Posted on 09/16/2007 2:18:45 AM PDT by traviskicks
More than 1,000 people gathered Saturday at the Union Pacific Depot in Salt Lake City to rally behind U.S. Rep. Ron Paul in his bid for the Republican presidential nomination.
Paul, an obstetrician from Texas, was impressed with the turnout.
"Wow. If they only knew you existed over in Washington, they'd change things over there," he said as he greeted the cheering crowd.
Paul spoke fervently of his support of smaller government, including the abolition of agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, and of his support for strictly following the Constitution. He also spoke out against the war in Iraq and any pre-emptive military action.
"Because of our careless attitude about foreign policy and how we go to war, we have allowed our government to build an American world empire," he said. "We are not an empire. We're a republic."
Paul's stances on such topics are "clearly proven" in his voting record, which has earned him the nickname of "Dr. No" in the House of Representatives, said supporter Ronald Levine Saturday.
"I tell people not to listen to what a candidate says before an election or what he does," he said. "I tell them to look at what he has consistently done for the past 20 years."
That voting record is what drives his grass-roots supporters, said Mark Hudson of Syracuse. "He is the only candidate who attracts everyone from libertarians to constitutional conservatives to true conservatives," Hudson said.
Paul visited Utah for the free rally and for a $1,000-a-plate brunch that drew fewer than 20 supporters and a $2,000-per-plate dinner. He is the eighth presidential candidate to visit Utah, the fourth Republican. Paul had raised about $13,000 in Utah as of the June 30 filing, according to the Federal Elections Commission.
Though polls show Paul garnering an average of only 2 percent of potential voters, many of his supporters believe the polls don't accurately show how many people support him.
"He's the only candidate I've seen homemade signs for," said Tom Salt, who is studying mechanical engineering at Brigham Young University.
Salt sees many young people supporting Paul.
"We look at his principles and we're too young to be cynical about his chances," Salt said. The mainstream media has not treated Paul fairly, said Jed Hardman of Springville, and neither have some of the other Republicans in the race, pointing to Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney "openly mocking" Paul after debates.
"They're afraid because as soon as such a true conservative emerges, one who is anti-abortion and has conservative views on taxes, they're going to lose," he said.
LOL Then dream on Alice, you'll get to Wonderland some day.
“That’s not how the Constitution reads, nor is it what they say on the House website.”
The Constitution is generally silent on the actual process of creating a budget. Hence this process is left to the House and the Senate to define.
Here’s a primer prepared by the Congressional Research Service that explains the process and I don’t find anything here inconsistent with what I said.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34649.pdf
“Another problem with this bill is its citation of the interstate commerce clause as a justification for a federal law banning partial-birth abortion. This greatly stretches the definition of interstate commerce.” - Ron Paul
There are other statements given by Ron Paul that I think are more appropriate to base a discussion of his views on abortion.
For example, his website provides this position:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/
You’ll also find a more complete discription of his position and some links to the legislation he has sponsored here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
Summarizing Ron Paul would pass a law stating that life begins at conception and that the unborn are to be considered ‘persons’. It leaves the enforcement up to the states. This law would also remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the courts.
Here’s the problem. Since enforcement of the right of the unborn would be left up to the individual states, then some states could act to protect such life while others might not. IOW, an unborn person would have different rights in different states. In one state abortion could be considered murder and in another, well, nothing.
I see very little difference between Ron Paul and John Kerry (or any other democrat) in that they personally oppose abortion but they are unwilling to act to stop it. I do not believe that one can take the position that abortion is murder and also take the position that it could be prohibited in some places and sometimes but also be allowed in some places and sometimes. Hence my tag line.
Now Ron’s argument that the Commerce clause has been overused, even abused, is sound. However, I would base any federal enforcement upon the 14th Amendment and not the Commerce Clause so I find his arguments interesting, but, simply irrelevent.
Paul would let the states decide, he doesn't favor legalization carte blanche.
and the recognition of gay marriage which are two issues Ron Paul supports and are not supported by Fred and has never been part of the GOP Party platform.
Paul's position on homosexual marriage is the same as Fred's.
