I'm curious about your opinion regarding sex selective abortions in India and elsewhere with regards to the Indian diaspora.

It's wrong to abort a child (in the case of most Indians) because she's a female.

My disagreement with the Roe v Wade court case is that it is an over-extension of the powers of the federal government and, thus, un-Constitutional in my opinion.

Amit, much respect to you and I do like your overall positions and even the part you talk about after this quoted sentence. However, it does bug me when people get overly excited about unconstitutionality of things. Frankly, if a state decided to ban abortion, aren't they imposing their beliefs on others. I say beliefs because irrespective of what the loony bunch of the social far right believes, decisions should be based on the best information at hand which in this case is what science provides and thus there is no reason to form laws or allow states (which would be a group of people again) based on premises that life begins at conception. In that case, even if something is unconstitutional but incorrect, should we follow the constitution? You seem to be suggesting that independent of what is right or wrong, if its unconstitutional you would never support an issue. You seem to be quite good on most other issues and thus I suspect you are following this line for political reasons, which I guess is fine. Better be elected on compromises than not at all.

Good luck!

How come so many conservatives who talk about smaller government rely on government contracts for their revenue?

probably b/c they're not anarchists.

at what point does state's rights supercede a federal law? if he feels this passionate about the constitution, then doesn't this nullify his respect for the constition?

10th amendment. powers not specifically delegated to the federal govt are left to the states or people. a key aspect to federalism, a part of separation of powers and limited govt which protects us against tyranny.

not a small deal.

In that case, even if something is unconstitutional but incorrect, should we follow the constitution?

Ardy:

Under your philosophy the social contract is no longer possible, and presupposes a world where right and wrong, or just and unjust laws, are "known" beforehand, not argued thru the democratic system. So, by your own argument, since anti-abortion laws are considered unconstitutional right now, should a pro-lifer, certain in her views, disregard roe vs. wade and try to ban abortion in her state anyway? Under your disposition, what basis do you have to argue against that?

Or look at it purely politically. roe v wade took one of the democrats most popular platforms off the table, relegating the matter to constitutional law as opposed to state legislators. this, ironically helped usher in the age of conservatism, as it solidified a core base w/i the conservative movement (pro-lifers) while simultaneously allowing moderates to vote for them, since they where no longer afraid of conservatives banning abortion. oh, the irony.

57 · Manju said

51 · DesiInNJ said

2. Opposition to Slavery was considered an over-extension of Federal power.

and the racial eugenics movement was pro-choice. so its a wash.

Two wrongs do not make a right.
Also, I see no difference in an unwanted child and an unwanted girl (sex-selection) abortion. One cannot be pro-choice and anti-sex selection abortion at the same time.

I certainly don't agree with Ardy's claim that something that is constitutional should not be followed if it is incorrect. But the real problem is that he didn't put constitutional in quotes.

Constructionism is one of the biggest loads of hooey I've seen bandied about. I give credit to right wingers for skillfully taking control of the public discussion and defining it with terms like "pro-life", "climate change" and "constructionist", but it doesn't make their positions any more valid.

When the commerce clause was going to force the state of Florida to negotiate with Indian tribes, it was seen to violate a quite expansive reading of the Eleventh Amendment, a position that was quite effectively rebutted by Souter in his dissent in that case - which was based on a strict constructionist reading of the eleventh amendment.

However, the constructionists on the court took refuge in the self-same commerce amendment when it was seen to help the right-wing "war on drugs", by using the risk of some marijuana floating across state lines to override the right of the State of California to legalize medical marijuana.

These same constructionists saw no contradiction of the 24th amendment when the state of Indiana decided to impose a voter ID requirement, an effective poll tax on its poor, minorities and elderly.

And will find completely ignore the phrases "well-regulated" and "militia" when it comes to their literal readings of the second amendment.

I bet that if conservatives, for whatever reason, were on the other side of this abortion debate, would see an overarching right to privacy in their "constructionist" readings of the first, third, fourth, and fifth amendments, and use the ninth amendment to argue that the enumeration of certain rights in the bill of rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.

So, let's not delude ourselves: Constitutionality is a right wing excuse to prevent people from having a nationwide right to abortion. It is convenient to bandy about a states' rights excuse in a different context than the anti-minority sense that Reagan liked, but the conservative propaganda that their reading of the constitution is correctly interpretive of the founders' intent is a baldfaced lie.

The only hope for individual rights to be upheld in the immediate future is for Scalia to pop off during the next democratic presidency, and for the president to not succumb to convenient invocation of a rhetoric of "unity" and "bipartisanship" - something that has completely been forgotten in the last 8 years - while appointing a young liberal judge.

Also, I see no difference in an unwanted child and an unwanted girl (sex-selection) abortion.

The difference is the same reason you might support the right of the police to stop and search, but not to racially discriminate in that act.

Or to put #68 in simpler terms, "states' rights" and "constitutionality" are just conservative dogwhistles.

