Posted on 08/08/2007 8:22:47 PM PDT by CenTexConfederate
Ron Paul Repeats Commitment to Overturning Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling
by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor August 8, 2007 Lawton, IA (LifeNews.com) -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul restated his commitment on Tuesday to overturning the landmark abortion decision that allowed virtually unlimited abortions. He said he would work to overturn the Supreme Court ruling if he is nominated as the Republican candidate for president and elected to the White House.
Paul said he was pro-life and would make reversing the decision a top priority.
He also said that more people should be exposed to what abortion does to an unborn child and women who have them.
“The country should see what is happening and when they see the violence of abortion and what it really means, maybe they too would change their attitude about abortion,” said Paul.
Paul, a Texas congressman, also said he would make sure that taxpayer funds are not used to pay for abortions and explained that his training as a gynecologist taught him that human life is valuable.
"Life is sacred. The most obscene thing government could do is to ... use your money to commit abortion," he said to loud applause.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifenews.com ...
I don’t have anything against Duncan Hunter in this regard.
Ron Paul would welcome your help in securing the nomination.
Not needed.
Just get your Congressman (and a majority of them) to remove the issue of abortion from the courts.
Let me know when your Congressman is willing to do that.
Any guesses why Dr. Ron Paul is such a well-kept secret?
Would it have anything to do with the fact that the MSM is dominated by liberals?
Well don’t give him too much credit, that’s not a major accomplishment ;-)
Name Calling. That’s all your good for.
Thank you for posting this.. more evidence that Ron Paul isn't the second coming of Alexander Hamilton, more like Chuck Hagel's older, crazier brother.
There, I fixed it.
The libs would be absolutely devasted which, by itself will be worth the price of admission.
The Neo-Cons would be shocked that one of their own was nto elected.
The whole country would be shocked to discover that there really is a difference between a real conservative and the MSM's version of it.
I would be shocked, considering the vitriol we see here every day.
Ron Paul would be shocked, but then he would get right down to business.
On the other hand, I am definitely not a Libertarian, and I have been fairly obviously angering many Libertarians around here. I don’t believe the Constitution has a purpose of tacitly endorsing licentiousness, which is what I perceive to be the (perhaps unintended) position of the Libertarians. I don’t believe that any man is or can be an island, and I believe the Scriptures when they say: “For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.”
Every man’s moral behavior and bearing affects those around them, and that one verse alone would keep me from accepting the idea that you legalize drugs, etc., etc., etc.
So, I am a Constitutionalist, and I am restrained by the Christian Scriptures. I believe from mountains of documents on the belief systems of our founding fathers, that they were also likewise restrained.
Here, sir, is the reason we have liberals running as Republicans.
"The Republican Party is not yet ready or capable of electing people on principle."
If they aren't "ready" now, and they have been becoming more liberal every year for years, what makes you think they will EVER be "ready"?
What would be the mechanism for instituting change in the Republican Party?
IMO, it is precisely the candidacy of Dr. Ron Paul that will wake up the grass-roots Republicans and give them hope that their traditional values are not lost forever.
Go ahead and nominate a RINO liberal, and we'll have hellary to pay.
This isn't necessarily as straight forward as some folks would like to have you believe. It's actually a pretty tricky question depending on your reading of the constitution.
The argument by such folks is that because inferior courts are created by Congress and Congress has the textual power to limit the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, then Congress, by way of statute, can "remove . . . responsibility from the courts."
But this argument overlooks some key phrases in Article III, specifically the first clauses of Sections 1 and 2. Section 1 says, in relevant part, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2 reads, in relevant part, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States. . . ."
Reading these two clauses together, as we must, it appears that although Congress may indeed eliminate federal courts and restrict the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the judicial power (which necessarily includes all cases arising under the constitution) must still be vested in some federal court, even if it isn't the Supreme Court.
I think that this is often overlooked by those people who suggest using statutes to remove federal court jurisdiction, but I think the language is pretty clear.
Unfortunately, if you dig deep enough, and think, you’ll discover that, like a number of these Republican candidates, Dr. Paul takes a Stephen Douglas-like position vis a vis abortion. In other words, he mistakenly believes that abortion is a states’ rights question, not one of God-given unalienable rights for all, in all of America. Sad.
In our Constitutional Republic, abortion should be a states rights issue. The Constitution says nothing about abortion. Thus the people should decide. That means the states.
Considering Dr. Paul is against a national bank, believes in the rights of the separate and sovereign states, and is a Constitutionalist that never advocated a king, I'd say Dr. Paul is about as far from that illegitimate son of a....well than anything I've seen. Hamilton was a worthless nationalist, bordering on monarchist that had no use for the states.
What you just stated is a high compliment.
Try reading the Preamble and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, with comprehension.
The only way you can reach your conclusion is to A)ignore the Ninth Amendment, and B) like the judges who decided Roe, have concluded that children in the womb are not "persons."
By the way, if you got your way, most abortions that occur in America today would continue to occur. How pro-life is that?
Additionally, to conclude that a child in the womb is not a person is to remove the only possible legal, moral or intellectual argument against Roe, or the overturning of abortion in any of the several states.
I’m old enough to remember life before Roe Wade. It was a states rights issue. California and New York had very liberal abortin laws. In most states it was very restricted. In Texas, girls that got pregnant in High School just vanished for several months. There will never be a time in this country where abortion is completly done away with unless the people really have a change of heart.
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.