Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state

[Clete]

What you're advocating is that any time the federal government believes that a state is not punishing someone who deprives another of "life, liberty or property" -- which encompasses the entire criminal code of every state -- that the federal government has the right to swoop down and (ultimately) to "nationalize" the entire state government system.

No I'm not. I'm simply saying that the federal government has the authority to overturn any law that is unconstitutional via the federal courts. It happens all the time.

This is not the system that the states created when they ratified the Constitution.

Irrelevant.

You're not thinking like a constitutional lawyer, you're thinking like a demagogue. You think you have "The Voice of Virtue." That voice always leads to terror and totalitarianism.

Congressman Ron Paul on Abortion

Bob Enyart Slanders Ron Paul

I'm thinking like God.

Abortion is murder.
The Constitution of the United States and the law of God Himself both which Ron Paul claims to uphold, forbids any state or province under its jurisdiction from legalizing murder and yet Ron Paul would support a state's right to do just that.

Ron Paul is therefore a hypocrite and has no business being in any position of authority whatsoever, much less the Presidency.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

The 14th Amendment? Are you kidding me.

Let's see, they voted on this amendment in 1865, after the War of Northern Aggression. The Southern states rejected it, along with the border states, and as you SHOULD know, it wasn't ratified. The Party at the time in charge, the Republican Party, put the entire South under military rule under the Reconstruction Act of 1867. The reason that law was passed according to the Republicans in the North was to to compel by force the South to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." Some freedom there huh? In which, President Andrew Johnson said that this act was "absolute despotism." You in favor of despotism Clete?

The South eventually voted to ratify this amendment, not under their free will, but under coercion. And soon after that Clete, two Northern states-Ohio and New Jersey, withdrew their vote because of the disgusting UnConstitutional actions of Republicans who dominated the Federal Government at the time. Of course, those slimeballs, again not under the Constitution, ignored this and declared the amendment ratified.

Hardly something you should be proud of supporting Clete.

While I do support the idea that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I am not supporting the 14th amendment per se.

Why is this so difficult to follow?

Ron Paul claims to be a "strict Constitutionalist", not me! I merely pointing out the man's hypocrisy!

The man's positions are self-contradictory and unjust. He should not be supported by any Christian - ever!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

Pro-lifers are rapidly becoming ideologically indistinguishable from the "big government" liberals they criticized for years.

I don't get this whole, "if it's federal it must be big," idea. I don't see how that's logical.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

While I do support the idea that no person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, I am not supporting the 14th amendment per se.

Why is this so difficult to follow?

Because when you were asked

And here is the heart of the matter. All states are under the authority of the Federal Government? Now, where in the Constitution does it say this?

you answered with the text of the 14th Amendment.

Even if the Amendment hadn't been fraudulently imposed on the states under a military dicatorship, it still doesn't say that the federal government has the authority to re-write the state criminal codes. (At least not yet; the Supreme Court hasn't gotten around to that. First they had to use the 14th Amendment to nullify all state anti-abortion laws. A great pro-life Amendment, the 14th.)

 

[Granite]

That is because the "flipside" as you call it is utterly irrelevant to the discussion.

Follow me here Granite:

States rights (as supported by Ron Paul and Libertarians) means that the states have the right to decide whether abortion is legal or not and the federal government has no say so in the matter at all.

So if they decided that it is legal, according to Ron Paul and you that is a good thing because you suppose they have followed the "right process".

What a wicked and stupid way of thinking of things.

The feds shouldn't. I don't think any of you slavish devotees to Uncle Sam realize the nightmare we have right now is upon us because the federal government got involved in the first place.

Groveling before caesar is an extremely simple, easy solution, and it's also astonishing to see this kind of endorsement of big government intervention coming from supposed "conservatives." I guess when all else fails you guys just resort to liberal tactics: ask the government to fix things.

Abortion is not the only matter that should be settled by states, FYI, although I really doubt this has occurred to any of you yet.

 

[Lighthouse]

Why is a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states as invalid as Roe v. Wade?

