Like many conservatives, I was hopeful about Fred Thompson entering the Republican Presidential race.  Unfortunately, like many conservatives, I have been very disappointed.

I do not knock Thompson for his mellow style, although that too was disappointing.  In Thompson's defense, he appears to be a genuinely mellow person -- and being genuine is refreshing after watching Mitt Romney.  I do not knock Thompson for articulating conservative principles, although that too has been disappointing as executed.  Again, in Thompson's defense, he does at least try to articulate conservative principles from a genuine belief in conservative ideology -- and being conservative is refreshing after watching Rudy Giuliani.

Federalism is the conservative principle that Fred Thompson points to most.  He is consistent.  But, as we saw on Meet the Press this weekend (just an expression, I do not watch TV, so I read the transcript), he is too consistent -- to the point of being illogical. 

Don't get me wrong, I believe in federalism.  The Federal government has trashed the Constitution of the United States by taking upon itself improper roles and responsibilities, better left to the states or the people.  Federal intrusion into education is one example. 

But, applying federalism to the crime of abortion is illogical.  If Fred Thompson believes that human life begins at conception -- which he now claims he does -- than he should believe that the Constitution of the United States should protect unborn human life.  And, if it does not effectively do so, then the Constitution should be amended to explicitly protect unborn human life. 

He might say we shouldn't go "tinkering with the Constitution."  But, the right to life is no less important than the freedom of religion or the other rights established through constitutional amendments.  The Constitution itself would not have been adopted without these amendments that we know together as the Bill of Rights.  Federalism itself was only established by the Tenth Amendment and shouldn't trump other rights fit for Constitutional protection.

I have even heard good people say that the right to life is already protected under the Constitution and that we only need to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Well, the 49 million babies who have been legally aborted in the United Stated might disagree with those people.  Theoretical power makes a nice discussion, but if the hammer was coming down on your head, you would want something more substantive.  It is, after all, real human lives being destroyed as the political fine points are being debated.  But the functional reality that abortion is legal and effectively protected by the Constitution makes this argument irrelevant, said best by Lysander Spooner in a different context:

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Spooner's conclusion is extreme, but true in our case.  The Constitution is deficient in its protection of unborn human life.  We can at least correct this deficiency by passing a constitutional amendment.  But for politicians that are only nominally pro-life, a constitutional amendment is a stumbling block. 

Enter stumbling Fred Thompson.  Federalism is being used as an excuse by Fred Thompson to deflect the harder questions of abortion.  You can see that clearly in all his other answers, including going all the way back to the scandal that he actually represented the abortion industry as a lobbyist, which was "private life".  Here is the ultimate testimony to Fred Thompson's real view of Federalism and abortion, that states and individuals -- not the federal government -- should be free to kill as many babies as they want.

And the land was polluted with the blood. - Psalm 106:38