Paul doesn't support the anti-war moonbats, my Friend. There is not a liberal bone in Dr. Paul's body.
The GOP Establishment: treating conservatives like dirt since 1861.
I don’t know who I’d vote for if Paul won the primary. The Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution candidates will all oppose victory in Iraq, and I sure as h*** am not voting for the She-Devil. I’ll just vote for Duncan Hunter in the primary and hope for the best.
Thanks for your reply, DugwayDuke. I’m on vacation right now, and will read your primer link later when I’m home in my comfy chair.
For now I will point out that States already define murder and manslaughter differently, and treat it differently. Some don’t believe in the death penalty, and putting a murderer to death would itself be murder in those places. In other places, it is justice. This different treatment of rights in life and death situations has not dissolved our Republic so far.
Enjoy your vacation. I do believe the fact that state laws differ slightly is a red herring. The fact remains that killing an innocent is still murder in all states. Punishments may vary but it is still murder.
I think the difference between being thrown in prison and being executed is more than a slight difference.
Are you a supporter of the federal ban on partial birth abortion? Ignoring for the moment the super-elastic interpretation of the commerce clause which is the basis of that law, I wonder what you think about this quote from Ron Paul on the subject?
“14G in the “Findings” section of this bill states, “...such a prohibition [upon the partial-birth abortion procedure] will draw a bright line that clearly distinguishes abortion and infanticide...” The question I pose in response is this: Is not the fact that life begins at conception the main tenet advanced by the pro-life community? By stating that we draw a “bright line” between abortion and infanticide, I fear that we simply reinforce the dangerous idea underlying Roe v. Wade”
He makes a good point. However, that point is overshadowed by the fact that he would leave whether any abortion, parial birth or otherwise, is a criminal act up to the states.
There is a basic flaw in Ron Paul’s arguments. He says that a law should be passed defining an unborn as a person. It is illogical to take that position and ignore the fact that that killing that person is a basic violation of that person’s rights and is prohibited by the 14th amendment. If a state fails to act to preserve that right, then the Constitution compells the federal government to intervene.
I think this highlights the fact that Ron Paul is somewhat selective in his personal interpretation of the Constitution.
He is a smart man. He should see the lack of logic in his position. I can see several possible reasons for his taking this position.
It could be that he is trying to have it both ways, being pro-choice and pro-life at the same time.
He could simply playing the part of Dr. No.
Or, he could think that states rights are more important than individual rights.
None of these reflect well upon him.
There are two links in my post 122 that will take you to sources. One is the Ron Paul 2008 website.
“What am I missing here?”
Rather than give you my interpretation, I’ll let Ron Paul speak for himself:
“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.” Ron Paul.
The link to this statement is:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul301.html
That’s a pretty clear statement that Ron Paul believes the states should decide if abortion should be legal. I simply don’t understand how he can take the position that an unborn is a person yet fail to see that the 14th Amendment protects the life of that person.
This is only one example of why I don’t consider Ron Paul to be a ‘staunch defender of the Constitution”. Any defense he offers is the defense of his rather peculiar views of the Constitution. His stances on ‘Declaring War’ and ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal’ are others.
BTW, sorry to take so long to get back with you. I had some minor surgery yesterday.
Thanks for your reply, Dugway. Hope you are well soon.
It seems to me that Ron Paul is saying one thing in his articles, but proposing another in the actual law he put forth for consideration. Or at least another result.
He seems to oppose a federal law banning abortion, and he wants to take away the ability of the federal courts to stop states from banning or restricting abortions, but he does not want to take away the ability of the federal courts to force states to ban abortions. In other contexts, it might be called “legislating from the bench” that he is advocating. I think pro-abortion groups would hit the roof if they read that section of the law I just posted, because they can see as clearly as I can what is NOT mentioned.
I understand why many people feel strongly about abortion, but I am not one of them. I am more concerned with the overall size and power of government. We gave mainstream Republicans a chance to curb the growth, and wound up spending a trillion dollars more each year than we were when Bill Clinton left office. Supporting Ron Paul is my response to that growth in government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.