He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.
..and yet in Paul's world, States can regulate rights away and leave fundamental rights like life to the whim of whatever governmental body isn't 'Federal'. That doesn't reduce government, it hands away your rights to the whims of 50 governments. In his world, there are no fundamental rights but simply legislation that is passed down so you have no real protection of fundamental rights. It is a bastardization of original intent and in no way reduces government.
Diggity: “He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.”
Granted. We have too much government, but how does Ron Paul expect to get from here to his libertarian ideal? A president can’t just waive a wand and return gay marriage, abortion, and other social issues to the states when the judicial system is doing everything it can to make one rule fit all. When a federal judge rules that gay marriage is mandatory per the US Constitution (as an equal rights issue), then that must be fought at the federal level. The president can’t change that. Same thing with abortion. How do you propose to return that to the states short of some sort of effort at the national level to overturn Roe v. Wade?
“He is 100% right. The problem is too much government. That should be the only issue.”
Too much government and too much spending. The more fundamentals that I hear from this dude, the more I like. Oddly enough I’m buying into George Washington too, and his no entangling alliances. We need to rebuild the USA, not the world.
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.