If North Carolina decided it was legal to kill Jews, should the feds stay out of it?
Alright I'll try and get to these in one reply.
This is the default strategy whenever the Constitution is brought up. Hypothetical scenarios like this show a lack of logic when compared to the fact that abortion is forcibly legal in every state right now so to say "what if" one, two or forty-nine legalized it, you are pointing out the flaw in not following the Constitution by your answer. Let's see what's worse, legal abortion in 50 states or in a few states? At least I would have a choice to move to a state that outlawed abortion. As it stands now, I am forced by the federal government to live in a state that sanctions abortion, if I wish to remain in America.
No, on the other hand, if the FEDS decided legally to kill us (to stop dissent), who's left to get in it?
See here is the problem. I understand both points. It is the Feds who started this nonsense. They are the ones who decided it was legal to kill babies.
Who created the Federal Government?
Was the Federal Government supposed to be the big dog in charge?
Does the Congress of the United States have the authority to tell the Supreme Court to shove it where the sun don't shine? Do the states for that matter?
Was the US Constitution unconstitutional?
What was United States law (Constitution) based on?
Just a sampling of questions I like answered.
This is what everyone here should be asking themselves. I'll take a crack at it. The founding fathers were of the opinion that we needed a federal government to provide national defense and protect the most basic of rights, life included. That being said, they were also of the strong opinion that all central governments tend to gravitate outside of any bounds and therefore they were adamant about restricting the federal government's power and authority. The constitution is a restriction on federal power first, not an enabling document. It was never intended to tell the individual how to live or to try and control people at all. Those men were coming out of the control of a tyrannical government and were well aware of the evil that man is capable of when wielding the power of government.
We the people created the government here.
Congress and the Judiciary are not equal powers as outlined in the Constitution. This is the point of
H.R. 300
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. - Rep. Ron Paul
See this nice little blog about this very subjecthttp://sayanythingblog.com/entry/ron_paul_and_an_interesting_approach_to_the_abortion_issue/
Our Constitutional law was based on alot of things, not the least of which was scripture and Judeo-Christian values.
We are the United States of America, not a bunch of individual countries, but one country. In the instance of "Do not murder", the United States of America needs to have one policy. That policy should be do not murder, regardless of whether we are talking about cities, states, territories, or anything else that would be considered a PART of the United States of America.
This is what needs to happen in my estimation. It should not be left up to each state to decide whether "Do not murder" is a binding law for them.
This is misstating the problem as well as the solution. the states were never the problem. Ultimately the lack of morality of man was couple with a blatant disregard for the laws that already existed. Texas could have been allowed to outlaw abortion but the court overstepped and the Congress allowed them to. Vesting more power in the federal government sets more president that the federal government is powerful enough to define life and thus undefine it again at will.
And generally, this is the case. The issue PK is not whether murder is wrong, the issue is when life begins. This is why abortion is so muddled, esp to the liberals. They do not see the fetus as a human being. Until the Federal Government stands up and says life begins at conception, we will always have this problem.
Who in the federal government? Not the court, it has spoken.
the Sanctity of Life Act states clearly that human life is recognized at conception and goes on to define it from conception to death.
Hey,
Yup Pastor Kevin it's Stephen Dale.
My point is this:
I totally agree that abortion is wrong. However, the founding fathers saw the eminent danger in creating a massive federal monster. The jump from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was big enough as it was. I'm with Mr. Kevin that God given rights supersede states rights anytime. But our Constitution was not designed to give the government the Federal style power it has now.:execute: It was designed to be a powerful protector of individual states and their rights. I believe that if we use the Federal leviathan we have now to try and outlaw abortion we're going to do the right thing the wrong way. Abortion is one of the many crimes our government commits, and it's obvious that if they're going to ignore things such as the 14th amendment they'll ignore other just as important things as well.
I'm going to side with Ron Paul on this one because he sees the big picture. If we take the abortion issue back down to the state level as the founding fathers first envisioned then Christians can tackle it state by state :bannana: as opposed to trying to overwhelm a monster that's far far bigger in the Federal government.
Stephen
Exactly. See why I'm homeschooling my youngins too? Stephen is a smart dude.