69 · Constructionist nonsense said

The difference is the same reason you might support the right of the police to stop and search, but not to racially discriminate in that act.

the police don't have inalienable natural rights, only enumerated powers. so they are bound by the equal protection clause in a way that individuals are not.

a better analogy would be th right to free speech. you can't say you support it but want to ban racist publications. so, the right to an abortion should include the right to discriminate on the basis of gender, or it is no right at all.

71 · Manju said

a better analogy would be th right to free speech. you can't say you support it but want to ban racist publications. so, the right to an abortion should include the right to discriminate on the basis of gender, or it is no right at all.

Not really. This is like saying that the right to consume alcohol should allow the right to drive drunk too. Potential misuse of a right is no excuse to ban the right. There are ways to prevent misuse without banning the right itself.

The real problem with the selective ban in the case of abortion is enforcement: How do you divine intent?

72 · Constructionist nonsense said

Not really. This is like saying that the right to consume alcohol should allow the right to drive drunk too

the ban on driving drunkingg can be justified by the fact that it protects other individuals. in our classic liberal framework, your rights end where another's begins. the right to abort a female fetus would not fall under that category, unless of course you belive the fetus has rights, in which case the entire foundation of abortion rights comes crumbling down.

70 · Constructionist nonsense said

Or to put #68 in simpler terms, "states' rights" and "constitutionality" are just conservative dogwhistles

this would be correct if you lose the word just. surely, abortion rights are not "just" dogwhstles for eugenics or ant-black racism, as anyone familiar with margaret sanger knows.

likewise, states rights is central to federalism, to separation of powers, and to limited govt despite also being a dogwhstle for segregation.

I bet that if conservatives, for whatever reason, were on the other side of this abortion debate

In India it's the conservatives who want the right to abort female fetuses and liberals who cry out against it.

Just a cultural observation....

Couple of quick comments before I run...

In India it's the conservatives who want the right to abort female fetuses and liberals who cry out against it.

I don't necessarily think that it falls into such clean divides in India, but even if it did, definitions of "conservative" and "liberal" don't transport even across America and Canada, and certainly not to India. What people want to socially conserve in America is different from what they want to in India.

this would be correct if you lose the word just.

Ok. Point taken.

the ban on driving drunkingg can be justified by the fact that it protects other individuals. in our classic liberal framework, your rights end where another's begins.

Well, they have a right to life, and I should have the right to drive drunk, just not to injure somebody. Maybe the fact that I was drunk can be considered a contributor to negligence while sentencing, in case I get involved in an accident. In any case, don't think it is very productive to argue an analogy, and sorry about introducing one in the first place.

the right to abort a female fetus would not fall under that category, unless of course you belive the fetus has rights, in which case the entire foundation of abortion rights comes crumbling down.

You can make a principled argument based on gender balance in society, which has nothing to do with the fetus, but rather about social balance and the value placed on adult women.

this would be correct if you lose the word just.

Just one last addition: My point, if it wasn't that clear from #68, is that constructionism, despite its pretense to some superior technical merit, is just an ideology like anything else. And so is deciding what falls under states' rights. Using them to justify a position doesn't automatically make the position legitimate, or ethically preferable. It's just a matter of who's in a position to define what's legal and what's not.

In that sense, it is indeed a dogwhistle. And often, a red herring. Alright, that's it with the colorful imagery from me.

>>You can make a principled argument based on gender balance in society, which has nothing to do with the fetus, but rather about social balance and the value placed on adult women.

Yes. But social balance cannot come at the expense of individual liberty (to selectively abort female fetuses, in this context).

M. Nam

74 · Manju said

70 · Constructionist nonsense said

Or to put #68 in simpler terms, "states' rights" and "constitutionality" are just conservative dogwhistles

this would be correct if you lose the word just. surely, abortion rights are not "just" dogwhstles for eugenics or ant-black racism, as anyone familiar with margaret sanger knows.

likewise, states rights is central to federalism, to separation of powers, and to limited govt despite also being a dogwhstle for segregation.

Damn that's good.

Jane Roti Doe is PARDESI GORI, people.

Amit,

no idea if you're still monitoring this thread, but it's good to see you on SM, even if this crowd is working at a lower level than is usual lately. I hope you're doing well, and I welcome the challenge you're offering Moran. Do you think you've got what it takes to unseat him?

Best wishes, and get in touch when you get a chance. I'd love to catch up. Email is in sig...

-Salil (or Jay, whatever)

:-)

24 · desiriksha said

't

folks - Let's not lose sight of the question and the answer - Amit indicated in his answer regarding Roe vs. Wade that he believed the Federal government was overstepping it's bounds and that this is a States issue. This is not a question or answer on abortion, but one of States rights vs. consolidation of power in Washington. His answer was more than correct as he sighted the real issue, not knee jerk reaction to whether abortion is moral or not.

Whether your are for or against abortion, it should be decided at the State level. This is key to our unique democracy and puts more power and responsibility for decision to either ban or allow abortion with the people most impacted by such decision - you and me.

State's Rights and upholding our Constitution is/should be a corner-stone of any Republican running for office. If you believe that Roe vs Wade or other legislation which impacts our children's education, what identification we carry, etc. are issues better decided/legislated by those closer to us (and more easily held accountable) then you should vote the party that is against further consolidation of Federal powers