reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
As always, you make some very good points! Let me respond the best I can.
Paul's "states rights" position would open the doors for all sorts of discriminatory legislation to take place in the states. We could see restaurants
with "No Mexicans Allowed" signs posted out front - perfectly legally if the state legislature votes to do so. No, thanks.
I do not believe that states would be able to pass legislation that encroaches on an individuals rights granted by the constitution. If they did, that
person(s) would have legal standing to appeal to the federal government and protection under the constitution. State law would trump most federal
laws, until state law crossed that line.
Sure, some business owners would post discriminatory signs as you described. I don't think we can doubt that. But are we willing to trample on
property rights of every business owner in order to squash a handfull of racist shopkeepers?
We cannot let the exception rule the whole. No matter what...there is going to be numbskulls. As long as they do not violate another individuals
rights, they have the right to be stupid. Federal law will never stop that.
His strong support for the Texas Law that forces doctors to give women an unnecessary medical procedure - and forces the women to review the results
and hear the heartbeat and description of the fetus 24 hours before performing an abortion, is plenty of reason for me to be very concerned.
I can only answer this by expressing my personal thoughts on why I agree with this decision.
They are only required to have a sonogram. I would not label that as an "unnecessary medical procedure". It is non-intrusive and does not effect their
physical "self". There are pre-surgery requirements that have to be met before a person has a breast-augmentation, gastric bypass and many other
elective procedures. After the birth of my second son I wanted to get a vasectomy, but was not allowed to do so unless I sat down with a doctor and
talked about the potential implications.
I am not against the states or local communities requiring a person to become completely educated on the procedure before deciding on such an
important procedure. But in the end, I think it is the right of the woman (and the man as well) to make the choice they so desire.
I do not see how that is circumventing a persons constitutional rights....I could be wrong.
How can he use the 4th Amendment as justification for his opposition to the Patriot Act, but disregard the Constitution altogether when speaking to a
woman's privacy in her very own PERSON?
This is where it becomes difficult. It depends on whether or not you agree the child within is a woman is a person in and of itself. I can't help but
say yes. That baby is a person, and certain situations there should be protection for the life of that child.
Ron Paul describes that child as a separate person and is protected by the constitution.
The Sanctity of Life bill does define an unborn child as a person, but goes on to say this:
Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.
He still leaves it up to the states to decide and voids federal precedent and legislation that would encroach on that right of the states. IMO, this
issue is better handled by local communities and states; allowing the people to have much more input rather than mandates handed down by the federal
Yes, one is about weights and measures, but "We must follow the Biblical mandate"???
Ok, he does recite religion as a mandate for weights and measurements. I stand corrected. But does he recite religion as reason for the driving force
behind abortion issues?
His personal beliefs on homosexuality and race speak to his views of equality! They are not irrelevant, as I have shown he is willing to violate the
Constitution and make laws based on his personal, religious beliefs.
No, I think his willingness to allow local communities and states to govern themselves, in spite of what his personal/religious beliefs are, shows
that he does not want to impose them on others from a federal level.
I think he has voiced his personal opinion, but has taken a lot of flak for not pushing those beliefs onto others and allowing states to do their
Banning abortion on the federal level is unconstitutional......allowing abortion on the federal level is as well.
Let the mothers, fathers and doctors decide what is best. If a law needs to be put in place to control a bigger issue, the states are much more
qualified to make a decision for the people of their state.
Much respect and I enjoy the discussion.
edit on 27-1-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)