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Why is a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states as invalid as Roe v. Wade?

Because the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to write laws for the states. That's the job of state legislatures. If the Constitution had given the federal government the power to write laws for the states, the states wouldn't have ratified it.

The government of Mexico also does not have authority to write a law banning abortion across all 50 states. The states never gave the government of Mexico authority to do that.

Roe v. Wade was wrong because the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment gave it the authority to strike down all state laws PROHIBITING abortion. That's why the 14th Amendment is so dangerous, and why it had to be fraudulently imposed on the states, even though they voted to reject it.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to write laws for the states. That's the job of state legislatures. If the Constitution had given the federal government the power to write laws for the states, the states wouldn't have ratified it.

The Constitution certainly begs to differ.

The government of Mexico also does not have authority to write a law banning abortion across all 50 states. The states never gave the government of Mexico authority to do that.

Completely, and utterly, irrelevant.

Roe v. Wade was wrong because the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment gave it the authority to strike down all state laws PROHIBITING abortion. That's why the 14th Amendment is so dangerous, and why it had to be fraudulently imposed on the states, even though they voted to reject it.

:squint:

Are you really that stupid? Seriously? How could anyone read the 14th amendment and come away thinking it gave the federal government the power to strike down laws prohibiting the deprivation of life without due process of law?

And why do you call yourself Vine&Fig Tree?

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree
Because the federal government doesn't have constitutional authority to write laws for the states. That's the job of state legislatures. If the Constitution had given the federal government the power to write laws for the states, the states wouldn't have ratified it.

The Constitution certainly begs to differ.

Most constitutional scholars have recognized the existence of bodies of lawmakers called "state legislatures" in America. These lawmaking assmblies were not disbanded when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. How do you explain the fact that all 50 states still have legislatures if all power to make laws was transferred to the federal government?

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree
The government of Mexico also does not have authority to write a law banning abortion across all 50 states. The states never gave the government of Mexico authority to do that.

Completely, and utterly, irrelevant.

It's just as "relevant" as your idea that the federal government replaces 50 state governments with one single central government. The idea that Mexico City has the right to pass laws for Colorado is a perfect analogy to your idea that the federal government in Washington D.C. has the authority to tell the Colorado legislature to go home. Please study the doctrine of "enumerated powers" in the U.S. Constitution:

http://KevinCraig.us/enumerated.htm

Roe v. Wade was wrong because the Supreme Court said the 14th Amendment gave it the authority to strike down all state laws PROHIBITING abortion. That's why the 14th Amendment is so dangerous, and why it had to be fraudulently imposed on the states, even though they voted to reject it.

:squint:

Are you really that stupid? Seriously? How could anyone read the 14th amendment and come away thinking it gave the federal government the power to strike down laws prohibiting the deprivation of life without due process of law?

It's not my idea, Lighthouse. And I honestly don't know how anyone could read the 14th amendment that way, but Bob Enyart and the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade both agree that the 14th Amendment gives the Supreme Court the right to nullify, negate, toss out, abrogate, annul, and overturn laws that are made by "due process" in state legislatures. Bob Enyart, of course, wants the federal government to make "GOOD" laws for all 50 states, but the Godless atheists on the Supreme Court have a different idea of "good," and decided to use the power Bob says they have to NEGATE all anti-abortion laws passed by the states.

This is why Ron Paul keeps trying to pass a law in Congress which declares that personhood begins at conception, that the states have the authority to protect life from conception, and that the federal government does NOT have the right to overturn state laws on abortion.

It is obviously much easier for Christians to work to get an anti-abortion law passed on one state than it is to overturn a Supreme Court decision, which is why the Constitution left lawmaking to the states.

If Ron Paul could get people to understand the danger of all lawmaking power being vested in 9 unelected Justices on the Supreme Court, and if Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life" bill would be passed by Congress, we could go back to the situation we had before Roe v. Wade, and pass anti-abortion laws in state legislatures, and work to repeal pro-abortion laws whenever they become law.

