Posted on 12/16/2011 9:06:03 AM PST by Brookhaven
Ron Paul wants to be pro-life but is officially pro-choice state by state, and so contradicts himself and wrongly assumes that states' rights supersede human rights, concluding that a state like California has the right to permit abortion. But the right to life is God-given so there can be no 'right' to decriminalize child killing.
Ron Paul is Pro-Choice state by state with all of these observations fully documented below:
- opposes a national ban on the dismembering of unborn children
- claims the states may decide if they want to permit the killing of children
- has not acknowledged that human rights trump states' rights
- legislates as though rights come from the state and not from our Creator, thus
- believes the states have the right to permit genocide and commit holocaust
- claims that killing children in the womb cannot "conceivably" violate the U.S. Constitution
- believes the state is the ultimate authority, superseding God's enduring command, Do not murder
- defends the killing of any of the very youngest babies including those conceived in rape through his "exceptions"
- is essentially a Libertarian (small godless government) but runs as a Republican for greater visibility
- The Libertarian Party promotes legalized abortion, pornography, adultery, crack cocaine, suicide, euthanasia, and prostitution
- Ron Paul uses Libertarians for financial and political support but doesn't warn them about their party's gross immorality
Paul's SANCTITY OF LIFE ACT Elevates States' Rights Over Human Rights: From the text of Ron Paul's bill, "...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review... any case arising out of any statute... on the grounds that such statute... regulates... the performance of abortions..."13 Ron Paul's legislation would violate a fundamental principle of governance by removing the protection of inalienable human rights from the jurisdiction of the courts. By his theory, a state like California has the right from the Constitution to allow the intentional killing of unborn children, but actually those children have a right to life from their Creator. Because the Creator trumps California and the Constitution, and the right to life is inalienable. It is wrong to give aid and comfort to any jurisdiction of government suggesting that they would be free from interference if they permit genocide within their borders. Ron Paul's so-called Sanctity of Life legislation is illegitimate because abortion cannot be a right: neither a woman's, nor parents, nor a states' rights issue.
Paul Defends Killing Kids with Chemical Abortifacients: In his own book, Ron Paul wrote:
"So if we are ever to have fewer abortions, society must change again. The law will not accomplish that. However, that does not mean that the states shouldn’t be allowed to write laws dealing with abortion. Very early pregnancies and victims of rape can be treated with the day after pill, which is nothing more than using birth control pills in a special manner. These very early pregnancies could never be policed, regardless. Such circumstances would be dealt with by each individual making his or her own moral choice." -Ron Paul, Liberty Defined47
Human Rights Supersede States' Rights: At the museum beneath the St. Louis Arch a plaque presents a quote from Stephen A. Douglas. This Democratic politician championed states' rights.9 No state though has sufficient authority to nullify the God-given inalienable rights to life and liberty. His states' rights view led Douglas to claim that the people of a territory should decide the slavery question by themselves.
Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it's errors. Like Ron Paul today and abortion, Stephen Douglas believed his Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 would thereby "remove the contentious slavery issue from national politics, lest it threaten to rip the nation apart, but it had exactly the opposite effect."10 The extent of destruction from doing wrong is difficult to fathom.
Ron Paul and Douglas reject the truth that human rights trump states rights. And in 1858 the latter said, "I look forward to a time when each state shall be allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, not mine. I care more for the great principle of self-government, than I do for all the Negroes in Christendom."11 This parallels Paul's claim that, "a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid" as compared to Roe.12 Ron Paul puts his supporters in the awkward position of siding with Douglas, and wrongly claiming that states' rights supersede the God-given inalienable rights of life and liberty.
If states have the right to permit the systematic killing of children, as in Paul's view, then they would also have the right to deprive any other class of citizen of life and liberty. But as a University of Denver law student argued with a professor during a 2008 American Right To Life event, "If a state has the authority to nullify rights, then rights aren't rights, are they?" Thus states' have no such right, neither to define one class of living human being as nonpersons, nor to decriminalize murder, for human rights supersede states' rights.
Good quotes.
That's complete nonsense. Totally out of context. Two separate clauses. The one you reference is in regards to the privileges and immunities of citizens. The due process and equal protection clauses are in reference to all persons within the state's jurisdiction.
More nonsense. The protection of every person’s God-given, unalienable right to live, from their creation until natural death, is not in any way a tyranny, as your post would suggest. The complete opposite is true.
All officers of government in this republic, in every branch, at every level, have sworn an oath, as they are required by Article Six, Section 3 to do, to provide due process and equal protection for all persons for their rights to life, liberty and property.
And all the States are guaranteed a republican form of government under our Constitution. You cannot have one of those, in the American sense, without the above. It’s not possible.
Ah, another of your famously polite posts. Has it ever occurred to you that such a tone wins you nothing but distaste for your positions?
