Posted on 10/19/2007 12:23:35 PM PDT by uxbridge
no, because they are not pro-life. Though Harry Reid is probably more pro-life than anyone in charge here in NY.
Because the courts have determined, in their wisdom, that an unborn child is not legally a person.
Not if the "mother" wants him/her dead, anyway.
states are also governments that can crush people and strong people can crush weaker people. So you have to restrain the federal govt but there must also be a restraint against oppressive states and people
So you only believe in limited government when the people in charge agree with you?
When will conservatives realize that every time they empower the federal government to enforce their views, they’re giving liberals a tool to enforce theirs.
After all, when conservatives ran screaming to the FCC demanding the government penalize broadcasts that “offend community values,” liberals took that and enhanced penalties for crimes that “offend community values.” A.k.a. “hate crimes.” Conservatives established precedent that the federal government can be used to punish people who make a statement that offends you.
And that’s exactly the argument liberals use when they demand federal gun control, federal hate crimes, federal union laws, etc., etc., etc. It’s why the Founding Fathers created a weak federal government, only to see Democrats and Republican turn us into Euro-lite.
Besides, history has proven that a powerful federal government is more of a threat than a powerful state government.
(1.3million/year approx 5 minute speech)
I have seen the 14th amendment invoked on other abortion threads, but the what, when, and by whom are always vague. Are people arguing that some test law, designed with a 14th amendment basis, needs to be passed by Congress and then tested through the inevitable challenges all the way to the SC? If not, what’s the game plan? If so, why haven’t any states or municipalities done this already? Or have they?
You are exactly right, “12.3 children were murdered by abortion.”
Abortion is murder. Murder of innocents, to be exact. But the Constitution doesn’t give the federal government authority to legislate laws against murder.
Let’s save babies without sacrificing the principles we were founded on. Send the issue back to the states.
Besides, history has proven that a powerful federal government is more of a threat than a powerful state government.
-
slavery, segregation...9/11 wasn’t the result of a powerful federal govt. Nobody really expects a bunch of state militias will fight al qaeda all over the world.
Really??? It seems the 10th Amendment states that if something isn't specifically outlined in the Constitution, the right is granted to the States and to the people.. so if the people decide through their Representatives (ie, Congress) they want this addressed at the federal level, why is that Unconstitutional? We are a Republic after all.
This reminds me of a joke I read today. Ron Paul is against supporting Israel because the word Jew isn't in the Constitution.
You are quoting liberals, word for word. THAT is exactly what they invoke when they demand federal gun control, federal health care, etc.
I don’t know why I am still amazed at the number of so-called “conservatives” who believe in the ability of federal control to create Utopia.
OH MY FREAKING GAWD! THAT MEANS MORE CHILDREN WILL BE BORN TO GET SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORISTS! PAUL'S A KOOK!
Statutorily removing abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is clearly the best way to deal with this issue, and save some babies lives in the near term. The Republicans could have done this with just 50% + 1 of the vote when they had control, but they didn’t. Instead they talk about a Constitutional Amendment which just isn’t going to happen any time soon. The exact same thing is true with gay “marriage.” Take it out of the hands of the Supreme Court.
Cynically, I don’t think the GOP wants the pro-life issue or the gay “marriage” issue to go away. They can use them every two and four years to keep conservatives in line.
This happened precisely in ‘04. Legislation was introduced to take gay “marriage” away from the Supreme Court and Bush and the GOP leadership would not back it. It was too “radical.” Instead they supported a Constitutional Amendment they knew was not going to pass.
I agree that it can never be legal to kill babies, but the State’s Rights position HELPS US. It doesn’t hurt us. No national legislation or amendments are going to pass any time soon. But State legislation could. Look at the recent law in South Dakota. Similar laws would pass in many states in the South.
Then you are thoroughly unfamiliar with the United STates Constitution.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
The constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. If California makes murder legal they have broken the Law of the Land and the feds would have the power to set things right.
Perhaps I misunderstood you because the notion that a state can ignore murder is not one dervived from the United States Constitution.
“THAT MEANS MORE CHILDREN WILL BE BORN TO GET SLAUGHTERED BY TERRORISTS! PAUL’S A KOOK!”
So every kid born is going to be killed by a terrorist if we adopt a constitutional, small government non-interventionist foreign policy?
That is just rank fear mongering.
So Congress should legislate secondhand smoke! After all, it deprives some people of life without due process of law.
Sorry, just showing you the mile that liberals will take with that inch you just gave them. Conservative lust for federal power always gives birth to a liberal bastard.
A Constitutional Amendment banning abortion, while admirable, isn't going to happen anytime soon. Lib states like Mass., California, Illinois, etc. aren't going to go for it. I would rather see Roe vs Wade repealed and returned to the states so state legislatures can ban it without worrying about some federal black robe pulling a ruling from his keister. Plus it'll save more lives in the interim than waiting for an amendment to get passed.
Here is the difference, when the same votes were presented before Thompson, he always chose to vote pro-Life. Paul didn’t.
Real cute. The American military and American taxpayers shouldn’t be supporting any country except the good ol’ US of A. That is clearly the small government conservative position.
What exactly do you mean by support? Foreign aid? Please show me the article and section of the Constitution that authorizes foreign aid?
You post these links as if they mean anything, but they don't. Go to the Ron Paul online library and click on the abortion topic link. Fricking read what the man himself has said about abortion instead of posting spam from internet boards.
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.