Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

page: 13
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by sdocpublishing
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Ron Paul is only stating facts and I don't see him being active in an anti abortion campaign, especially if it did become a states rights issue. Paul is all about states rights and would not interfere, outside of his own state.

Abortion, and most other issues, should be handled by individual states.

The Constitution is pretty clear about what is not written in our founding documents defaults to a state issue. Will this mean a lot of states would immediately outlaw abortion? I am sure they will but, this is just an affect of states right being exercised, no nefarious plan.

I personally think it's a woman's right to choose. I also think it's a states right to allow abortion or not, or legalize marijuana, or gay marriage. I think each state can decide a lot of things and make a lot of laws if the citizens of that state allow it, or vote for it.

The Federal government should just sit back, shut up, and do their jobs. The US Federal Government has more than enough business to handle so it should not be wasting time on what should be an internal state issues.

If you decide you do not agree with the laws of a particular state, you are free to move to one that suits you better. This is how it was all supposed to work.



RP actively participates in anti-abortion ads. Case in point:
www.youtube.com...



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wiz4769
I need folks to be real honest here, does anyone really, and I mean REALLY care that much about abortion? You do realize this is just one of the many things tptb use to divide the people? You will let this one stupid thing really make or break you? You cant find one other issue with a candidate , none and you cherry pick this one and now hes somehow just as bad or worse than all the rest of the jerkoffs that currently are in power? Really? The list of flaws and truly concerning facts for 98% of the people in power or wanting to move up the ladder is staggering. And to not be able to see this , well makes you and Im using the general YOU, look pretty naive.

Paul is the only true different candidate out there, period. No hes not perfect and pretty sure you will never find that in normal people even, but politicians? No way. But any other you pick that is out there trying to climb his/her way up is exactly the same and any other. D or R makes no difference, the D will still use you common folk to their gain all day long, but make you think they care and put you on foodstamps to make you feel better about it. The R will not hide the fact hes making a profit off you, but will appear hes at least cutting some cost someplace else to make you feel better about it. Stop playing their game, stop thinking you have to pick D or R just because your parents did or because you went to some liberal school that made you think that in order to not feel guilty you have to pick the Dem and give hand outs to everyone and their friend at the expense of the middle class, who foots the bill for just about everything, boy are we middles dependable as hell, what are they going to do without us....

Paul is straight constitution, never swaying on that, sometimes it may seem hes pro this or that, but hes not, he just votes according to the constitution and sometimes that makes it seem hes for this or against that. He always explains what the reason was for a yay or nay vote, and its always backed up by the constitution in the end.

So if you dont like Paul , for what ever reason that could be, thats your right and he believes in this. Go ahead and vote for your clone of anyone that has been in office in the last 20yrs and see where that gets you. If 1 vote that makes it seem Paul favors against abortion is all it takes and that the best you can do to dig up dirt on him, or some old , ancient newsletter with some "racist" overtones written by another person, but "approved" by Paul , then it seems to me hes the obvious choice for true change as thats a pretty damn good track record compared to ANY other politician working today.
edit on 3-5-2012 by Wiz4769 because: (no reason given)


Yes, I do care that much about the right to choose.

That said, why is it that so many RP followers automatically jump to the idea that this is the ONLY issue that I have with Paul? I have plenty. I simply wrote a thread about this one.

And its not one vote that he has made that makes him "seem" anti abortion. The man himself has said he wants Roe v Wade repealed, and has called himself "an unshakable foe of abortion".

No one is making him out to "seem" like anything. It is his stance.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Not if the act of abortion is sanctioned by the state.
That would be like the fed going after states for executing prisoners.
because the prisoners rights were violated.


Not the same thing whatsoever.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by rival
 






He did say that he thought that the states should have jurisdiction on this issue. But then he goes
and introduces a bill in Congress [H.R. 1096] that asks for federal control on this issue.


No his bill specifically removes federal control on the matter in any way shape or form. People should learn to read. The OP even quotes the language of the bill that removes all federal control and still won't admit it. And of course all the antis jump on the bandwagon repeating the non-sense the OP keeps repeating.



Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth;


edit on 3-5-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)


I understand that you think that parroting this, over and over again, will make it seem like it is correct. You are simply taking one sentence of the bill, though, and taking it out of context.

What you keep quoting simply means that the Supreme Court cannot overturn a states abortion laws. It says nothing of their jurisdiction over the rights of the fetus.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wagnificent

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Ron Paul has introduced, at the federal level, the "Sanctity of Life Act"[H.R. 1096]. This act, which he would push into place if president...


