The Conservative Case Against Ron Paul

Townhall.com ^ | June 15, 2007 | John Hawkins

[DugwayDuke]

“As an ObGyn (who has delivered over 4,000 babies), he believes that life begins at the moment of conception and believes that abortion is immoral.”

So what would Ron Paul do to protect the life of an unborn? Nothing. He would leave that up to the states. IOW, an unborn would be protected in one state but not another.

“Libertarians don’t take this stance.”

Actually, Paul pretty much toes the libertarian line on abortion. Deplore it, but do nothing about it. Kind of like the democrats.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So what would Ron Paul do to protect the life of an unborn? Nothing. He would leave that up to the states.

That's like saying "What would Fred Thompson do to prevent Murder, Rape, or Theft? Nothing. He would leave it up to the States."

Murder, Rape, and Theft are all Laws which are defined and enforced at the State Level. If you believe Abortion is Murder (and I do) -- then, Constitutionally, that area of Law is handled by the States.

[DugwayDuke]

“Ron Paul did not vote for the War in Iraq because it was not authorized by an Act of Congress, as stated in the U.S. Constitution.”

The war in Iraq was authorized by Congress and it was done in accordance with the Constitution.

“Instead, he put forth two pieces of legislation (don’t remember the titles) that put a price on the head of Osama bin Laden.”

No, Ron Paul wanted to issue “letters of marque and reprisal”. They do not include rewards. They are letters authorizing civilians to act as pirates and their reward is they get to sell the things they capture as prizes.

“This would have been in the constitutional tradition of Thomas Jefferson going after the pirates on the high seas (from the Halls of Monteczuma to the shores of Tripoli...).”

I think you’re very confused here. The USN and USMC were not operating under letters of marque and reprisal. BTW, if these letters worked so well against these pirates, then why did we have to send the USN and USMC to Tripoli? One other thing, you do realize that we did not declare war on Tripoli but operated under an authorization of force?

One last thing, there is a reward out for Osama, $25M. Has it worked?

[DugwayDuke]

“Murder, Rape, and Theft are all Laws which are defined and enforced at the State Level. If you believe Abortion is Murder (and I do) — then, Constitutionally, that area of Law is handled by the States.”

So you believe that individuals should have different rights depending upon the state in which they happen to be? That’s exactly what you’re saying here, that an unborn child should have the right to life in one state but not in another?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So you believe that individuals should have different rights depending upon the state in which they happen to be? That’s exactly what you’re saying here, that an unborn child should have the right to life in one state but not in another?

Constitutionally speaking, Murder Law, Rape Law, Theft Law, etc., are all defined and enforced by the States. If you want the Federal Congress to define and enforce National laws against Murder, Rape, Theft, and what have you, then you need to write up Constitutional Amendments proposing that the Congress by granted jurisdiction over all those areas of Law -- and then get such Amendments passed by 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the States.

Because the system established by the Founders places those areas of Law -- Murder Law, Rape Law, Theft Law, and most other crimes against persons or properties -- under the jurisdiction of the States.

[DugwayDuke]

“Because the system established by the Founders places those areas of Law — Murder Law, Rape Law, Theft Law, and most other crimes against persons or properties — under the jurisdiction of the States.”

So you, and Ron Paul, don’t have a problem with murder being legal in one state but illegal in another?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So you, and Ron Paul, don’t have a problem with murder being legal in one state but illegal in another?

We would both "have a problem" with it, morally speaking. However, that's the way the Constitution set it up -- different States can, and do define First-Degree Murder, 2nd-Degree Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Involuntary Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide, and what have you in all sorts of different ways with all sorts of different enforcement and punishment mechanisms.

If you don't believe that Murder Law, Rape Law, Theft Law, etc., should be separately defined and enforced by each individual State, you're going to have to pass Constitutional Amendments removing all those areas of Law from State jurisdiction and placing them all under Federal Congressional jurisdiction -- because the way the Constitution is written, Murder Law, Rape Law, Theft Law, and most other Crimes against persons and properties, are separately defined and enforced by each individual State.

