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

[robbierob]

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

Hey wizard your guy Paul endorses that ignorent hypothetical illogic. He thinks states have the right to decide whether or not they can put babies to death. Is it any stretch that if innocent babies can be murdered that Paul supporters can be murdered, legally?

 

[WizardofOz]

Hey wizard your guy Paul endorses that ignorent hypothetical illogic. He thinks states have the right to decide whether or not they can put babies to death. Is it any stretch that if innocent babies can be murdered that Paul supporters can be murdered, legally?

The states would be declaring something unconstitutional.

Are you just a :troll: or really this daft? States can't go making willy nilly laws/legislation. We're a constitutional republic stupid.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's not hard to figure out. If Paul got his way right now, thousands of lives would be saved by next year (from pro-life states banning abortions).

But, if that happened, abortion would be off the table as a campaign issue on the national level. And there are people who cannot permit that; their political careers depend on assailing abortion verbally and perpetuating it in reality.

Those folks see Paul as a serious danger. The thousands of children who would be saved are not worth losing their elected offices.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Is Bob Enyart "Pro-Choice on Abortion, nation by nation?"

Is Bob Enyart "Pro-Choice on Abortion, nation by nation?"

Hey wizard your guy Paul endorses that ignorent hypothetical illogic. He thinks states have the right to decide whether or not they can put babies to death. Is it any stretch that if innocent babies can be murdered that Paul supporters can be murdered, legally?

Robbie, you need to guard your tongue and be careful not to slander fellow believers.

Each term Ron Paul sponsors legislation in the U.S. Congress that says:

(1) the Congress declares that--
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Ron Paul's legislation would also remove the power of the federal government to do what it did in Roe v. Wade: overturn pro-life state laws against abortion.

Ron Paul is not saying that any state has a legal right to kill babies, and certainly he denies that the state has a moral right to do so. What he's saying is that the federal government (and the government of China, Mexico, etc.) does not have the authority to override state legislatures and amend any law that touches on "life, liberty or property."

Notice what Bob Enyart says about Ron Paul in the title of this thread: "Ron Paul is pro-choice on abortion, state by state." That is an unChristian thing to say, and Bob will have to answer for that. It is more accurate and charitable to say that Ron Paul is "pro-life on abortion, state by state." Ron Paul wants to give us the freedom to ignore the atheists on the Supreme Court and work in our states to eliminate abortion. Ron Paul is against abortion. Ron Paul is also against the federal government nationalizing all state legislatures. He's also against a one-world government globalizing all national legislatures, which means he's "Pro-Life on abortion, nation by nation."

There are over 135,000 abortions around the world every single day! Why isn't the U.S. federal government sending the national guard to each of these countries to prevent these abortions? Is Bob Enyart "Pro-Choice on abortion, nation by nation?" Will Bob Enyart go so far as to advocate a one-world government to stop abortion world-wide? Is he running for global monarch?

Ron Paul is a pro-life Christian who opposes abortion, boldly declares in Congress that personhood begins at conception, and is "the champion of the Constitution." All of this hateful slander against him is evil and dishonors Christ.

Don't follow the bad example of others on this forum, Robbie.

Exodus 23:2
You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice.

 

[Lighthouse]

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.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?

Did I say that 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.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:

No it isn't. Mexico isn't part of the United States, and CO isn't part of Mexico, you moron.

http://KevinCraig.us/enumerated.htm

:blabla:

Kevin Craig is a windbag.

Wait, are you Kevin Craig? You're a windbag.

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.

the SCotUS is the danger here. Not the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment did not give the SCotUS the authority to strike down any law prohibiting abortion. It only gives the federal government the authority to strike down any law allowing abortion, within the 50 states.

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.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.

Now you're lying about Bob. And you also, obviously, don't know what "due process" is.

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.

And his bill also states that the federal government does not have the right to overturn a law that allows abortion. That's the problem. What we need is not a new bill, but for a candidate who will call the government on it's unconstitutional practice of allowing for the deprivation of life without due process.

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.

The 14th amendment took certain power away from the states, because there are certain laws no one should be allowed to make. And some states went and made those laws anyway. And then the SCotUS, instead of obeying the 14th amendment, ignored it and passed their own law that contradicts it.

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.

I agree that we should get rid of the SCotUS. But Paul's proposed bill is in error.

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.

:blabla:

Windbag.

Thank you for asking. The whole story is here:

http://VFTonline.com

A shorter version is here:

http://KevinCraig.us/VFT.htm

:squint:

Care to elaborate?

Can you not read? the 5th and 14th amendments.

