Posted on 03/05/2008 1:35:29 PM PST by samrig
Ron Paul is pro-choice state by state: "While Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." 1-31-06. ... If Ron Paul lived in Berlin in 1944 and had said, "While killing Jews is invalid, a federal law banning the holocaust across all of Germany's 16 states would be equally invalid," his wicked claim would be immediately obvious to most people, but abortion has so dehumanized babies that even pro-lifers are vulnerable to lies that promote tolerance of the slaughter.
(Excerpt) Read more at kgov.com ...
If where you live a state law was passed that made it “legal” to take all the property of people with the screenname “nicmarlo,” would the federal government have a duty to step in to rein in the unconstitutional actions of your state?
Under the 9th and 10 amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.Ron Paul, imho, is correct in the reading of the Consitution. He is pro-life and is against abortion. But the reading of the Constitution is clear: it is against the Constitution to involve itself in those things which are NOT in the Constitution. Acts of abortion (or even acts which end up aborting a child...such as other acts of violence committed against the mother through, say, punching her causing an interruption (abortion) in the pregnancy), is also a matter left to the states, as it should be.
I think that many posters here are frustrated by the incremental power grabs by the federal government and want them rolled back. They feel that most all laws are the jurisdiction of the states. Essentially, the federal government does not belong in law enforcement unless there is a very good reason.
Lets talk about arson since it is a less contentious issue than abortion. Do you think that the federal govt has any business whatsover investigating and prosecuting arson? I do not, but the federal govt apparently does. They have spent millions of our tax dollars establishing bad precedent that allows them to prosecute any arson that they want.
“Today, the Court denied review in two criminal appeals that raised Commerce Clause questions related to the decisions last week and today. Both were appeals from convictions under the Federal arson law, which makes it a crime to engage in arson of “any building used in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce.”
In one case, Ramey v. United States, No. 94-5755, a West Virginia man appealed his conviction for burning a trailer to express his disapproval of the interracial couple who lived there. The Government argued successfully in the lower courts that the trailer’s receipt of electricity through an interstate power grid was sufficient to establish its connection to interstate commerce.
The second case, Moore v. United States, No. 94-642, was an arson-for-hire appeal from South Carolina. The lower courts upheld the Federal prosecution on the ground that the house that was burned was connected to interstate gas and telephone lines. “
Essentially, they can prosecute any arson crime that they want. They can also apply federal death penalty sentencing even though the death penalty is not legal in the state.
Does this sound like the intent of the Constitution’s framers?
These guys invoked Godwin's Law on themselves.
The Tenth Amendment doesn’t help your case, since the right to life is clearly outlined in the Preamble and the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments.
Blackmun, Paul, and you, may ignore those portions of the document, but I won’t.
If there are actions taken at the state level, which contradict what is in the United States Constitution, then it is defacto unconstitutional and should be without force and effect.
However, we saw that, in the case of Terri Schiavo, the judge issued rulings that were in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution. His unConstitutional orders should have not have been acted upon...but they were.
According to the Founders, the first purpose of government is to protect innocent human life. If the states won’t do it, federal officers have a sworn duty to do so.
In the text of Roe, Blackmun admitted that if the unborn are PERSONS, they are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
A) Do you believe that the unborn are persons?
B) Do you agree with Blackmun that if they are persons, they are protected by the Constitution’s provisions?
C) Do you agree with Ron Paul that while they ARE persons, states have a right to allow the killing of these persons if they want to?
Of course I agree they are persons, who fall under the protection of the Constitution as concerns any other person’s right to life.
I do not believe that the federal government is given the authority to REDRESS remedies as to “acts of violence” committed against ANY innocent person.
Those are matters always left to the states. As I earlier stated, the death penalty, a social issue, is also left to the states. I would not have the federal government dictate the remedies, for all states, concerning acts of violence committed by others against innocents.
And when the top law enforcement officers of the state of Florida, namely Jeb Bush and Charlie Crist, refused to protect the unalienable right to life of a citizen, one Terri Schindler Shiavo, the Federal government, namely George W. Bush, had a sworn duty to step in and enforce the most basic portion of the law of the land.
They all failed, and her most important right of all was alienated...by cruel and unusual means.
Well, then again I ask you: What other unalienable rights do you think the federal government has no authority to protect? Why is the penultimate right of all, the right to live, not part of the sworn oath of federal officers of this government?
Exactly. That was when I turned my back completely on Bush. Their utter failure, horribly so, however, in upholding Terri Schiavo's right to life was also NOT an occasion to issue a federal LAW concerning these things. The Constitution stands regardless of how horribly they turned their backs on it. They were and are completely in the wrong....BECAUSE what they did and allowed was against the Constitution.
Absolutely. I also believe in the Tenth Amendment as much as I believe the Preamble. I’m sure if they intended the Preamble to supercede the Tenth Amendment, they never would have included it.
Because you claim I said that, doesn't make it so; I said: "the right to life exists." But the SOCIAL REDRESS for acts of violence are NOT in the Constitution, ergo, it would be against the Constitution to do exactly that.
No they would not. Nicmarlo would have an obligation to take it to the courts- even to the SC if need be.
Beautiful how it all works together isn’t it? If we just work the system the right way, the rights of individuals AND states are protected with no erosion of liberty.
“According to the Founders, the first purpose of government is to protect innocent human life. If the states won’t do it, federal officers have a sworn duty to do so.”
My example involved vacant structures, whose arson is already illegal in every state. It did not involve protecting innocent human life in any way. I chose it to illustate the underlying problem of federal overreaching without being encumbered with emotional arguments or the issue of inalienable human rights.
So do you think the federal govt belongs in the arson business?
Wrong- if the states won’t do it, free citizens of that state have an obligation to deal with it.
Well yeah it does. It means pro-states-choice which is not acceptable. The 14th Amendment should already protect the unborn:
...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.
The obvious problem is that the States and the people need to have "person" defined to them by a Human Life Amendment which will effectively prohibit abortion and other forms of legalized forms of murder across the board.
Ron Paul is for the HLA the last I heard. That is why I will vote for him instead of McCain.
A law specifically aiming to punish an individual is 'a bill of attainder' and is specifically unconstitutional. The courts would obviously strike down such a law.
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.