[dljordan]

“I think that comes from the fact that his supporters, or people who just stick up for the guy, are incredibly tired of the Republicans and the Democrats being the same party.”

Two wings of the same buzzard picking at the carcass of the Republic.

[DugwayDuke]

“We would both “have a problem” with it, morally speaking.”

You know, most democrats ‘have a problem’ with ‘abortion’, morally speaking but like Ron Paul don’t want to really do anything about it. That’s worse, IMHO, than saying there is nothing wrong with it.

“However, that’s the way the Constitution set it up — different States can, and do define First-Degree Murder...”

That isn’t the point. The point is that all states do define murder as taking the life of another. The details may vary, but only the details. You, and Ron Paul, OTOH, would define a class of persons of whom you can take the life with no consequences.

You are essentially saying that a state can discriminate against a class of people without violating the Constitution. Is it your official position that you, and Ron Paul, support the concept of ‘state rights’ pretty much as defined by Wallace, etc.? Do you think this is a viable national platform and do you advocate this platform for the republican party?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

“We would both “have a problem” with it, morally speaking.” You know, most democrats ‘have a problem’ with ‘abortion’, morally speaking but like Ron Paul don’t want to really do anything about it. That’s worse, IMHO, than saying there is nothing wrong with it.

Ron Paul and I both believe that Abortion is Murder, and would both Vote to prohibit Abortion as Murder in the States in which we live.

But I can't define Kansas Murder Laws, because I don't live in Kansas.

“However, that’s the way the Constitution set it up — different States can, and do define First-Degree Murder...” That isn’t the point. The point is that all states do define murder as taking the life of another. The details may vary, but only the details. You, and Ron Paul, OTOH, would define a class of persons of whom you can take the life with no consequences. You are essentially saying that a state can discriminate against a class of people without violating the Constitution.

No, I'm not. I am saying that Abortion in Murder, and that Murder Laws are defined and enforced by the States.

If a State Government failed to protect one class of Persons against Murder, then one could bring a class-action suit against that State Government on behalf of that class of Persons and hope that your interpretation prevailed. However, before that's even possible, we need to overturn Roe v. Wade (as Ron Paul supports doing) and recognize in Law the Personhood of the Unborn (as Ron Paul supports doing).

None of that, however, changes the fact that Abortion is Murder, and Murder Laws are defined and enforced by the States. If you WANT the Federal Government to define and enforce National Murder Laws, you're going to have to Pass a Constitutional Amendment removing that Power from the States and conferring it upon the Federal Congress.

If you wish to do so, please feel free to get started. However, UNTIL YOU DO SO, Murder Laws are still Constitutionally defined and enforced by the States, and so overturning Roe v. Wade and recognizing State Authority to legislate against Abortion as Murder within existing State Laws against Murder is the best -- and presently, the ONLY -- way you're going to see any Anti-Abortion legislation passed AT ALL.

[DugwayDuke]

“If a State Government failed to protect one class of Persons against Murder, then one could bring a class-action suit against that State Government on behalf of that class of Persons and hope that your interpretation prevailed.”

So the federal government should have left the prosecution of the KKK to the individual states during the 60’s? After all, those persecuted (murdered, raped, etc.) could have pursued class action law suits within their state legal systems?

“..and recognize in Law the Personhood of the Unborn (as Ron Paul supports doing).”

Which is entirely meaningless since you and Ron Paul would allow individual states to ignore that personhood at their discretion. Just exactly how is this different from allowing states to violate any other individual right?

“If you WANT the Federal Government to define and enforce National Murder Laws, you’re going to have to Pass a Constitutional Amendment removing that Power from the States and conferring it upon the Federal Congress.”

There are federal statuates against murder and other crimes. Are you saying that these are un-Constitutional?

BTW, what do you think about the federal government prosecuting those entering the country illegally? Should that be left to the states?

Or, what do you think about building a border fence? Should the federal government be allowed to build a fence on state or individual property? Should this be left to the states (or individuals)? What if the state (or individuals) don’t want a fence built on their property?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So the federal government should have left the prosecution of the KKK to the individual states during the 60’s? After all, those persecuted (murdered, raped, etc.) could have pursued class action law suits within their state legal systems?

