Posted on 02/28/2007 4:50:41 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
Thanks for the flag!
Did you catch the scene of Pullo nailing Cicero's hands to the Senate doors?
Well said Gelato.
The U.S. Constitution does not guarantee abortion as a right. In fact it does say in Amendment V that "No person shall be........, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The 14th Amendment states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws." Life is described as an "unalienable" right in the Preamble. Thus, law established for abortion at the federal and state level is unconstitutional. The abortionists cry that a fetus is not a person, but they can not deny an unborn baby is human. The Preamble states that "all men are created equal," which does not imply personhood or citizenship, but instead humanity.
I am a member of the Constitution Party, but I would be happy to cast a vote for a Republican like Ron Paul.
Ron Paul certainly fits that description more than any other Democrat or Republican currently running.
Ron Paul certainly fits that description more than any other Democrat or Republican in Congress!
I dont see why that is a fair presumption.
" Why go through that cycle, when we should be aiming for actually banning abortion federally? If we want abortion illegal, we must support a human life amendment."
practically speaking, the human life amendment is an impossibility to pass under current political conditions. It won't get a majority let alone needed 2/3rds out of Congress. And if those political conditions were met, the much easier conditions of simply having a majority that supports legislation would be met.
"That's the practical side of the argument against Ron Paul's position. The principled side is that the U.S. Constitution was not intended to allow state diversity on life."
History records otherwise (slave vs free states), and the preamble is not an enforceable construct of what the Government can and cannot do. That's why you mention the Human Life Amendment as a solution, because we cannot assume the Constitution as written has settled it (especially given liberal court rulings). HLA would give pro-life movement everything they want, but it won't happen.
A more realistic goal is to get the Supreme Court to overturn their incorrect Roe ruling and get to 'status quo ante' of state variation wrt abortion regulation. We are perhaps 1 or 2 justices away from that. Had we not screwed up with Souter and Anthony Kennedy, we'd be there by now.
Ultimately, it is about changing minds more than changing laws, since you can propose something 'til the cows come home, but the politicians will only do things that have popular support, and if they don't they'll get tossed out.
All the more reason to get an electable pro-life conservative to beat Hillary, one who has some assurance of nominating good conservative jurists.
""On the grounds that Roe is a horrible anti-Constitutional decision that has no basis in law, logic, the Constitution, or common sense."
"My bad. I should have asked, "On what legal grounds?" I wasn't looking for an emotional response. "
I wan't giving an emotional response, I was giving a factual one. Even a clerk for Justice Brennan admitted the legal basis of Roe v Wade was unsound. They were reaching for a decision they wanted and came to argument for it; those arguments are a hoax.
"Now, if you're saying Roe v Wade should be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court because there is no constitutional "right to privacy", then I think we have a long wait."
Well, there is no 'right to privacy' in the constitution (unless you believe in 'penumbras'), but it is incorrect to impliy that a right to privacy is sufficient support for Roe v Wade to be a valid ruling. First, is the presumption that abortion, which kills another human being, is a 'privacy' issue at all; the privacy ends when new life begins. Factually speaking, it pretended there were divisions in pregnancy that have no medical basis. Also, Roe relies on the oxymoronic construction of 'substantive due process', an incorrect application of due process clause; it's a construction that is inherently unstable since it relies solely of judicial activist presumptions for its application.
Whatever one's position on abortion, it is hard to find any legitimacy for Roe v Wade.
"Tommy Jefferson guy who sent our marines to open whopp-ass on a Barbary Pirate kingdom,"
"Tommy would have used EVERY weapon at his disposal."
Very different from Rep Paul and isolationists, yes.
" Not just the questionably legal War Powers Act. Why tie one hand behind our backs? Just to fight a more "politically correct" war? Yeah, that's working well isn't it..."
If we are fighting with one hand tied behind us, then to extend the analogy, the Democrats want us to tie *both* hands behind us ... and Rep Paul went along with the Democrats.
Ron Paul wanted an all out Declaration of War and Letter's of M&R signed out. Not sure what you are smoking, but you might wanna lay off a bit.
"Very different from Rep Paul and isolationists, yes."
"Ron Paul wanted an all out Declaration of War and Letter's of M&R signed out."
I heard him speak personally on this. Ron Paul said he was against Iraq regime change policy since 1998. Ron Paul said he wouldn't have gone in there. He had a chance to vote for a war, and he said 'no'. So say he would have voted for a clear Declaration of War contradicts everything else he's said on the issue.
And as a side point, I'm ticked that our favorite 'Constitutionalist' Representative didn't check his Constitution when voting for the egregious non-binding resolution that interferes with executive branch and our commander-in-chief. It broke practically every rule of common sense, separation-of-powers, and 'what-not-to-do' wrt foreign policy and Ron Paul broke his own standards and rules to side with the Democrats.
Why do you say Othodox Presbyterian is "weird"?