You are making a bold assumption to say that he would push this as the president. Maybe he would, maybe he would not. In any case the Supreme Court would still have the jurisdiction to say whether such legislation is constitutional or not. The justices may see it as a bad idea to deprive a woman of rights in order to grant rights to a zygote. IF the Supreme Court upheld that it is constitutional legislation, then you would be correct that the states' position on abortion would become irrelevant. However there are a lot of ifs in that scenario, and it would take quite a bit of time to complete that process.

I am really not concerned with this because -- just as someone else said earlier in the thread -- Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion on the abortion issue, and considering that he has delivered so many babies and holds conservative values, it is no surprise that he is pro-life. I am skeptical whether Ron Paul, as president, would take such a step when he preaches against the nanny government, but you did bring up at least something to consider with his introduction of the Sanctity of Life Act.


No, the supreme court would not. Read the Act.

It keeps getting repeated in this thread that RP has a right to his opinion on abortion. And I fully agree with that. When that opinion is FORCED onto others, though, i take issue.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
The OP person is a one issue voter, Ron Paul will lose those types, because they fail to see the bigger picture.
However he will gain other one issue voters for the exact same reason, it's a trade off.

But Ron Paul is right, and until you & I have delivered 4000 babies our opinions don't mean squat compared to the good doctors.


Care to back up your claim that I am a one issue voter?

The idea that because someone is not a doctor, their opinion is not valid on this subject is asinine. By that logic, I could say that RP's opinion isnt valid.

Afterall, he doesnt have a vagina.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ExScientiaVeritas
 


The bill defines the existence of a human life at conception not after it becomes a fetus. That point in and of itself tells me that you've not thoroughly researched your contentions.

on the contrary, current abortions seldom occur prior to the stage referenced as fetus.
if your argument is built on vocabulary nuances, you should step away from the keyboard.
this audience isn't comprised of only biologists, scientists or adults for that matter. most everyone over the age of 13 relates to the word "fetus" when referring to the result of conception.


you are pointing to fetus rights granted by this bill which is a fantasy on your part.

IF the point of conception initiates life (as per the bill) and bestows Constitutionally protected rights at that moment in time, why or how would that change during the fetus stage ?

big deal the Feds supposedly can't prosecute, the State boys can and would.
do you have any substantial contributions or more of the same ?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I find this thread to be futile by all means

Abortion, gay rights, gays in the military, other social issues....

WHO CARES!!!!!

At this point you have to worry about your crumbling economy not issues that the right/left facade of a dichotomy tries to make you think is important

Whether gays are able to marry or not won't make corrupt politicians richer
neither will abortion

Wake Up People!


Who cares? I do! I thought that was obvious by the fact that I made a thread about it.

Basically you are saying that I should ignore things that matter to me, and only focus on that which matters to you. Why is it, I wonder, that so many RP supporters try to TELL others what should be important to them, while spewing words about freedom at the same time?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
We need leaders like Dr. Paul!
rt.com...
rt.com...

Mitt Obamney is just the other side of the same old coin friend! Don't want Paul? Fine, but put up a real leader. A freedom loving American in place your plastic fraud riddle candidate!

You points fall on deaf ears my man! We will not accept tyranny over liberty!

A mass call for Liberty or Death is not far away! Give us our liberty or many will abide by the law of this land and take it!
edit on 3-5-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by WiindWalker
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


FFS, let the man deal with the bigger issues like stopping war and poverty America. This trivial garbage can be put to the wayside for now! Stop trying to find ANY reason not to get Paul into office, just go crawl in your hole cause the MAJORITY of America wants him in!!! You don't like it? LEAVE


Another person that would tell me what should be important to me. And even better, you follow it up with saying "dont like it? Git out!". Ahhh yes, theres that idea of freedom that RP pushes so fervently.

And no, the "majority of americans" dont want him is. This statement is delusional at best.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 4REVOLUTION
 


1)You show up in these threads every single time, and accuse me of bashing and showing hatred toward RP. Ill will ask, again, for you to quote me in saying ANYTHING that backs up your accusations. These tactics dont work on those of us who can think.

2)Not only have I read the bill dozens of times, I have discussed it with a constitutional lawyer. So, again, keep your baseless accusations for those that will be swayed by them.

3)You are quoting something that only states that the Supreme Court cannot review abortion laws of any state. It says nothing of the federal ability to uphold the rights of the fetus. Nice try though.

4)Funny....the thread seems to still be going strong....guess you were wrong in your assertion that it is ended...



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equ1nox
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The way you act in this thread is an embarrassment and you are just making yourself look very stupid indeed.
Any normal person who reads your thread and is a neutral can see very clearly that all you do is try to attack people, talk to them like dirt and act like an angry child

Most people come onto ATS to discuss and debate, all you do is come here to argue.