 

[robbierob]

It's not hard to figure out. If Paul got his way right now, thousands of lives would be saved by next year (from pro-life states banning abortions).

But, if that happened, abortion would be off the table as a campaign issue on the national level. And there are people who cannot permit that; their political careers depend on assailing abortion verbally and perpetuating it in reality.

Those folks see Paul as a serious danger. The thousands of children who would be saved are not worth losing their elected offices.

and he would also look the other way while thousands of children are murdered in the states that keep abortion legal. I like lincoln rally the soldiers and send them in!!!!

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Did I say that all power to make laws was transferred to the federal government?

You said the federal government has the right to write laws on abortions for each state because the 14th Amendment gives the Federal government the authority to write legislation to prevent the deprivation of "life, liberty or property."

• So not only did you argue (whether you intended it or not) that the federal government has the right to write laws on abortion, but laws concerning any other deprivation of "life."
• You also gave the feds the authority to re-write state laws that concern any deprivation of "liberty," such as the right to vote, which is why elections are no longer run solely by local governments, but are governed by federal election laws.
• And you gave the federal government power to re-write all laws concerning deprivation of "property," such as laws on embezzlement, grand theft auto, larceny, shoplifting, etc.
• Is there any law that a state used to have authority to write that does not concern "life, liberty, or property?" I can't think of anything.

That's why I say your 14th Amendment theory potentially transfers all lawmaking power to Washington D.C. away from the states where the Constitution left it.

Kevin Craig is a windbag.

Wait, are you Kevin Craig? You're a windbag.

I don't know what kind of computer you use, Lighthouse, and how you get your words transmitted to this forum, but my computer uses electricity. I'm not a "windbag," I'm an "electronbag," thank you very much.

And thanks for resorting to name-calling. That let's me know I won the argument on an intellectual level.

the SCotUS is the danger here. Not the 14th amendment. The 14th amendment did not give the SCotUS the authority to strike down any law prohibiting abortion. It only gives the federal government the authority to strike down any law allowing abortion, within the 50 states.

The problem is you trust the federal government with power. America's Founding Fathers would say you're a Grade-B American.

John Adams wrote in 1772:

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

Should libertarians have more confidence in their government? Thomas Jefferson, 1799:

Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

James Madison warned the people of Virginia (1799):

the nation which reposes on the pillow of political confidence, will sooner or later end its political existence in a deadly lethargy.

Madison added in Federalist No. 55,

There is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust. . . .

Trusting government, having "confidence in government," is un-American.

The British historian Lord Acton put it this way:

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the
holder of it.

If you have to give the government power, better to keep it local, close to home, where voters can keep an eye on it and change it more easily if need be.

I said,

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.

Lighthouse responds,

Now you're lying about Bob.

He wants the federal government to write BAD laws? What did I "lie" about?

And you also, obviously, don't know what "due process" is.

You may be right, but the last 60 years have proven abundantly that neither does the federal judiciary. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court thinks it knows what "due process" is, and they think they have the power under the 14th Amendment to strike down all laws against abortion if the court doesn't see "due process." Ron Paul's legislation would remove that power from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would not be able to strike down ANY anti-abortion law in ANY state. And for that, Ron Paul is called a "mass murderer."

And his bill also states that the federal government does not have the right to overturn a law that allows abortion. That's the problem.

No, the problem is that Christians in that state are waiting around for the Rapture instead of being vigilant and active and preventing liberals in the state legislature from passing such laws. That's the American and Constitutional way of looking at a problem: focusing on local responsibility, not looking to Washington D.C. or Brussels Belgium or the Hague to solve local problems.

What we need is not a new bill, but for a candidate who will call the government on it's unconstitutional practice of allowing for the deprivation of life without due process.

The problem is not that the federal government "allows" states to pass bad laws, but that the people of those states allow their legislatures to pass bad laws. The answer to this problem is not to transfer responsibility from the local to the federal level, but to make Christians more responsible in each state, and take away from the federal government the power to overturn good laws when "We the People" get off our duffs.

I agree that we should get rid of the SCotUS. But Paul's proposed bill is in error.

Get rid of the Supreme Court? Just have one Monarch in Washington D.C. to do all the governing?

:blabla:

Windbag.

Devastating comeback.

 

[WizardofOz]

and he would also look the other way while thousands of children are murdered in the states that keep abortion legal. I like lincoln rally the soldiers and send them in!!!!

Robbierob: Legally speaking; what is the status quo of abortion in the United States?

