Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Diggity; mnehring
49 posted on Monday, February 20, 2012 3:58:55 PM by Diggity: “He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.”

I do not and cannot agree.

Government has a very limited role, but it does have a role. The most important of those roles, from a biblical perspective (Romans 13), is to defend its citizens and use the sword of justice against wrongdoers.

I may be willing to accept, as a temporary measure, state option on abortion. It's better than what we have now, and might significantly reduce the number of baby murders.

However, is Ron Paul willing to be consistent? What other rights in the Bill of Rights does he think should be open to restriction by state governments? To cite one that is quite realistic, would Ron Paul support a liberal state deciding on the basis of states rights to require registration of all firearms, or following the model of Washington DC by essentially banning private ownership of firearms for people who are not law enforcement personnel or retired law enforcement?

I am the first one to say that the federal government has grossly overstepped its proper role, but it **DOES** have a proper role, and I don't have a problem with the US Supreme Court overturning state laws that violate the federal Constitution, so long as they actually **DO** violate the constitution. Gun registration, gun bans, and abortion are all examples of things that the Supreme Court could legitimately overturn.

For whatever it's worth, I personally hold to a stronger position than this, but based on the federal constitutional language that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law, I think I could accept a mother going before a judge for a legal determination that her pregnancy was a clear danger to her own life and therefore should be allowed to obtain an abortion. There are very rare cases where that is in fact the case, though the number is very low, and I don't think a mother can be forced to carry a pregnancy which truly is a risk to her life. Apart from a formal court action through due process of law, I don't think there is any constitutional grounds to allow an abortion.

106 posted on 02/20/2012 11:14:35 PM PST by darrellmaurina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]


To: darrellmaurina

Without government running people’s lifes you have no need for social conservatives. Social conservatives are trying beat liberals by playing the game the same way as liberals do by getting the government to legislate their agenda.

Social conservatives can not win this way.

Best way to win is to get rid of the government that created the social conservative movement backlash to begin with.

Government is the root of all that ailes the country. The less the better.


127 posted on 02/21/2012 8:17:09 AM PST by Diggity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson