Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

Originally posted by babybunnies
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.

Except that its not his position, its a smokescreen. If it is simply about making it a state choice, why is he pushing it at a FEDERAL level?

reply to post by Honor93

since Roe vs Wade is already established Federal law, what is your point here, exactly ?
this proposal removes an individuals ability to have their applicable case presented whether the court finds it worthy or not.
removing Constitutional pathways to resolution is a failed misdirection, try again.

I know this will likely just extend the debate further, but I stand with Marbury v. Madison on this one -

Any law which is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void

My point is that it's invalid, and would be nullified by the legislation being discussed. And I don't feel it's removing a constitutional pathway since the matter lies outside the valid purview of the federal government in the first place.

hardly or i woundn't have asked you to explain this preposterous presumption.

It's honestly a somewhat difficult point for me to clarify well, but in root lies in my understanding of due process (good summary here), dealing mainly with fairness under the applicable state laws in light of the rights of the mother as compared to the status and rights of the fetus, as well as the legal standing in whatever state we're dealing with. This matter, to my view at least, does not seem to be a violation of due process in light of all related facts. Likely one of those "agree to disagree" points the two of us will catch on.

over-simplification.
currently, the legal finality lies with the Supreme Court as directed in the Constitution and especially when the state errors in the application of its granted authority.

And if SCOTUS' invalid authority (my opinion) is nullified by this (unlikely) legislation, that will no longer apply and the states will have the final word

no, it is not "just like every other matter dealing iwth premature termination of life".
all of the other matters deal with living, breathing and previously born humans.
this, not so much.

Granted, but obvious parallels definitely exist, and the few differences are - once again, in my opinion - resolved otherwise and appropriate to leave up to the individual states. Much better as I view it than the possibility that in the future, a wave of wrongly-minded political change may sweep the national landscape and impose a restriction on abortions for ALL with no way out.

That said, there are some "in absentia" allowances that could also be argued to apply in this sort of matter, although I don't see many in the legal realm even trying to push the due process clause that far for this issue.

i'm positive ScOTUS wouldn't hear such an argument as Roe vs Wade prevents it from ever appearing and SLA prohibits the possibility even though the need may very well arise.

I was referring to a hypothetical case where this legislation had not been implemented but Roe v. Wade were either under serious challenge otherwise or no longer in effect. Apologies for lack of clarity.

this is an illusion. i defer to the bill, section 2, article 1, parts A&B.

Then I suppose I'll have to counter-defer to the entirety of section 3.

you are welcome to your opinion, some of which i happen to agree.
Dr Paul is not the target of this conversation, this legislation is.
i too, favor Dr Paul over all other current candidates, however, on this issue, we are polar opposites and just because i favor some of his theories doesn't mean i'm going to lie down and roll over when something this disturbing comes down the pike.

Fair enough, and we'll have to continue to disagree on the apparent intent and likely interpretation/application of the legislation. In consider it a far cry better than other (equally unlikely) future possibilities.

now is the time to assess his positions, proposals, voting history, blah, blah, blah, not after the elections. please do not try to lead this into a Paul bashing thread, it is not.

Agreed, and not my intent - just clarifying as this is a favorite stalking horse of those willing to overlook other ongoing and more egregious violations of life and liberty.

it is what it is, submitted legislation which is being considered on the Hill, it is a relevant topic.
no offense, but the old adage ... ya gotta take the bad with the good ... is BS.
we don't 'gotta' and we should hold out for a higher standard, Paul is a representative, not a dictator.
and on that note, when Dr Paul decides to push for legislation that limits abortions based on medical necessity, he'll receive support from me and others of similar opinion.

Fair enough - I don't, can't at this point anyway, see this is bad to be taken with good. It's a valid solution to yet another example of governmental overreach, limitation of liberty, and offense to defense of (disputed) life.

Take care.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

yes, hypocrisy is very easy to spot and defeat. hardly requires rhetoric at all.

i don't see any logical fallacy in my argument, though the one in your position is obvious, perhaps you were projecting.

human rights are guaranteed at the federal level. the founders never envisioned a world where a procedure to kill your child was legal, or one that considered an unborn child not human. therefore, i find it logical that a definition of what "human" means be included at the same level.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

The outcome is the same is it not?
Dead is dead. Or am I missing something?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

yes, hypocrisy is very easy to spot and defeat. hardly requires rhetoric at all.

i don't see any logical fallacy in my argument, though the one in your position is obvious, perhaps you were projecting.

human rights are guaranteed at the federal level. the founders never envisioned a world where a procedure to kill your child was legal, or one that considered an unborn child not human. therefore, i find it logical that a definition of what "human" means be included at the same level.

So, you are claiming to know what the founding fathers were thinking?

Again, do you have anything to say that is ON topic? Or are youi going to continue to try and devolve this thread into every other abortion thread out there?

i clearly stated in the op that this is not about whether or not abortion is right or wrong. Yet you cant seem to refrain from posting about that anyway? Why is that? Is it because you cannot counter my premise?

Originally posted by grey580

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

The outcome is the same is it not?
Dead is dead. Or am I missing something?

Obviously. But I digress.

Why do Americans decide elections on issues like abortion, gay marriage, weapons of mass destruction? Don't you realize politicians use these issues to divide and conquer the electorate... Stop wasting your time on this subject. If a woman wants an abortion she will have it regardless of the law. Legal or not, it's going to happen sadly.

reply to post by ErgoTheConfusion


At this point, I would like to respond to the ONLY valid counter argument that has been posed in this thread. And I thank ErgoTheConfusion for bringing it to the table. I am glad to see at least ONE poster out there doing more than sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "nuh-uh, you are wrong".

The Unborn Victims of Violence act IS something that could block what I am claiming to be coming true. It does have language to protect

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit the prosecution— (1) of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law; (2) of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or (3) of any woman with respect to her unborn child.

Now, this is something that would eventually have to come down to legal precedence. The fact that the Sanctity of Life Act would redefine human life as beginning at conception, would draw into question the UVoV Act, as the Sanctity of Life Act removes ALL jurisdiction of the supreme court to review abortion, therefore nullifying any federal mandate or act speaking on the matter.

it is possible that this would be a tough hurdle to clear. However, the way I see it, this law would be nullified by the language in the Sanctity of Life Act.

Originally posted by ozwest
Why do Americans decide elections on issues like abortion, gay marriage, weapons of mass destruction? Don't you realize politicians use these issues to divide and conquer the electorate... Stop wasting your time on this subject. If a woman wants an abortion she will have it regardless of the law. Legal or not, it's going to happen sadly.

Another person who would tell others what should be important to them. Why do you feel that this is your place?

reply to post by captaintyinknots

So, you are claiming to know what the founding fathers were thinking?

i'm claiming that they didn't foresee a time when unborn children weren't thought of as human, and that the appropriate place to amend this oversight is at the federal level.

i would like for you to point out where i made a logical fallacy, and defend how your position on abortion ISN'T a logical fallacy.

it isn't possible to take right and wrong out of the abortion issue, because if you could, then the issue wouldn't exist.

i've addressed how ron paul's position makes sense (as a correction to something the founding fathers couldn't have known about) and i've demonstrated how your position is wrong.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You are illustrating my point. Rightly or wrongly abortions will occur. No matter how emotionally you feel, those are the facts. You can't legislte human behaviour. Start with the war on drugs...

Originally posted by ozwest
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

You are illustrating my point. Rightly or wrongly abortions will occur. No matter how emotionally you feel, those are the facts. You can't legislte human behaviour. Start with the war on drugs...

The difference is, if they are illegal, the majority of them will be done in back alleys, in less than sterile environments, etc.

And that is not even taking into account the ideological side of someone taking away the right to choose.

*** ATTENTION ***

GET ON TOPIC

POST IN A CIVIL MANNER

or

YOU WILL BE POST BANNED.