 

[robbierob]

Robbierob: Legally speaking; what is the status quo of abortion in the United States?

it is legal. However, we are in violation of the standards we held the nazi's to at Nuremberg. Just because evil laws exist it doesn't mean we need to accept and fight for other evil laws as strategy to try to combat it. You should never accept or do evil in hopes that good may come of it!!

 

[WizardofOz]

it is legal.

So I guess the federalized law isn't boding too well for pro-lifer's. Agreed? Have there been pro-life conservative presidents, supreme court justices, senators, etc. since Roe v Wade? Why hasn't this ruling been overturned? I would think pro-lifer's would be Ron Paul's biggest supporters. No other candidate, SC justice, etc has the means to outlaw abortion anywhere! Most certainly you can agree that if we got back the the principles this country was founded on-states rights there would be less abortion when compared to the federalist national precedent. Agreed? Do you think that not one single state would vote to outlaw abortion? South Dakota tried to do this and was blocked by the centralized federal government.

Just because evil laws exist it doesn't mean we need to accept and fight for other evil laws as strategy to try to combat it. You should never accept or do evil in hopes that good may come of it!!

Man are you a hypocrite. As is Bob Enyart, and Lighthouse, and Pastor Kevin and anyone else who would rather stick with the status quo of nationwide legalized abortion in the hopes that a case may make it to the supreme court outlawing abortion coast to coast. Ron Paul has the stones to declare 1) it's not going to happen that way 2) there never should have been an all-encompassing federal government ruling in the first place 3) state by state banning is better than a nationwide law legalizing abortion! I could understand if abortion were illegal and Paul was fighting to put this decision in the hands of the states which would tilt the status quo in favor of legalized abortion. His way is the only way to get them to decrease. Go out on a limb and name the candidate you support and tell me how they are going to outlaw abortion. The president lacks the power to decree such. Pro-lifer's keep voting for pro-life republicans like sheep waiting for enough justices to die and wait for an individual case to make it to the SC that has the capacity to overturn Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade set the precedent people. Paul is the only candidate with a scheme logical (and legal) enough to overturn (nullify really) Roe v Wade.......Not by waiting and waiting (isn't this apathy Bob?) for the right case to hit the SC, but by taking the power out of the federal government's hands, where, if you go by the constitution, never should have been had in the first place!

Read up on Ron Paul a bit - he is not about making more laws. If you think he is trying to make more laws, you have no clue what he is about.

Do you support the constitution?

Who's the 'bad guy' in this scenario......
The status quo is legalized abortion coast to coast.
A state (SD) wants to make this up to it's taxpayers (democracy). They want to vote whether or not to outlaw abortion, all abortion, in the whole state. The fed steps in and tells the state they don't have the authority to govern themselves!

I'm sorry you guys all want big brother so bad. You call yourselves "conservatives". You views sound pretty "liberal" to me.

 

[robbierob]

Wizard you said "the president lacks the power" , ask us Southerners if what the President believes about a situation matters. You obviously haven't heard of Abraham Lincoln. Oh and don't worry I don't depend on republicans to fix the abortion issue in America I am looking for Godly men who aren't afraid to sacrifice their political career to save babies. It is sad that in the supposedly freest nation on earth it is thought of as political suicide to say you will end the murder of innocent children if you become President.

 

[WizardofOz]

Wizard you said "the president lacks the power" , ask us Southerners if what the President believes about a situation matters. You obviously haven't heard of Abraham Lincoln. Oh and don't worry I don't depend on republicans to fix the abortion issue in America I am looking for Godly men who aren't afraid to sacrifice their political career to save babies. It is sad that in the supposedly freest nation on earth it is thought of as political suicide to say you will end the murder of innocent children if you become President.

Are you implying that your solution to the abortion problem is civil war?:kookoo:

Come chat some more when you get reacquainted with reality. At least Ron Paul has a realistic plan of attack; which you (and others) obviously lack. Try addressing the questions posed to you next time.

Which candidate do you support again?
How is that candidate going to outlaw or decrease abortions? It's easy to attack the plans of others when you have no real plan of your own.

 

[fourcheeze]

it is legal. However, we are in violation of the standards we held the nazi's to at Nuremberg.

War crimes?

Just because evil laws exist it doesn't mean we need to accept and fight for other evil laws as strategy to try to combat it. You should never accept or do evil in hopes that good may come of it!!

Do you think that might start a precedent which other people could soon find themselves on the end of, for instance if other forms of state-sponsored killing, such as capital punishment, at some point found themselves revoked?

 

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian observes that if Ron Paul's program was implemented, thousands of lives would be saved immediately)

and he would also look the other way while thousands of children are murdered in the states that keep abortion legal.

