Replies

“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?

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?