Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

So we should make murder legal because it will happen any ways right how about car theft of shoplifting? Most laws should be at the state level like education. Every state is different. You can teach farming in iowa but it wouldn't do much good in new jersey. The federal goverment got in the game of education and look at how that went. No child left behind. Give it to the states.

Also, as far as the right to choose what about the baby. My brother was an accident and I'm glad my mom didn't take away his right. He wouldn't be here and the world would be worst for it. He is a great person

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Agreed. The loss of life is tragic. Laws are words on paper, the individual circumstances of each person cannot be legislated.

reply to post by jlafleur02


What you should be concentrating on is how the government a corporations are fleecing you. Don't concern yourself with a shoplifter, rather, focus your energies on the people who are really stealing from you. Politicians love stuff.

Originally posted by ozwest
reply to post by jlafleur02

 

What you should be concentrating on is how the government a corporations are fleecing you. Don't concern yourself with a shoplifter, rather, focus your energies on the people who are really stealing from you. Politicians love stuff.

we should outlaw politicians. Everything should be voted on by the people. Internet and phone based. Media blackout on all issues. They should have both side present there case and then open discussion. This would take the spend more money and get the law passed bull that goes on now.

Good thought. Revove the middle-man (corporations). The technology is there. Also take the hype from the media. Lateral thinking...

reply to post by Jameela

am not Christian. And I believe the soul enters the body long before the first breath. 

Why would a soul chose to enter a body of a child forced on a woman against her will? I would be wary of any such soul willfully doing so. Also what would be the point of the soul entering the body before birth since it is not viable and cannot accomplish any progress

As far as rape, is not the child still as much as part of the mother as a child conceived in love?

No because the child was forced on the woman against her will.

People bring up rape, but very few children are conceived in rape scenarios. 

So what its a valid concern rape is rape no woman who is raped should be forced to carry the rapists offspring against her will. Do you have some numbers on how many children are conceived in rape or are you just pulling things out of the air?

And many people in this world want children because they cannot conceive am I not correct?

What has that to do with anything? So you would force a woman against her will to carry a rapists child to term I guess. I don't care what anyone else's problem is this is about freedom pure and simple.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

At this point, I would like to respond to the ONLY valid counter argument that has been posed in this thread.

LOL! it is clear you are not capable of rational discussion. I have destroyed your argument multiple times pointing to the specific language of the bill that you yourself even quoted that defeats your argument straight away and you have the nerve to repeat this same non-sense over and over and claim others are plugging thier ears, pot meet kettle... Sigh

reply to post by Honor93

this is not about the act of abortion being legal or illegal via State decision so much as this is about the unConstitutional provision to exclude the Supreme Court from ALL cases arising from said procedure or complications or challenges of law regarding it or deaths directly resulting from it.

You really ought to try reading the constitution. The federal Supreme court is limited to federal matters only as enumerated in the constitution. If you are convicted of murder you cannot appeal it to the the Supreme Court. in fact the Supreme court has no jurisdiction on criminal matters in the states period they only have jurisdiction on federal matters effecting the country as a whole most of which are not crimes etc. Of course they have far overstepped their bounds using the commerce clause to claim jurisdiction over anything and everything. Like Marijuana for instance even though some states have legalized it federal agents still arrest and prosecute it ignoring the states right to decide if it is legal or not.

Ron Paul sees abortion as a crime of violence therefore wants it in the states jurisdiction with all other crimes like rape murder assault etc.

I just thought of something as well.
in cases of people with do not resuscitate on their will or family members who decide to stop the respirator if their family member is brain dead.

Which btw was something I had to do for my father.

We don't sentence those family members or doctors to jail or charge them with murder.
And that happens very often all over the world.

Granted it's not exactly the same but it's similar enough, at least IMO, to set precedence.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
pg6#pid14036428]post by hawkiye[/url]

 

Again, no federal jurisdiction over abortion show me where it says they have none over the right of the fetus. I take it you don't understand the difference?

It says right there in your own OP snippet that the federal and supreme courts cannot review any cases arising from such rules or statutes that would outlaw abortion. This means they cannot federally prosecute someone who is being charges with killing a fetus. Why? Because only the states can decide if they want to protect the rights of the fetus. The federal court defines life but does not persecute any one who has had an abortion.