Yes. And? Pre-emptive military action was never part of the Founders ideal. That you lack the historical perspective on this one, as well as Ron Paul's purposed legislation (H.R. 3076 -- September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001) for dealing with terror groups, kind means you've got a lot more research to do.
What is so "egregious" about signing a "non-binding resolution"? Is there something in the Constitution that forbids them? Since they are non-binding, this is no more than a "sense of the Congress" type thing and has ZERO force of law.
Quit trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. You are only making yourself look stupid.
"Well, there is no 'right to privacy' in the constitution"
Fine. Then in order to overturn Roe v Wade a court would have to issue an opinion to that effect. Do you think some future U.S. Supreme Court will say there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution? How well will that be received by the public in light of the Patriot Act? What will happen to the sodomy laws?
"Factually speaking, it pretended there were divisions in pregnancy that have no medical basis."
I don't believe the court said there was. The first, second and third trimesters were guidelines as to when a state could claim a "compelling interest" in the life of a fetus.
If you're saying that abortion is always murder, and that the U.S. Supreme Court should conclude this, then there is no possible way to turn the decision over to the states, as many suggest.
"Also, Roe relies on the oxymoronic construction of 'substantive due process'"
Roe and many others. It's a tool used by the court to "incorporate" some specific 9th amendment right and make it applicable to the states.
If not the court, then who would you have identify these numerous and vague 9th amendment rights and say they belong to the people? The government? Do you want the government assigning rights?
Now, we could pass an amendment for every right we identify (we did that for slavery and suffrage), but that would have the appearance of turning the U.S. Constitution into a limited list of rights -- if it's not there, you don't have it.
We need to repeal the 14th amendment for what the court has done with the due process clause. It has destroyed federalism. But that is a topic for another day.
Ron Paul is a libertarian nut job.
Ron Paul just happens to be principled. Only by comparing him to the criminals in Congress does he look out of place. An honest man in a den of thieves.
"Ron Paul is a good example of a Coolidge Republican"
LOL... Partly, but Coolidge enforced Prohibition, that era's "WOD". The Govt was small then, and Coolidge cut taxes but they had the income tax.
The last truly limited Goverment type was Grover Cleveland in the 1880s ... he was a Democrat!
"Well, there is no 'right to privacy' in the constitution"
"Fine. Then in order to overturn Roe v Wade a court would have to issue an opinion to that effect. "
No, they don't. Don't have tie for detailed debate but one of my points was - no, overturning Roe v Wade does *not* require finding that 'there is no 'right to privacy' in the constitution'. Roe v Wade goes far beyond that claim.
"Do you think some future U.S. Supreme Court will say there is no right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution? "
No, they will overturn Roe by 'trimming the sails' of the concept and application in an area where it never belonged.
I prefer having Rep. Ron Paul run again for President if it ends up helping to greatly improve upon whoever does end up as the final GOP candidate for President in '08. We have quite a few choices already on the GOP '08 Presidential side with Paul, Tancredo, Huckabee, Hunter, McCain, Giuliani, Hagel, Brownback, Gingrich, Romney, Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, John Cox, possibly Fred Thompson, possibly Michael Savage, and others. All of these candidates and possible candidates are all over the place on a variety of issues, and if it eventually ends up making the final GOP choice, whoever that person may end up being, that much better overall where it counts the most and when it counts the most, then I'm all for having all of them running. It's the '08 Democratic Presidential candidates where there seems to not really be that much major difference among all of the candidates, because they are all already adopting a far-leftist political agenda on all of the issues all at the same time. The Democratic side would be much more interesting if there were also truly moderate Democrats (such as Senator Ben Nelson) and truly conservative Democrats (such as Rep. Collin Peterson) who were also running for President in '08 as well. The GOP has an advantage when it has such a wide range of candidates who are willing to differ on a variety of issues. This makes for a better overall debate on all of the issues during the primary season.
The last truly limited Goverment type was Grover Cleveland in the 1880s ... he was a Democrat!
True...but at least they went to the trouble of ratifying the 18th Amendment so to give Congress the authority to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcohol...could you imagine if a large enough percentage of Americans wanted to ban alcohol today...you think Congress would bother trying to pass and ratify an Constitutional amendment?...they'd just pass a federal law...no one even bothers to ask anymore whether congress has Constitutional authority to do whatever it is they do
I am a big Cleveland fan as well although, unlike Coolidge, he had the benefit of serving before the Progressive Era and the institution of the 16th Amendment
The irony is that it was the Republicans who introduced the 16th Amendment into Congress...in an attempt to deal with Democrats who had been embarassing Republicans by pushing for an income tax for years while the conservative wing of the Republican party continually opposed it...Republicans figured ratification would be defeated in the state legislatures
Of course, the plan backfired and, while most of the Republican leadership was opposed to a federal income tax, the amendment they introduced (with the expectation that it would be defeated) passed and was ratified
Its especially troubling for me...because I am an Aldrich from the Rhode Island branch of the family and it was my relative Sen. Nelson Wilmarth Aldrich who came up with this plan that backfired
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.