Nonsense. Paul has worked tirelessly against abortion in all respects, including preventing the use of federal funds for abortion. His point is that we can save lives right now, by allowing states to ban abortions. Those who want to keep abortion in place as a political football prefer to let those children die. It is the worst kind of cynicism.

I like lincoln rally the soldiers and send them in!!!!

Nice rhetoric. Meanwhile, you are letting thousands die, for a political advantage. Shameful.

 

[robbierob]

Are you implying that your solution to the abortion problem is civil war?:kookoo:

Come chat some more when you get reacquainted with reality. At least Ron Paul has a realistic plan of attack; which you (and others) obviously lack. Try addressing the questions posed to you next time.

Which candidate do you support again?
How is that candidate going to outlaw or decrease abortions? It's easy to attack the plans of others when you have no real plan of your own.

1: Yes!!! If we allowed states to decide over slavery we would still have slavery 2: Alan Keyes

 

[robbierob]

War crimes?



Do you think that might start a precedent which other people could soon find themselves on the end of, for instance if other forms of state-sponsored killing, such as capital punishment, at some point found themselves revoked?

1: War crimes? You asked NO, the judges were put to death for upholding the "LAW".
2: Obviously you are not wise enough to understand the difference in capital punishment and abortion!

 

[WizardofOz]

1: Yes!!! If we allowed states to decide over slavery we would still have slavery 2: Alan Keyes

1. :doh: That's some serious conjecture there. Why did Missouri, Kentucky, and (West) Virginia fight for the Union while they still allowed slaves (Virginia being an anomaly)? Maybe it wasn't all about slavery after all......:think: It's really a moot point since we now have the 13th amendment and no state would/could regress back into slave ownership.

Anyway - back on topic; Ron Paul and abortion.

2. Very good, now part 2 - how is Alan Keyes going to stop abortion?

You attacked Paul's plan, now the million dollar question to hypocrites......What is Keyes plan to outlaw abortion? Time for the tables to turn. I hope Bob Enyart pipes in to answer this one.

 

[Lighthouse]

You said the federal government has the right to write laws on abortions for each state because the 14th Amendment gives the Federal government the authority to write legislation to prevent the deprivation of "life, liberty or property."

No. What I said is that it dictates that no state has the right to pass a law that deprives anyone of life without due process. There were states violating that amendment before Roe v. Wade, and the SCotUS violated that amendment when it ruled in Roe v. Wade.

• So not only did you argue (whether you intended it or not) that the federal government has the right to write laws on abortion, but laws concerning any other deprivation of "life."
• You also gave the feds the authority to re-write state laws that concern any deprivation of "liberty," such as the right to vote, which is why elections are no longer run solely by local governments, but are governed by federal election laws.
• And you gave the federal government power to re-write all laws concerning deprivation of "property," such as laws on embezzlement, grand theft auto, larceny, shoplifting, etc.
• Is there any law that a state used to have authority to write that does not concern "life, liberty, or property?" I can't think of anything.

Are you seriously this stupid? States have the authority, currently, to write laws regarding these things. they just do not have the authority to write laws that deprive people of these things, without due process of law.

That's why I say your 14th Amendment theory potentially transfers all lawmaking power to Washington D.C. away from the states where the Constitution left it.I don't know what kind of computer you use, Lighthouse, and how you get your words transmitted to this forum, but my computer uses electricity. I'm not a "windbag," I'm an "electronbag," thank you very much.

Whatever, Kevin. the 14th amendment doesn't allow the federal government to pass any law that deprives anyone of life, liberty or property, without due process either.

And thanks for resorting to name-calling. That let's me know I won the argument on an intellectual level.The problem is you trust the federal government with power. America's Founding Fathers would say you're a Grade-B American.

You're not intelligent enough to win an argument on an intellectual level.

John Adams wrote in 1772:Should libertarians have more confidence in their government? Thomas Jefferson, 1799:James Madison warned the people of Virginia (1799):Madison added in Federalist No. 55,Trusting government, having "confidence in government," is un-American.

I never said I trusted our current government. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of them screwed up when they chose this form of government.

The British historian Lord Acton put it this way:If you have to give the government power, better to keep it local, close to home, where voters can keep an eye on it and change it more easily if need be.

Acton was a Brit., not an American.

I said,Lighthouse responds,He wants the federal government to write BAD laws? What did I "lie" about?

Bob never said the SCotUS had that authority.

