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.
“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?