As for Ron Paul, I really really like the man. And I like his Sanctity of Life bill EXCEPT where he writes if a state legalizes it, the court must stay out of it.
I'm sorry, the full text of H.R. 2597 says no such thing. It strikes at the heart of the problem quickly, the Supreme Court having already proven it will overstep it's authority and define an unborn child as not human. That authority is revoked in the bill the only way it can.
Yes he's a great kid too. My son and he are buddies, and I've known him since he was knee-high to a tadpole.
I am no fan of Ron Paul, and I despise the Libertarian party and quite a bit of its positions.
The funny thing is that many Libertarians would say the same thing of Ron Paul. He's also been a Republican for many years, in and out of Congress. There almost is nowhere for a man like him to go if he must agree with every platform of any party.
Yes. Are you suggesting we murder them?
No. But the fact that he opposed murdering people who commit private sins is evident in many passages, including the Samaritan woman with five husbands. The crowd had gathered to stone her and it was Jesus who stopped them. The Mosaic law forbade the drinking of wine, but Jesus turned water into it. The law said that eating pork was illegal, but Jesus said that all foods were clean. Jesus harvested farm fields on the sabbath in violation of the law. He healed when his government told him not to. Shall we go on?
Jesus was the biggest law breaker in Israel. He came to set men free, not to enslave them.
However, we stray from the original point... Jesus never once supported the use of government violence against a person for a private sin. That is a fact you have not denied.
very well stated.
In the last thirty-five years of US history there has been a total of one constitutional amendment. But your state will pass at least a thousand pages of new laws this year alone.
Do the math.
Then we might as well just keep it legal, right? C'mon... if we outlaw it nationally, people will just drive to Canada. All abortion is legal there, you know.
All good answers
False. Adherence to the constitution as supported by Ron Paul would send the issue back to the states where victories in at least 10-15 states could occur immediately. Many other federal issues have been sent back to the states before; this is not unique.
EXACTLY
As I said before the Supreme Court, the congress, and the President all believe that congress doesn't have the authority to pass a law based on what has already been declared unconstitutional! Even if it passed H.R. 2597 is dead on arrival!
Not so because the "authority" was the Supreme Court. The Legislature has the Constitutional authority to turn this around and H.R.2597 does just that. Your statement about the "belief" of the three branches that congress does not have the authority is an assumption. Plus the Constitution, trumps wrong "beliefs".
It's actually an interesting question in one sense. You didn't ask me if I thought righteous governments should stop evil governments from committing wicked acts. You used that fact that it is legal in Canada as an excuse to say we should just make it legal here. Unless I'm misunderstanding your argument. And it was that thought that I responded to.
If innocent people are being put to death mercilessly ANYWHERE in the world, then it would always be a good and Godly thing to attempt to stop that. That is why removing Saddam from power was a good thing. I know you disagree with that, but I'd say lets keep the focus on topic in this thread, as there is always time to discuss that issue as well in another thread another day.
What a great response. Why don't we invade every evil nation. Yea that's scriptural isn't it. of course we would have to invent even more money (or borrow even more) that we do not have to continue our current interventions. Not to mention we would have to institute the draft earlier that our impending Iran invasion will require. Hey, lets just do it, I don't see anything stopping us... the Constitution has been left out of this equation long ago.
Jesus was not the recognized government authority as someone already pointed out to you. God never ok'd vigilante justice anyway. He gave the principles for Godly government and left it to them to inact those principles.
I can't believe that one is still going, Jesus made it clear that the adulterous woman should not be killed for her sin, legal or not, those of you molding the scripture's intended meaning are taking an awful lot of liberty with the Word. Jesus flat out was showing the woman love and grace pure and simple. He was not dealing with government authority at all. And whether he was "breaking" Roman or Jewish law is debatable but yes, he was bucking the twisted legal system all along the way.
One last thing on the whole "kill homosexuals" debate here, you are all a little off about this as the death penalty is a state issue and no one here has mentioned it in your comparisons and calling for a death sentence on homosexuals. So once again the argument all of you pro-federal authority folks are using is inconsistent. Abortion, then, like any other murder should be treated that way, based on your argument, at the state level. I'm sure someone will now go back to something like "what is California legalizes it, would Ron Paul stop the CA murder of babies, by force." Just be consistent.