You may be right, but the last 60 years have proven abundantly that neither does the federal judiciary. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court thinks it knows what "due process" is, and they think they have the power under the 14th Amendment to strike down all laws against abortion if the court doesn't see "due process." Ron Paul's legislation would remove that power from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would not be able to strike down ANY anti-abortion law in ANY state. And for that, Ron Paul is called a "mass murderer."

He's called a mass murderer because his bill would prevent the federal government from striking down any pro-abortion law. And yet, the Constitution says no state has the power to make one, already.

No, the problem is that Christians in that state are waiting around for the Rapture instead of being vigilant and active and preventing liberals in the state legislature from passing such laws. That's the American and Constitutional way of looking at a problem: focusing on local responsibility, not looking to Washington D.C. or Brussels Belgium or the Hague to solve local problems.The problem is not that the federal government "allows" states to pass bad laws, but that the people of those states allow their legislatures to pass bad laws. The answer to this problem is not to transfer responsibility from the local to the federal level, but to make Christians more responsible in each state, and take away from the federal government the power to overturn good laws when "We the People" get off our duffs.

We need a new Constitution. That's the real problem. As I said earlier, the founding fathers screwed up.

Get rid of the Supreme Court? Just have one Monarch in Washington D.C. to do all the governing?

According to a Constitution that cannot be amended to disagree with itself.

Devastating comeback.

I heard you on BEL. You're a windbag.

 

[Vine&FigTree]

Ron Paul, Not Bob Enyart, Follows the 14th Amendment.

Ron Paul, Not Bob Enyart, Follows the 14th Amendment.

He's called a mass murderer because his bill would prevent the federal government from striking down any pro-abortion law.

Have you even read the bill? It does nothing of the kind. It declares that the unborn are "persons" who have a right to life, liberty and property. It removes abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that after the unborn are declared to be persons, opening up the door to the states to criminalize their murder, the Supreme Court cannot strike down pro-life laws like it did in Roe v. Wade. I'm astonished at how Ron Paul's pro-life proposal can be criticized as a blueprint for "mass murder" by anyone who cares about being accepted by Christ.

Even though the 14th Amendment should be repealed, by criticizing a Presidential candidate for not re-writing state laws on abortion, Bob Enyart doesn't even follow the terms of the Amendment itself. If a state legislature makes a law which deprives someone of “life, liberty, or property,” the 14th Amendment says that the federal legislature should remedy that situation:

Section 5. The [federal] Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Most of the problems created by the 14th Amendment have been created by what Harvard Law Professor Raoul Berger called Government by Judiciary, that is, enforcement by the Supreme Court of what the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment requires (even if the Framers of the 14th Amendment never envisioned the amendment to apply to areas that the liberals on the court want to social engineer, e.g., school prayer, abortion, school busing, etc.). Enyart proposes something somewhat more unconstitutional. Instead of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court judging the Constitutionality of state legislation, and then ordering states to write laws conforming to Court dictates, Enyart wants the Executive Branch -- specifically, the President -- to write laws for the states that don't deprive anyone of whatever the President says they have the right to. Which is worse, laws being made by an unelected body of nine Justices, or by one elected individual President? Neither are justified by Sec. 5 of the 14th Amendment.

So how should abortion be eliminated, according to a more proper understanding of the 14th Amendment? The Congress, led by Ron Paul, passes the “Sanctity of Life Act,” which affirms that all persons -- including unborn persons -- have rights to life, liberty, and property. The Congress then removes jurisdiction from the Supreme Court over the issue of abortion, preventing it from striking down state laws like it did in Roe v. Wade. The Congress then tells the state legislatures to write appropriate laws “with all deliberate speed,” to use the words of the Court in the famous 14th Amendment case, Brown vs. Board of Education.

Ron Paul is following the 14th Amendment. Bob Enyart is not. The fact that Bob Enyart calls a Godly pro-life Christian Congressman like Ron Paul (who boldly challenges Congress to obey the 14th Amendment and declare that the unborn are “persons” under the law) an “evil,” “godless,” “humanistic” “moral relativist” for not following Enyart's idiosyncratic monarchical interpretation of the 14th Amendment is evidence of an ugly hysteria, not sober legal analysis. And Enyart's slander of Ron Paul is manifestly unChristian.

 

[fourcheeze]

2: Obviously you are not wise enough to understand the difference in capital punishment and abortion!

I think most people can tell the difference. Obviously, though, you can't tell the similarities, in as much as they are both thought of as unlawful killing or murder by some people and are legal in some places and illegal in others.

The legality or otherwise of these acts is subject to change. I think it would be crazy to start punishing people for things they did that were legal when they did them. The only slight consolation for the people involved in executions would be that the most punishment they could receive would be life imprisonment.