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