“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.
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.