I believe that the Feds went after the KKK on the basis of Federal Law violations.

“..and recognize in Law the Personhood of the Unborn (as Ron Paul supports doing).” Which is entirely meaningless since you and Ron Paul would allow individual states to ignore that personhood at their discretion. Just exactly how is this different from allowing states to violate any other individual right?

By recognizing the Personhood of the Unborn, Ron Paul is providing a Basis in Law for the Unborn to be protected under existing State Murder Laws.

This represents a huge step forward versus the status quo, and is do-able NOW in the 30 or so States which have Pro-Life majorities -- a far more effective avenue than pining hopelessly for a National Pro-Life Amendment which is politically impossible as long as over 1/4 of the States have Pro-Abortion majorities.

There are federal statuates against murder and other crimes. Are you saying that these are un-Constitutional?

Alright, I'll grant you this: There are a few, narrow exceptions. Federal Laws against Murder generally attend to Murder of a Federal Employee or Murder in the prosecution of Interstate Commerce, etc. -- some area where the Feds can find some Constitutional grounds for making such a Law. However: Murder Law, generally speaking, is NOT Constitutionally defined and enforced by the Feds.

BTW, what do you think about the federal government prosecuting those entering the country illegally? Should that be left to the states? Or, what do you think about building a border fence? Should the federal government be allowed to build a fence on state or individual property? Should this be left to the states (or individuals)? What if the state (or individuals) don’t want a fence built on their property?

The Federal Government has specifically enumerated Constitutional Powers concerning Immigration. If it wants to restrict Immigration (as I believe it should), it has the Constitutional Power to do so (and I believe it should -- with a Border Fence, etc.)

Murder Law, however, is Constitutionally defined and enforced by the Individual States. While there are a few, fairly narrow, exceptions where the Federal Government has found grounds for enacting Murder Laws, these Laws are generally defined and enforced by the States, according to the Constitution.

---

Now: Having answered your questions, I'm going to ask you a question. The Map below was drawn up by some Leftie who is pining for secession from Bush's America, which he labels "JesusLand" (the 31 States which Bush won in 2004). I think it's useful for demonstrating the geographic divide (and it offers an amusing insight into how they view Conservatives)

So, the question is this: Given that Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" would return to the 31 or so States with Pro-Life majorities the power to regulate or abolish Abortion in their States, would you condemn to death the perhaps hundreds-of-thousands of Unborn Lives which could be saved in those States -- by opposing Ron Paul's Bill and instead demanding a National Pro-Life Amendment which absolutely cannot pass the 3/4 Amendment requirement as long as 19 States support Abortion rights?

[DugwayDuke]

“I believe that the Feds went after the KKK on the basis of Federal Law violations.”

I believe you are correct. Exactly what were the federal crimes committed? What was the Constitutional basis of these laws?

“This represents a huge step forward versus the status quo, and is do-able NOW in the 30 or so States which have Pro-Life majorities —”

Certainly so. As a matter of fact, I believe one of our problems is that we tend to federalize too many things. While I can grant you that Ron Paul’s attempt here may be good tactics and a significant improvement, I still believe you will have two problems. One, you do result in a situation where rights vary from state to state. Second, this approach is not likely to gather sufficient support for enactments since both sides in the abortion argument lose.

Then there is the strategic problme of how would Ron Paul respond to an attack that he supports ‘states rights’? While one can find attactive things about states rights, it also carries some heavy baggage left over from the sixties. One can easily imagine some rather nasty commercials....

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I believe you are correct. Exactly what were the federal crimes committed? What was the Constitutional basis of these laws?

Attempts to deny blacks their Fifteenth-Amendment protected Voting Rights; Violations of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which I don't believe to be 100% Constitutional, but various portions thereof certainly are); Kidnapping, in which the FBI generally assists State authorities because kidnappers so often cross State lines (although if a Kidapping is proven to be purely intra-State, it may well be prosecuted at the State level); and so forth.