When the states sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, they created a Constitution which wisely left most lawmaking powers in the states, rather than centralizing it in Moscow-on-the-Potomac.

And why do you call yourself Vine&Fig Tree?

Thank you for asking. The whole story is here:

http://VFTonline.com

A shorter version is here:

http://KevinCraig.us/VFT.htm

 

[fourcheeze]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree
It is obviously much easier for Christians to work to get an anti-abortion law passed on one state than it is to overturn a Supreme Court decision, which is why the Constitution left lawmaking to the states.

Isn't the snag for the anti-abortion lobby that this would just encourage people to seek an abortion in a neighbouring state and thereby not lower the overall number of abortions by much?

It seems (from my outsider's point of view, having admittedly just done a few minutes research) that there are quite a few presidential candidates willing to say what they would do with respect to a woman's right (or otherwise) to choose. There don't seem to be too many coming up with ideas for stopping women having unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

It seems to me that if you can lower the teenage pregnancy rate by 25% that would be as good as having 1/4 of states with an anti-abortion law. Is that not such a good vote-winner?

 

[S†ephen]

The Constitution certainly begs to differ.

Care to elaborate?

 

[robbierob]

Paul DECLARES UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Paul DECLARES UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Here is a question to states rights people for Paul. If a state declares that all Ron Paul supporters shall be put to death, and the Feds stepped in and stopped the executions, would Ron Paul declare the Feds are acting unconstitutionaly?

 

[S†ephen]

Here is a question to states rights people for Paul. If a state declares that all Ron Paul supporters shall be put to death, and the Feds stepped in and stopped the executions, would Ron Paul declare the Feds are acting unconstitutionaly?

What was the crime of the Ron Paul supporters?

none.

Then they are committing murder and the supporters should ban together and overthrow the leaders in place in that state and place ones that will follow the constitution.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Here is a question to states rights people for Paul. If a state declares that all Ron Paul supporters shall be put to death, and the Feds stepped in and stopped the executions, would Ron Paul declare the Feds are acting unconstitutionaly?

Thanks for visiting my blog, Robbie.

Your question reminds me of the scenario advanced by Martin Niemöller, a victim of the Nazis:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Keep in mind that when the Constitution was ratified, Virginia and New York were "states" just like Canada and France. These states -- nations, really -- decided to become "united States" for purposes of defense against the British and whoever else.

If the Chinese government decided it was grateful to people like Ron Paul for making capitalism popular and making China the fastest-growing economy in the world, and the Chinese government decided to invade the states that were killing Ron Paul supporters, there can be no doubt that the rescued Ron Paul supporters would describe the Chinese invasion as (a) a violation of state sovereignty, and (b) fortuitous.

Just as "might does not make right," so "personal benefit does not make constitutional."

You describe Ron Paul followers as believing that "states rights trump God's law." Where in God's Law is the Chinese government commanded to invade any of the states that are killing people? Where in God's Law is the federal government commanded to invade states that are killing people?

Politicians who take an oath to "support the Constitution" are taking an oath to honor state sovereignty. Have you read the Tenth Amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Are you familiar with the constitutional doctrine of "enumerated powers?"

The Constitution would not have been ratified if the states had known it means what you say it means. Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment destroys the Constitutional doctrine of federalism and states' rights.

Perhaps this means the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Fortunately, only a few people in America have taken an oath to abide by the Constitution. Why not just get all the others together and organize THEM to stop the killing?

When Ron Paul followers are being killed, and you know about it, why is it that you and Bob Enyart are not rallying Christians together to rescue those who are being killed, rather than waiting for a politician in Washington D.C. to violate his oath of office and act unconstitutionally, overturning state sovereignty and setting malicious legal precedents in the process?

Both sides in this debate agree that the killing must be stopped. It is very unChristian for one side to say "Since you don't believe in stopping the killing MY way, you really SUPPORT the killings, you evil mass murderer you!"

