Replies

RE :”I think that you should stop posting on this subject, lest you make it even clearer that you are completely ignorant about the U.S. Constitution”

I think either you agree with Scalia, Thomas and Palin on the limits of the Federal government under the constitution but you just make believe you dont to attack Paul on abortion hoping readers wont know they agree with him, or ..

You actually disagree with Scalia, Thomas and Palin on the constitution, but feel you cant admit it here because it would hurt your cause, either way..

The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with Federal laws on Abortion(or murder even), extrapolating it to that makes as much sense as extrapolating it to granting citizens rights to illegals based on the 14th, which you would set a precident for if you could.

“Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote an interesting concurrence in yesterday’s partial birth abortion case, indicating that he might be sympathetic to a Commerce Clause challenge to the federal partial birth abortion ban that was just upheld by the Court.”

Do you know what a “Commerce Clause challenge” is? In my long post, I explained that there are two distinct reasons why a federal law may be found to be unconstitutional on its face. One of them was because the law itself violated some constitutional provision (such as a law that provided that California would get 5 Senators and Rhode Island only 1 without getting the consent of all 50 states, or an outright ban on firearms in the District of Columbia), and the other was because Congress legislated without constitutional authority. What Justices Scalia and Thomas were saying was that they would consider a challenge upon the constitutionality of the PBA Ban based on the fact that Congress approved it pursuant to the Commerce Clause. What Justices Scalia and Thomas were *not* saying was that (i) they would rule that Congress could not pass the PBA Ban pursuant to its power to regulate commerce between the states (although I would hope that they would indeed rule that Congress overstepped its bounds there) or (ii) that the U.S. Constitution, as amended, was completely devoid of any ennumerated power of Congress that would permit it to legislate to prohibit states from allowing doctors to partially deliver a viable fetus and kill him or her right before the entire baby is fully outside the womb.

My positions are perfectly logical and consistent. The person who can’t possibly reconcile his positions is Ron Paul, who voted against several different abortion restrictions on numerous occasions supposedly based on his “principled” position that Congress was not authorized to pass abortion restrictions, but then voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Act on numerous occasions. Ron Paul is either not very bright, or a hypocrite of the first order. And he certainly would not be a pro-life president, irrespective of what the Ronulans claim when talking to pro-lifers (which is the opposite of what they say when talking to pro-aborts).

As for the intent of the 14th Amendment, go back and read your John Bingham and the congressional debates. The 14th Amendment was adopted to prevent states from denying persons within their jurisdiction the God-given rights that the U.S. Constitution already prevented the U.S. Congress from denying to anyone. If you recognize the scientific truth that human life begins at conception (when an embryo is created, with its own individual DNA that he or she will keep forever), then you there should be no doubt in your mind that abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life. Of all of our God-given rights, the right to life is paramount, and to believe that the U.S. Constitution allows state or federal governments to countenance and abet the intentional taking of an innocent human life in the face of the constitutional prohibitions of denying any person the right to life without due process of law is to believe that there are no individual rights that the government has to respect.

If you truly were pro-life, this would be clear to you.