Given that the right to life movement relies upon the 14th for any power in the BOR over State law, yes, it is germane. There is a huge difference between whether the right is unalienable and whether the Federal government has the Constitutional power to enforce its protection.
There’s no question that they have the power to protect the unalienable rights of the people, equally. They do, beyond question. They simply refuse to do so.
The pertinent questions are whether they have the legitimate JURISDICTION, and the DUTY to do so.
And the answer to both questions is an obvious “yes.”
According to the founders of our republic such is the reason for the existence of human government. The stated purposes of the Constitution, all of them, and its explicit requirements are in perfect keeping with that.
If you’re turned off to the most important founding natural law moral questions upon which this free republic was founded because I’m tired of being polite to those who keep spreading the pro-choice for states fallacies that are destructive of those principles to the ultimate degree, it is you with the problem, not me.
Which would actually be the moral position if states were prohibited from banning slavery as was the case when George III ruled us -- and is the case now regarding abortion.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Ron Paul strongly opposes keeping abortion legal.
“...It’s academic to talk about civil liberties if you don’t talk about the true protection of all life. So if you’re going to protect liberty, you have to protect the life of the unborn just as well. I have a bill in Congress [”Sanctity of Life Act of 2007”] which I certainly would promote and push as president...and what it would do is establish the principle that life begins at conception.”
“Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and individual liberty...A libertarian’s support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.”
“I would not support Roe v. Wade but I certainly am absolutely opposed to the federal government funding abortion. But I cannot protect and fight for personal liberty if I don’t fight for the right to life, and if you endorse abortion moments before delivery or in the third trimester—which is now legal-I as a physician can be paid for it.”
“I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.”
In 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act, which would define human life as beginning from conception, removing abortion from federal jurisdiction and effectively negating Roe v. Wade. Paul has also introduced a Constitutional amendment with similar intent. Such laws would permit states to declare abortion to be murder and to outlaw new fetal stem cell research and some contraception and fertility treatments. Also in 2005 and 2007, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would forbid all federal courts from adjudicating abortion as well as same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and government display of religious symbols. The Act would make federal decisions on those subjects nonbinding as state precedent, and would forbid federal courts from spending money to enforce their judgments.
Didn’t Ron Paul also vote that minors could be brought to other states for an abortion without their parents’ permission?
He also was one of the 5 Rs voting to repeal DADT, he’s all for homosexual “marriage” and in the military and whatever else they want.
BTW, thanks for summarizing and putting this all together. People need to know the “rest of the story” about Ron Paul.
“Ron Paul strongly opposes keeping abortion legal.”
Yeah ? Then why does RuPaul support the abortion drug RU-486 ?
One thing I will always resent about the Liberaltarian bowel movement is how they try to twist leftist positions (homosexual “rights”, abortion on demand, legalized heroin, etc.) into Conservative positions and then attempt to lecture Conservatives when they don’t go along with the plan.
The Liberaltarians of today disgrace the libertarians of yesteryear. (Rand, Hayek, Von Mises)
Agreed! BTTT!
I haven’t run into you lately. Had to ping you to this thread.
Been working like dog last couple of days. Millions of people are counting my paycheck, ya know!
:)
“More nonsense. The protection of every person’s God-given, unalienable right to live, from their creation until natural death, is not in any way a tyranny, as your post would suggest. The complete opposite is true.”
It is when the Federal goverment does it in our States. No such power exist in the Federal Constitution.
Like it or not in America domestic issues like murder(IE the protection of life) are State NOT Federal issues.
“All officers of government in this republic, in every branch, at every level, have sworn an oath, as they are required by Article Six, Section 3 to do, to provide due process and equal protection for all persons for their rights to life, liberty and property.”
I’m afraid I’m aware of an oath to uphold the Federal AND state constitutions but not one to violate the same constitution by intruding into unauthorized domains.
PS: Not that I recognize the 14th Amendment as legitimate(Given it was ratified literally under the gun) “due process of law” necessarily does involve “law”, not whatever you happen to think should be law.
A republican goverment is of course a goverment of laws not men. That does not however require laws no matter how “universal” you think they are. Men in REAL Republics are in fact free to pick & choose which laws they consent to being governed by.
Having “EternalVigilance’s stamp of approval” is not a qualification for being a republic.
Men are not “free to pick and choose” whether our rights are unalienable. If they were, they would be man-granted instead of God-given, and therefore subject to the arbitrary whims of men. I’m sorry you don’t understand this fundamental, self-evident moral, natural law truth upon which the American republic was and is premised. Sadly, you’re not a rarity these days.
Of course you don't. Like Ron Paul, that part of the document is snipped out. Along with the Fifth Amendment, which has the exact same explicit, imperative requirement, that no person in this country shall be deprived of life without a fair trial on a capital offense.
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.