Maybe it would help more if i pointed out that this bill says NOTHING about the federall government protecting the rights of the unborn and only defines the unborn as being a person. It expressley states that protecting the unborn is up to the states. It also says the feds have NO right to get involved in any issue regarding a state law involving abortion.

Think about it...how on could the federal govt persecute someone for abortion if the bill ays they cannot try such cases?

That said, i completely disagree with this bill and i am now reexamining my support for him

reply to post by hawkiye


I have, numerous times, responded to your claims, and the only response you will give is mocking, followed by quoting the same line out of the act, which you are either deliberately, or naively, taking out of context.

I will say it one more time: the line you continue to quote refers to the inability of the SC to review or rule on the laws of each state regarding abortion. It says nothing of theirr jurisdiction over the rights of the fetus(which would be considered a person).

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Well Ron Paul was a congressman from Texas when he produced this bill. Correct me if I am wrong here, but he wasn't a state senator, or a governor of a state. He was simply acting within his power and jurisdiction as a congressman to try to do what was right. From what I see on the external source you quoted, the bill has a 1 percent chance of passing, and he does have a record of standing alone. So maybe it was a move to raise the issue, instead of repealing Roe vs Wade? I have always understood that Ron Paul believes that life begins at conception when there is evidence of a woman being pregnant. But there is a distinction between his personally held beliefs and the idea of liberty. Although he believes in this, he doesn't believe that everyone else should have to. Thats why he is letting it be a state issue if he is president (not still a congressman, mind you). If you don't like the laws of a state, you have the right to move to one that does. And ultimately he would let the people decide this very controversial issue in this manner. Thats why its very important to get involved. This country is supposed to be run by the people and some of us have a hard time realizing that.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Most normal people ... don't give a crap about abortion. Ultra conservatives and ultra progressives care. The rest of us? We don't give a flying !%@ either way... same thing with gay rights and other unimportant social issues that the government won't be bothered with, only the states.

Foreign policy and the economy are key..

reply to post by captaintyinknots

i would like for you to respond to my reasoning on the previous page, perhaps you missed it.

reply to post by Praetorius

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

ok but i'm not sure what you think judicial review of RvW would accomplish at this point.
with RvW as it's been challenged and challenged again.
more waste of taxpayers $$ perhaps ???

in case i mis-understand your comment, this proposal is not reviewable by any high court as written or did you skip that part?

My point is that it's invalid

please clarify "what" you think is invalid - the Roe v Wade decision, it's challenges, the RP proposal or the Constitution
as for the proposal being challenged, that is the UnConstitutional phrasing it contains.
any State law is supposed to be able to be challenged, this proposal would be exempt.

the matter lies outside the valid purview of the federal government in the first place.

while we can agree the matter of abortion is beyond the reach of federal goverment officials to impose, laws concerning it should be challengable per the Constitution.

*** i'll come back to the part i intentionally skipped.

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

this is not debatable as the authority of SCOTUS is clearly established.
sure wish we could agree that the State is not the proper authority in said decision either.

resolved otherwise and appropriate to leave up to the individual states

this is where we disagree as i've stated before, these decisions are INDIVIDUAL ones unless undetermined in advance.
no pending birth is undetermined hence, it is far beyond the authority of the State

i'm honestly not sure why anyone thinks some form of legislation will bring forth an end to abortions. never has, never will.

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

so long as you realize that any decision made to NOT argue for the Constitutional rights of the fetus could be equally prosecuted as deriliction of duty or something similar.

I was referring to a hypothetical case

i understand that but under current law that hypothetical is fantasy.
under this proposal as law, that hypothetical is a sincere possibility for every non-abortion State. to me, that's a problem just waiting to rear it's ugly head.

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

why would you refer to a suplemental section that is supported by the primary order in contention?
State rights are not supposed to supercede Constitutional ones and neither should this.
remember, the fetus has Constitutional rights which trump State rights.

if you are willing to "take the bad with the good", that is your preprogative.
i am holding out for better.

