By gparisi176 Good morning. Mr. Cunningahm, I am pro-choice. I believe that women should be able to decide their lives, even if it means terminating a fetus. Certain circumstances are extenuating in this matter which brings me to my point. I was 18 years old when I had an abortion. My argument went something like this; Do I have this child and not give it the life he or she deserves, do I go through the full 9 months of pregnancy put my child up for adoption and risk one day having to explain why i did this to a child seeking his or her biological mother, or do I abort? I'll say it again, i chose the latter. Do you think this was "right" or "fair"? Now I'll tell you what happened when I was 17. Four days before my 18th birthday, I was picked out by the man who raped me. I did not tell anyone, my parents the police, even my friends. i went home that night, shaky and disgusting and washed myself like i never had before. After 2 months of being harassed by this person, followed to and from school, ultimately terrorized, before going to the police. Who then had a rape kit perfomed by a local hospital where i then lived. at this point i found that I was pregnant. I knew who "the father" was, for I was not having sex at the time. What would you have decided for your daughter?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
my daughter? i don't know. if she wanted to have the child, i would support that. but as you know, rape's a special case. so if she didn't want the child? again, i don't know.
re, your decision, i'm not going to second-guess whether it's right or fair, or not.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly The first sentence of the Boston Globe states: President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution. This is not about not enforcing laws. This is about the President publicly (though discreetly) stating that he is above the laws that he is signing. And I realize (through your previous writing) that you feel Bush ought to have the authority to wiretap people without a warrant, but the Fourth Amendment currently says he doesn't. It doesn't get much more "now" than that. It can't be very comfortable for conservatives to realize that their nominal representatives in government are ignoring the law. However, it is disturbing when conservatives attempt to justify it.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
we can beat the wiretap thing around the diamond again, but that is something that our country ought to be doing. bush ought to ask for, and congress ought to approve, a change in the law.
but we ought to be doing it.
no, i'm not comfortable having him state he believes these laws are invalid.
dc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By abbotn “Off the national stage”, I see. Well, for me it has been off the national stage until last year and I don’t see that as a benefit. It’s more of a loss, at least for the poor in southern states and South Dakota. I see what you mean about moving closer to the people. In a way, that fits into the GOP framework of less government control…sort of. I still don’t like it and I’m still voting democrat.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
loss for the poor in southern states. i'm not certain how i track that.
re, the poor in south dakota, there's been no change for the poor in south dakota. a new manufacturer or card-processing center will do more for the poor in south dakota than anything involving the abortion topic.
it's easy to say, the republicans have messed it up and i'm voting democratic. i would posit that's it's better to fix the republicans than to throw in with the dems.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By pmg634 I agree with you in that I do not think some states such as New York will ever place a full ban on abortion. So that's not what worries me. What scares me is that the strict proposal in South Dakota -- and other states that follow -- calls for a ban on abortion even if the woman is raped. That's akin to raping that woman every single day of her unwanted pregnancy, making her relive the horror day after day. I wonder if the men who are proposing this law would feel the same way if their wives or daughters were impregnated by a rapist. For now, I'm just glad I live in New York.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
re, men, one always feels different when the situation is changed.
are we likely to see a ban with no exceptions for rape, incest and health of the mother? i think that's probably unlikely to pass muster, in any case.
again, it's virtually impossible now to get an abortion in south dakota. this is not a new state of affairs. it's been this way for close to 3 decades.
i would posit that most of the people concerned about this in south dakota (upper middle-class liberals) probably have the wherewithal to travel elsewhere, anyway. this is not a topic on which there's some kind of big division in that state.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly So, if no President has the authority to disobey the law, and only the judiciary has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, does the President not have to obey all laws passed by Congress until and unless they are overturned by the judiciary? And if the President DOES have to obey all laws passed by Congress until and unless they are overturned by the judiciary, how do you justify saying that the flagrant disregard of the law by Bush is about "interpretation of the Constitution", unless you agree with him that he DOES have the authority to disregard the law?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
as i read the story, it did not indicate that bush was not executing the laws. in some measure, this is about the future, not just the now.
does this rise to flagrant disregard, as you put it? i'm not sure that it does.
should this be before the courts, where there is disagreement? yes.
there are all kinds of things that are clear in our laws and our constitution that people find stuff to debate about. for example, i think the second amendment is clear, but others think it says something else.....