 

[robbierob]

The law Paul supporters broke is the same laws that were broken by blacks in the 1800's none. The states just decided they don't have any rights. What I am showing is circular reasoning by Paul and supporters of his , by thinking a state can decide who and who not to give rights. Rather rights come from God not the constitution. If enough people decided even the U.S. constitution can be just as evil as the Nazi regime and it would be the law. To answer the question by Vine & Fig , God commands us to love our neighbor and if the U.S. started murdering Christians or Paul supporters for no other reason than that the Constitution allowed it or states allowed it not only would the Chinese be justified in invading but I would help them when they did.

 

[WizardofOz]

Ron Paul: "while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06

Paul's Christian supporters are in denial. First, they deny that Paul is against a federal ban on abortion, even though he attempts to codify that position in his misnamed "Sanctity of Life" bills. And once they concede his godless position of allowing the states to systematically murder the innocent, then they fall prey to Paul's invalid and contradictory states' rights rhetoric against the unborn. Paul rejects the inalienable, God-given right to life of the unborn. He rejects the personhood of the tiniest humans. He betrays his supposed commitment to the Constitution by refusing to uphold its commitment to our posterity, and its demand that no innocent person shall be deprived of life without due process. (And supposedly, Paul believes the unborn are people who have the right to life.)

Ask a mayoral or gubernatorial candidate about abortion, and they say, "that's a federal issue." Ask most Republican candidates about abortion, and they say, "that's a state issue." Both sides are punting; like cowards, punting the most critical and controversial issue that stands today before government. No other right can be exercised if the right to life is denied.

Paul sins against God in his apathetic position of allowing the states to murder children. And to the extent that Paul knows in his heart that abortion is wrong, to that extent he is also a traitor to his nation, and even its Constitution, lusting after power instead of standing for the right to life of the vulnerable. Ron Paul is not qualified to teach Sunday School, let alone lead a nation.

The inalienable right to life trumps states' rights, and no state has the right to legitimize the owning of blacks, killing of Jews, or aborting children. If you support Ron Paul, you support tolerance of the massacre of innocence, and I call on you to repent.

-Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

That's some pretty pathetic spin, Bob. You have completely mis characterized his stance.

Ron Paul is pro-life. It's that simple. He against a centralized form of federal government (as were the founding fathers); rather, he is for state rights. States would each individually make their own law regarding abortion. How can you say he is pro-choice; when he, personally, is not. He is pro-state rights vs. pro centralized federal government - that's all your OP can honestly attack. If he were president; each state would make their own law governing their own territory. He will not allow a centralized federal government to make a law (Roe v Wade) for all the land.

Under the current centralized federal government; we have a law from the Roe v Wade case that states cannot overrule. No supreme court from Roe v Wade until today has overturned this law despite the many "conservative" pro-life candidates I am sure you have supported. Under Paul's system (which is the exact system formed by the founding fathers) states could decide for themselves. That does not make Ron Paul pro-choice (abortion) as an individual. Rather, the only "pro-choice" he is guilty of is that he is pro-choice regarding state rights.

Keyes or anyone else who supports the centralized form of government (status quo) would be powerless to create legislation banning all abortion for the entire country. The only system which would lead to less abortion; would be Paul's. I'm sure there are a few states in the republic which would outlaw abortion. Keyes would stick with the status quo Roe v Wade would stand. You are a hypocrite to think Keyes is any less apathetic regarding abortion than Paul.

In 1981 a Republican congressman declared:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=ron_pauls_abortion_rhetoric Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in freeing all individuals from the State. Unlike Nazi Germany, which forcibly sent millions to the gas chambers (as well as forcing abortion and sterilization upon many more), the new regime has enlisted the assistance of millions of people to act as its agents in carrying out a program of mass murder.

The name of the congressman? Ron Paul.

Lest you think it's just a minor issue for him, consider the obscure fact that Paul has written not one but two books arguing for the necessity of a pro-life libertarianism: 1983's Abortion and Liberty and 1990's Challenge to Liberty: Coming to Grips with the Abortion Issue. And lest you think he has since changed his views on abortion, ponder what he's saying now. On June 4, 2003, speaking in the House of Representatives, Paul described "the rights of unborn people” as “the greatest moral issue of our time."