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.

while i appreciate your opinion, Dr Paul has been an active member of Congress for more than 30yrs.
his history is quite the reflection of his intent should he gain the nomination, his policies are fair game and this is one with which i strongly disagree as written.
i understand his goal of national anti-abortion, i disagree and always will.

and more egregious violations of life and liberty

ya know i luv ya but wtf ??
what is more egregious than the unnecessary taking of a life ???
whether it be poison, war, abortion, murder, torture or any other method that can be construed, to me, they are all the same.
and equally, i don't believe any of them can be legislated away.

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.

fair enough. on this point we'll have to agree to disagree although continued conversation is always welcome.

in case you want the simple version of why i claim it's the bad with the good ,,,
abortion shouldn't be a goverment issue (good)
abortion controlled by the State governments (bad)
personhood at the point of conception with all Constitutional rights (very bad)
States having the right to refuse a medical procedure (really bad)
No review of abuses by a higher court (UnConstitutional)
Extrmemly limited recourse for damages (doesn't get any worse than this)

have a good day and thanks for the conversation

reply to post by hawkiye

IF you read it, you should take it one step further and try to understand it as well.

the Supreme Court is directed to decide all cases concerning Consitutionally viable laws among other issues.
RvW is a Federally established law. Judicial Review is firmly established.
why should any State law subvert Constitutional review ?

If you are convicted of murder you cannot appeal it to the the Supreme Court.

that depends solely on the crime(s) involved.
www.uscourts.gov...

supreme.lp.findlaw.com...
In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice Marshall asserted that the doctrine of judicial review permitted the Court to review the constitutionality of congressional legislation. Before the end of his 34 years, he succeeded in strengthening the central government and making the Judiciary branch, in some respects, the strongest branch of the national government

Ron Paul sees abortion as a crime of violence therefore wants it in the states jurisdiction with all other crimes like rape murder assault etc

yes, i'm aware of this and i firmly disagree, it is a personal decision, not a government one or a crime.

Originally posted by grey580
I just thought of something as well.
in cases of people with do not resuscitate on their will or family members who decide to stop the respirator if their family member is brain dead.

Which btw was something I had to do for my father.

We don't sentence those family members or doctors to jail or charge them with murder.
And that happens very often all over the world.

Granted it's not exactly the same but it's similar enough, at least IMO, to set precedence.

edit on 3-5-2012 by grey580 because: (no reason given)

sorry to hear about your experience with dad but thanks for sharing.
question: if you had to make the decision to end his suffering, apparently he did not have a directive on file ?? (DNR)

in a case where there is no directive, usually next of kin makes the decision, occasionally the State makes the decision once other avenues are exhausted.

again, this is a decision of the willing, living, breathing participants.
how does a fetus fit that description?
i see no comparison between the two.

Originally posted by Allenb83
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Well Ron Paul was a congressman from Texas when he produced this bill. Correct me if I am wrong here, but he wasn't a state senator, or a governor of a state. He was simply acting within his power and jurisdiction as a congressman to try to do what was right. From what I see on the external source you quoted, the bill has a 1 percent chance of passing, and he does have a record of standing alone. So maybe it was a move to raise the issue, instead of repealing Roe vs Wade? I have always understood that Ron Paul believes that life begins at conception when there is evidence of a woman being pregnant. But there is a distinction between his personally held beliefs and the idea of liberty. Although he believes in this, he doesn't believe that everyone else should have to. Thats why he is letting it be a state issue if he is president (not still a congressman, mind you). If you don't like the laws of a state, you have the right to move to one that does. And ultimately he would let the people decide this very controversial issue in this manner. Thats why its very important to get involved. This country is supposed to be run by the people and some of us have a hard time realizing that.

fyi, you're wrong ... this (Sanctity of Life) bill did not originate with Ron Paul long ago, he picked up the trail blazed by another Texas congressman. (Stockman - 1995) Paul re-introduced it in 2005
www.ask.com...

reply to post by Honor93

This is actually only a women's right issue, not a universal issue... Unless males could some how get pregnant, but this isn't the movie Junior either....

That is what I stated on the first page...I don't think anyone got the metaphor...Abortion only affects females, therefore it is a Women's Rights issue...Males can't judge on what the female does...For one males can't get pregnant hence the Junior metaphor up above...This technically shouldn't have been a big deal, but some how it exploded and became more popular then it should have...