Certainly so. As a matter of fact, I believe one of our problems is that we tend to federalize too many things. While I can grant you that Ron Paul’s attempt here may be good tactics and a significant improvement, I still believe you will have two problems. One, you do result in a situation where rights vary from state to state.

The same could be argued of existing Murder Laws. If John Smith were killed, the manner in which John was killed could result in entirely different charges (Murder, Manslaughter, Reckless Homicide, etc.) with very different trial procedures and very different potential Penalties being brought against his killer, depending on the State. So the protection of the Right to Life even for already-Born Persons varies in definition and enforcement from State to State, right now. But, that is the way the Founders set it up when they left such Powers vested with the States.

In the case of Abortion, the difference is more greivous because, even if the Sanctity of Life Act were passed, not more than 30 or so States would be likely to heavily-restrict or abolish Abortion in the near term -- rather than the 48 States in which Abortion was still largely illegal in 1972, prior to Roe.

However, for the near term, protecting the Unborn in 30 States is really about the best deal we have any political possibility of acheiving.

Second, this approach is not likely to gather sufficient support for enactments since both sides in the abortion argument lose.

On the contrary. Most conservative Pro-Lifers (Antonin Scalia, for example?) would be happy to see Abortion returned to the States, because at least some Anti-Abortion progress could be made. And many amongst the "mushy middle", while not strongly Pro-Life, do believe that Abortion should be at least regulated in most circumstances -- returning the power to the States would allow for such regulation. Really, the only people who would "lose" are the Federal Absolutists on both sides: Federal Pro-Abortion Absolutists who demand that Abortion remain legal until the minute before Birth in all 50 States, and Federal Pro-Life Absolutists who would sacrifice even the possibility of banning Abortion in 30 States in pursuit of the pipe dream of a National Pro-Life Amendment which is, at present, not mathematically possible.

Then there is the strategic problme of how would Ron Paul respond to an attack that he supports ‘states rights’? While one can find attactive things about states rights, it also carries some heavy baggage left over from the sixties. One can easily imagine some rather nasty commercials....

One can imagine all sorts of nasty commercials on all sorts of subjects. Don't you think Hillary would run them against any GOP nominee? Ron Paul simply has to make his case that these Powers were originally vested with the States, and should be returned thereto, and try to sway people with the Constitution.

If the alternative is to Federalize everything because we're afraid of Nasty Commercials on whatever issue, then why fight for Decentralized Government on any issue? Why not just give up the Constitution, abolish our State Legislatures, and go home, trusting our Masters in Washington DC to make all of our Laws from the imperial capital of Moscow on the Potomac?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Sorry for leaving the Italics on after “already-Born Persons” in my #174.

[x]

#5) A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating: There are, without question, plenty of decent folks who support Ron Paul. However, for whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner to spam polls and try to annoy everyone into voting for Ron Paul (which is, I must admit, a novel strategy).

Sad, but true. Nuts supporting Ron Paul wouldn't be a problem, but Ron Paul gives a lot of support to -- well, nuts, or if not nuts, then very impractical and annoying people. Anybody who's written dozens of articles for lewrockwell.com, as Ron has, is worth not voting for.

[justiceseeker93]

Because the system established by the Founders places those areas of Law - Murder Law, Rape Law, Theft Law, and most other crimes - under the jurisdiction of the states.

Yes, that is, IMO, what the constitution says, and what Ron Paul would say as well. However, what has been going on in the last several decades of our history is a trend toward the creation of more and more federal crimes regarding matters over which the federal government is given no power in the constitution. And almost always, when cases are contested, courts acquiesce to the arrogation of power by the federal government. Often, Dr. Paul has been a lone principled voice "in the wilderness" opposing legislation which, in his opinion, expands federal power beyond its constitutional limits.

[DugwayDuke]

“Kidnapping”

I wasn’t aware that ‘kidnapping’ was cited in the US Constitution as a crime. I am so tired of the many who say that only treason should be a federal crime since it is the only crime mentioned in the constitution. Their are many crimes that can be implied from the Constitution. Any time the federal government is given the power to regulate an activity, then it should be obvious that the federal government then has the power to define and prosecute crimes in that area.