Here's a few more quotes by Paul regarding abortion.

"Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds between individual freedom and the 'right' to extinguish individual life."

On March 29, 2005: " I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society."

Jan. 31, 2006: "The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court."

he has referred to a "federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

"I find it difficult not to defend a life a minute before birth just as I would defend that life a minute after birth. To me, it's recognizing the importance of life."

"Many talk about being pro-life," Paul continued. "I have taken and will continue to advocate direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

Have you ever heard of H.R. 1094 Bob?

Here is where you take issue - his tactics on how it is feasible to end abortion. You seem to think someone like Keyes can do so through the status quo. Paul knows this is a dead end and has come up with a brilliant way to get the abortion debate out of federal courts.

He previously argued that this is necessary to create "a pro-life culture," because federalization "has prevented the 50 states from enacting laws that more closely reflect the views of their citizens." Accepting this, he explained, means "we lost the ability to apply local community standards to ethical issues." On Nov. 17, 2005, he introduced H.R. 4379, the We the People Act, which would remove contested cultural issues like abortion from the jurisdiction of federal courts. On Feb. 6, 2006, the bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property. The congressional session ended without any further action.

The Libertarian party's official position is support of repealing Roe v. Wade and leaving abortion "remanded to the states." Paul's view, it happens, is pretty much the party line: It's okay to restrict abortion at the state level, just not the federal one. Respect for the rights of state government trumps the rights of women.

......for Paul, if anti-choice conservatives in South Dakota had succeeded, it would have been considered a victory: one step toward creating a pro-life nation, not from the top down, but one community at a time.

You can :sozo: all you want, but anyone with a brain can only :rotfl: at your Faux News style spin.

Paul is personally as pro-life as anyone on this board. He has the intelligence to know what methods work and which do not to achieve his goal. Anyone sticking with the status quo will never do anything about abortion. Keyes just is hot air and rhetoric. I understand why you like him.

 

[robbierob]

Hey Wizard maybe you can answer my question no one else seems to be able to yet. If states declared that all Ron Paul supporters should be executed and the feds stopped, it would Paul declare the feds as acting unconstitutional? After all states rights!!

 

[WizardofOz]

Hey Wizard maybe you can answer my question no one else seems to be able to yet. If states declared that all Ron Paul supporters should be executed and the feds stopped, it would Paul declare the feds as acting unconstitutional? After all states rights!!

:doh: That hypothetical is too ignorant to even address.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

God commands us to love our neighbor and if the U.S. started murdering Christians or Paul supporters for no other reason than that the Constitution allowed it or states allowed it not only would the Chinese be justified in invading but I would help them when they did.

It's one thing to imagine a temporary uprising of "We the People," or a momentary invasion of California by the "benevolent" "pro-life" Chinese government, assuming the Chinese actually save babies from being aborted . . .

. . . it's quite another thing to advocate giving the Chinese government permanent jurisdiction over the states in any matter touching "life, liberty or property" -- because that's EVERYTHING. And that's the 14th Amendment.

And if you believe a government in Beijing that has a forced abortion policy really and sincerely cares about babies murdered in California, and has no other hidden agenda for invading the states, then you'll probably also believe that a "benevolent" federal government in Washington D.C. that prohibits a copy of the Ten Commandments from even being posted on a classroom wall should be given permanent comprehsive jurisdiction over the states in every matter touching on "life, liberty or property."

Kiss the Constitution good-bye.

http://www.constitution.org/14ll/truth_14th.htm

 

[Dopey Gigglz]

Hey Wizard maybe you can answer my question no one else seems to be able to yet. If states declared that all Ron Paul supporters should be executed and the feds stopped, it would Paul declare the feds as acting unconstitutional? After all states rights!!

Libertarians believe that government is here to protect its people.
The states would be declaring something unconstitutional.