It's funny that people like you make threads thinking you're doing a good thing trying to make RP look bad, when the truth is that anyone who is unsure or neutral will move towards RP purely because of your arrogant and aggressive attitude. You actually do RP a favor which is what makes it so funny when i see people like you making threads


So, you dont like that I posted a thread about RP that doesnt support him, so you have to turn to personal attacks? Interesting that you dont even attempt to speak on the topic of the thread.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ExScientiaVeritas

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Right but in any case they won't have any jurisdiction to pursue legal action.
Or am i reading that wrong?

It would be up to the state to determine whether or not abortion is legal or not.
Which fits in quite well with the constitutional view of states rights.
And since it's the states job to police abortion the federal government can't intervene.

And still the bill doesn't define things like. What happens if the mothers life is in danger if she has the baby?
A 1 month old fetus can't survive outside of a mothers body.

I think you're reading too much into this.


They wont be able to prosecute for the abortion, no. They will be able to prosecute based on the infringement of the rights of the fetus.

I dont think you're reading enough into it. It is all right there.

I believe the problem is, you are seeing what you want to see in it. From the bill it states:

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

It says what it says but, also implies that the State also has the right to NOT protect the lives of unborn children. It is plainly stating that the State makes the determination not the Federal government.

Section 3 of the bill regarding limitations imposed on the US Supreme court states:

...the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction ...on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
‘(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
‘(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates--
‘(A) the performance of abortions; or
‘(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions...
H.R. 1096
This removes any authority explicit or implied, that the Federal government has to regulate in any way, issues relating to abortion. Section 4 expands this limitation to Federal District courts saying basically, if the supreme court can't hear the case, neither can the district court.

You assert and I agree that this will effectively repeal Roe v. Wade since it is a federal edict legalizing abortion and further takes away any power the states have in making judgments on abortion. However, you also assert that this bill would give federal rights (protection) to the fetus which is not the case at all. This bill does not even use the word fetus in it. I am not a biology expert but, I'm pretty sure that a fetus does not exist until about eight weeks after conception. The bill defines the existence of a human life at conception not after it becomes a fetus. That point in and of itself tells me that you've not thoroughly researched your contentions.


HOWEVER, AFTER the procedure, both the doctor and the parents will be open to prosecution based on violating the federal rights of the fetus granted by the "Sanctity of Life Act", effectively OUTLAWING ABORTION, even if the states wish to keep it.

This is pure speculation on your part. No where in the bill does it state or imply such a thing, not to mention once again, you are pointing to fetus rights granted by this bill which is a fantasy on your part.



Tell me I'm wrong.


I think that I've covered a majority of your "contentions" and have clearly shown that in fact, you are wrong.

So I ask you captaintyinknots, how exactly is Ron Paul planning on outlawing abortion when the bill clearly states that the federal government has absolutely no jurisdiction to even opine on the matter, let alone prosecute anyone for anything related to the act? Are you simply misunderstanding the bill or do you have an axe to grind?

ESV


Again, I dont know how many times I can say this, but it is pure FALLACY to claim that redefining embryo, zygots and fetus as a person does not grant them rights.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4REVOLUTION
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


No worries on trying to troll anymore. Myself and ExScientiaVeritas already cleared everything up for you.

Here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and here...
www.abovetopsecret.com...



You're welcome.
edit on 5/3/2012 by 4REVOLUTION because: (no reason given)


Nice try, but not so much. But hey, keep trying!



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donkey_Dean
We need leaders like Dr. Paul!
rt.com...
rt.com...

Mitt Obamney is just the other side of the same old coin friend! Don't want Paul? Fine, but put up a real leader. A freedom loving American in place your plastic fraud riddle candidate!

You points fall on deaf ears my man! We will not accept tyranny over liberty!

A mass call for Liberty or Death is not far away! Give us our liberty or many will abide by the law of this land and take it!
edit on 3-5-2012 by Donkey_Dean because: (no reason given)


What does this have to do with the topic?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I feel like at this point I have to point something out, just to divert all the deflections. I use the term "rights of the fetus" in this thread as a blanket statement. The Sanctity of Life Act grants the rights of a person AT THE TIME OF CONCEPTION. This means that a fetus, as well as an embryo, zygote, etc, would be redefined with the rights of a person.

As of right now, a fetus (and every other early stage of development) do not have the rights of a person. This bill would grant them, which is what I keep referring to.

The attempts to discredit based on my use of a blanket term to not hold water. I hope this clears that up.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Ron Paul's position on EVERYTHING is that unless it's directly mandated in the Constitution for the Federal Government to deal with, that it's the responsibility of individual states to make up their mind on every issue.

He's been preaching this for years, this should be no surprise that this is his position on abortion as well.

Ron Paul even maintains that Defense of individual states is a state issue, not a Federal issue. IE, if Japan invades Hawaii, it's Hawaii's problem.
edit on 3-5-2012 by babybunnies because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



  exclusive video


new topics
 
12
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join