“However, for the near term, protecting the Unborn in 30 States is really about the best deal we have any political possibility of acheiving.”

Several points.

First, I agree that this is a fairly good first step although I’m not at all optimistic that it would result in anything more than ‘feel good’ legislation in the various states. In this day of cheap airfares, restrictions in one state would be as easy to circumvent as buying an airline ticket. Unless you would be in favor of passing legislation (at the federal level) making it a crime to cross a state boundary in search of an abortion. Of course, that raises the question of the constitutional basis for such legislation. So, I think you reach a bit too far in saying that the Sanctity Act would protect the lives of the unborn in at least some states.

Second, it is really irrelevent that the various states have slightly different interpretations of murder. The point is that an individual has a right in all states not to be unlawfully deprived of their life. The small differences you cite pale in comparison to the basic right to your own life. Such small differences are inherent to any judicial system even within the same state since judges and juries do not treat all cases the same.

Third, you are dangerously close to aligning your self with Rudy Guiliani when he says that gun legislation should be left to the states.

‘Nasty commercials’

I was trying to make the point that some candidates have taken positions that make them unusually vulnerable to certain types of commercials. Paul certainly stands out in this regard.

[Zionist Conspirator]

t's interesting that you evangelical extremists are always present at the death of every movement.

Sorry, I'm not an evengelical, or even a chr*stian. I'm a Noachide.

Since you obviously didn't read my entire post, let me enlighten you. Back when I was in the JBS I wrote them a letter in which I questioned their support of a military draft because this seemed to go against their Jeffersonian strict constructionist principals. The answer I received was that my anti-draft position was not conservative but libertarian, and that the JBS was a conservative, not a libertarian organization. Okay? Got that?

NOW--the non-libertarian, conservative JBS has suddenly discovered that the military draft isn't authorized by the Constitution and they've now come out against it! It seems that a military draft to fight commies is all right, but one to fight Arabs/moslems is a plot of "the conspiracy" (you believe in that, right???). Furthermore, the article in The New American that attacked the idea of a military draft compared it, not with the draft they supported during the Sixties, but to the draft during that other "bad" war, World War II!

You'll be glad to learn that the JBS is apparently "libertarian" again, if by "libertarian" you mean Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and Pat Buchanan!

Why don't you ask Paul to repudiate the support he's receiving from the Sam Francis Fan Club?

[radioman]

Sorry, I'm not an evengelical, or even a chr*stian. I'm a Noachide.

ROFL!
You certainly stepped in it with that statement. Are you familiar with the Nine Noahchide Laws?
Noachide Law 1:
There is to be within each Pentecostal community a government to guide followers of Christ into holiness.
A Godly government will guarantee that the ordinances of God will be upheld and that punishment will be administered swiftly with justice when needed.
Still working on your American Theocracy?

Since you obviously didn't read my entire post, let me enlighten you.
I read every word of your post but go ahead, enlighten me.
Back when I was in the JBS I wrote them a letter in which I questioned their support of a military draft because this seemed to go against their Jeffersonian strict constructionist principals. The answer I received was that my anti-draft position was not conservative but libertarian, and that the JBS was a conservative, not a libertarian organization. Okay? Got that?

I joined JBS, as many libertarians did, in 1958 when the Society was founded to restore and preserve the Constitution. I left in the sixties and joined the Goldwater camp when the JBS was flooded with Bible toting neo-nazis and various other kooks. You joined after the kooks had taken over and purged libertarians. Do you always chase the caboose?

You'll be glad to learn that the JBS is apparently "libertarian" again, if by "libertarian" you mean Lew Rockwell, Justin Raimondo, and Pat Buchanan!

No, they're trying to win back the libertarians they purged in the sixties. They now realize that you can't win a general election without libertarian votes. I now see the exact same thing happening in the Republican party today.
You want libertarian votes yet you continue to attack libertarians. When you lose the libertarians you win permanent minority status.

Why don't you ask Paul to repudiate the support he's receiving from the Sam Francis Fan Club?
Sam Francis has a fan club that supports Ron Paul?
The same Sam Francis who wrote about the dangers of illegal immigration?
. .