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.
“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.”
I do not dispute that rights are God given, nor that they exist whether goverment has been contracted(authorized) to help protect them or not.
The dispute is exacy that, whether or not the Federal goverment specifically has been contracted(authorized) to act to protect theses specific rights within the states.
As can be plainly seen in the Federal Constitution and in our history the Federal goverment has not.
I might also point out among other God given rights is the right take from the earth what you like. I would presume nether of us think it the place of goverment to act to preserve that right. Instead we have ceded this right in favor of anther (sometimes conflicting) right, the right of private property. Which is anther way of saying the right to keep what is yours.
Just because a right is God given doesn’t mean that right is inalienable. Just because a right is inalienable does not mean every goverment is contracted to proactively protect that particular right in any way possible or “necessary”.
“”Not that I recognize the 14th Amendment as legitimate”
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.”
The 5th only apply’s to the Federal goverment, and the 14th allegedly to the state Governments. You must have overlooked that fact in “reading their text”.
Nether the 5th nor the 14th constitute a law against one civilian killing anther.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
And the result is predictable. The alienation of the inherent rights of the people.
You're no different than King George, really.
"He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us."
"The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations."-- George Washington
"On the other hand, the duty imposed upon him [the president] to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will "preserve, protect, and defend the constitution." The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose; and without it, be the form of government whatever it may, it will be utterly worthless for offence, or defence; for the redress of grievances, or the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people."-- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
"Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind."-- James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791
Governments plural.
Get this thou your thick skull EternalVigilance. We do not have one goverment we have 3 or more governments. The Federal Goverment protects our life from foreign assault, the State & local Can be authorized to help protect our life from domestic interference.
Yes we did indeed establish governments to secure our essential rights. Not one goverment for all the rights not even 2 or 3 goverment activity acting to protect all our rights.
As for King George you seem to forget that one of the most agrevious thing King George did was attempt to forbid the colonial governments. This combined with his casting out the Americans from his protection left them without a goverment, being waged upon by the British.
PS: I have a god given right to take whatever I want. If we follow your logic goverment should prevent you from protecting your property.
All officers of government in this country, at every level, in every branch, take the same oath, as required by the Constitution. That document, which each and every one of them has sworn to support, states as its crowning purpose: “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to Posterity.”
It is not unreasonable to demand that they do so.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time replying to somebody who could even type that, much less post it for all the world to see.
"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."-- Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, October 7, 1789
Thomas Jefferson
Is there anything in the historical record to indicate that the people who debated, wrote, and ratified the 14th amendment intended and understood it to end the practice of abortion, along with the practice of slavery?
If there is, you are on solid ground, constitutionally. If not, you are engaged in textualism and searching for "penumbras and emanations".
The only way that could be a problem for you is if you agree with Blackmun that the child in the womb is not a person.
But even then, there is the Ninth Amendment. Ever read it?
Tell me, just how is it that you can reduce the right to life, which the founders always place as the first unalienable right, of course, to the level of a mere “penumbra” or “emanation”?
In matters of constitutional interpretation, it doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is what was understood and intended by the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and it's Amendments. That's the whole point of "origianal intent".
If I believe something that is different than what they intended or did not address at all, then I have at my disposal the process of amendment to change the Constitution and rectify that. Once that's done, that Amendment then needs to be interpreted according to what I, and the people who wrote and ratified it intended.
I haven't done that. They left the "protection of life" to the States. You want to make it a "penumbra" or "emanation" in order to try take it out of their hands and turn it over to the federal government.
pos·ter·i·ty/päˈsteritē/
Noun:
All future generations.
Synonyms:
progeny - issue - offspring
Abortion and euthanasia violate every other clause of the Constitution's clear statement of purpose as well, without exception.
And then of course there is the Bill of Rights:
"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin, letter to Alexander Addison, October 7, 1789
No, they didn't. They stated the equal protection of the God-given, unalienable right to life as being the first and most important raison d'etre, or reason for existence, of ALL governments.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."
So, other than the supreme right, which other unalienable rights do you believe should be “left up to the states”?
Then there are the explicit, IMPERATIVE requirements of the Constitution. In case there are any readers from Rio Linda, that means that they are NOT OPTIONAL.
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.""No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
Let me ask you the question clearly. A yes or no reply will do:
Is the child in the womb a person, or not?
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.