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly Another followup, if I may: Does the President have the authority to declare that laws are unConstitutional? My middle school social studies classes and recollections of SchoolHouse Rock! tell me that such authority is solely vested in the judicial branch of the government.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
i would agree, yes.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Mitch Hinton Morning Doug, I read your article this morning but was a little unclear where you stood on the issue. Could you clear up this statement for me please. "It would be good for all of us if we could dial the Red Alert back to yellow." I'd rather not be an assumer and read into your words like some do and you could clear up my vagueness.For or against further debate on abortion? Is the topic just on abortion or can they go on a political rhetoric rant today to you?;)
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
i'll answer whatever people want to talk about it. it's freewheeling, the web.
i'm against the roe decision.
i'm in favor of having the states regulate abortion, insofar as it is regulated.
we change the political dynamic completely if we move this topic closer to the people.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By abbotn Doug, Can you name one thing, something tangible, that our society will gain from an abortion ban? There’s plenty to lose, but I can’t find one thing that is even remotely useful.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
let me state first that i don't think abortion will be banned nationwide. i don't think that's in the cards. inconceivable, so to speak.
i know the anti-abortion forces want that. but it won't happen.
first, the court may not overturn roe. i think that's a genuine prospect, that the court leaves the decision basically alone. even with the new justices.
second, if the court does overturn it, this does not mean that tomorrow, vast chunks of the populace have no access to abortion. it means the states decide.
i think it would be a huge step forward to take this off the national stage. and if that meant we had marginally fewer abortions, i think that would be good.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly Can you "interpret the Constitution" to answer this one question: Does the President have the authority to disobey any law passed by Congress?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
no president has the authority to disobey the law.
but it is also possible that some laws are not constitutional.
dc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly I think I asked you this via the Q&A functionality, but haven't seen an answer (so I'm probably mistaken about submitting it there). Mitchell Wade, one of the accused bribers of confessed felon and resigned Congressman "Duke" Cunningham, has said that he provided Duke with limousines to drive him to the Watergate Hotel, where he was provided with hookers. Reportedly, up to six other Congressmen also received Wade's hospitality, and current CIA head Porter Goss is one of them. Now that sex is finally involved, will the media start reporting on Republican scandals in Washington?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
you raise two issues.
anyone who used hookers provided by a lobbyist, goss included, ought to resign, if that's indeed true. i'm astounded that the concept of shame seems to be quaint now.
the other issue is the media, and this raises several other points. one is that, too often, the media are simplistic. we don't do complex well, complex things.
the abramoff story's getting a lot of coverage now. but it took a long time to unearth. it did not have the simplicity of the clinton stuff (sex, intern, lies, etc.). but the media also simplified the clinton scandal to sex, when the thing that mattered was lying in court (taking as a given that everyone, including the voters, already knew whatever they needed to know about clinton's character).
so, at bottom, will they cover it now? i think the story has enough critical mass. so, yes.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By abbotn Hi Doug, how are you? It’s strange hearing you about this issue. I’ve noticed you never had much to say about it. Doug, I’ve been a Republican forever. I voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 04. I have always thought the GOP was associated with less government control, less taxes and more freedom. The way I feel now, I will never vote for another republican. It’s not just abortion. It’s global warming, stem cell research, the budget, the war. Just about everything that Bush has touched has turned out to be the opposite of what I thought the GOP was about. Either the GOP has gone terribly wrong or I must be a Democrat.
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
hi,
i, too, have been a republican forever.
re, abortion, it just didn't seem to me that i could add very much to the debate earlier. here, in the vast halls of the ivory tower, we went about this abortion package (yesterday's stories and today's columns) with much effort to cover all the bases of opinion. i'm not saying we don't do that for every story, just that we actually analyzed our biases and tried to acount for them here. editors of known different opinions guided the coverage.
consequently, the opposing (generally opposing, though not entirely) opinion columns became part of that. i don't plan to take up the issue frequently.
i do think there is a dynamic where the democratic party is wresting with this in a broader way than it has previously, because it now realizes it's tagged with being part and parcel of the abortion lobby. so there are some other dynamics.
the govt spending thing is out of control. we cannot be republicans and at the same time support vaster, more expensive govt and spending at every turn.
party leaders, finally, are scared the base will stay home in november. if they do, the dems win. i'm not sure that's better, but at least people are talking about it.
dc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
By bminerly Good morning, and happy 'Mission Accomplished' Day, Doug (three years since we won in Iraq!). The Boston Globe published an article yesterday analyzing how Bush has "quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/) When did the Republican Party abandon the concept of the rule of law, as opposed to the rule of the President's will?
Response from Douglas Cunningham [ADMINISTRATOR]
good morning.
the republican party has not abandoned the concept of rule of law.
i only got through 2 of the 7 pages before i got the subscription prompt at boston.com ..... but anyway....
this is about interpretation of the constitution.
is bush right? i don't know.
he might be wrong.
it would be wrong to negotiate specific provisions with congress and then do something to abrogate that.
i think this is a work in progress. we don't yet know where this will end.
doug
--------------------------------------------------------------------------