Ron Paul and the states-rights-sidestep

reply to post by captaintyinknots



Your Wrong!

He is not back dooring anything. The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction. You even stated it in your OP. It does exactly what he says he wants to do it leaves it completely in the hands of the states. He has never said anything different for 30 years and has made no bones that some states will outlaw abortion but most will not.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Your Wrong!

He is not back dooring anything. The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction. You even stated it in your OP. It does exactly what he says he wants to do it leaves it completely in the hands of the states. He has never said anything different for 30 years and has made no bones that some states will outlaw abortion but most will not.

I think you mean "you're".

Your premise is wrong. Please do some reading Re: Sanctity of Life Act. It may clear things up.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Your Wrong!

He is not back dooring anything. The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction. You even stated it in your OP. It does exactly what he says he wants to do it leaves it completely in the hands of the states. He has never said anything different for 30 years and has made no bones that some states will outlaw abortion but most will not.

You're premise is wrong. Please do some reading Re: Sanctity of Life Act. It may clear things up.

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

I think you mean "Your".

Originally posted by bl4ke360

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Your Wrong!

He is not back dooring anything. The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction. You even stated it in your OP. It does exactly what he says he wants to do it leaves it completely in the hands of the states. He has never said anything different for 30 years and has made no bones that some states will outlaw abortion but most will not.

You're premise is wrong. Please do some reading Re: Sanctity of Life Act. It may clear things up.

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

I think you mean "Your".

Fair enough, and well caught. Anything on topic to say?

Over 100 posts and not a single valid counter argument.

If Rp is elected, he WILL push to make abortion illegal. Be aware.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Your Wrong!

He is not back dooring anything. The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction. You even stated it in your OP. It does exactly what he says he wants to do it leaves it completely in the hands of the states. He has never said anything different for 30 years and has made no bones that some states will outlaw abortion but most will not.

I think you mean "you're".

Your premise is wrong. Please do some reading Re: Sanctity of Life Act. It may clear things up.

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Wow you complain no one is discussing the topic and just saying your wrong then you turn around and do the same thing...Sigh! You even stated in your OP that the supreme and federal district courts have no jurisdiction so how could they prosecute without such? Show me the language of the bill that says otherwise don't just tell me I am wrong. You are the one making claims I just proved you wrong with your own words even.

The feds do not prosecute crimes like murder the states do. All this biil does is put abortion in the same category of allowing states to decide of something is a crime or not which is where it should be. The feds technically have not jurisdiction on the matter. So even the langauge that states a fetus is a person at conception is meaningless.. The feds could say the death penalty is murder and it is meaningless because the States decide if the death penalty is legal or not period. Same thing here Paul is giving the states back jurisdiction as it should be

So you are making claims post the langauge of the bill that backs your false premise...

.

www.ontheissues.org...


It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.
I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.


.


Funny He seems to be taking heat from both sides of this issue ...

I think we should let the states decide it is not a Federal concern .

.

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Your Wrong!

He is not back dooring anything. The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction. You even stated it in your OP. It does exactly what he says he wants to do it leaves it completely in the hands of the states. He has never said anything different for 30 years and has made no bones that some states will outlaw abortion but most will not.

I think you mean "you're".

Your premise is wrong. Please do some reading Re: Sanctity of Life Act. It may clear things up.

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Wow you complain one is discussing the topic and just aying your wrong then you turn around and do the same thing...Sigh! You even stated in your OP that the supreme and federal district courts have no jurisdiction so how could they prosecute without such? Show me the language of the bill that says otherwise don't just tell me I am wrong. You are the one making claims I just proved you wrong with your own words even.

The feds do not prosecute crimes like murder the states do. All this biil does is put abortion in the same category of allowing states to decide of something is a crime or not which is where it should be. The feds technically have not jurisdiction on the matter. So even the langauge that states a fetus is a person at conception is meaningless.. The feds could say the death penalty is murder and it is meaningless because the States decide if the death penalty is legal or not period. Same thing here Paul is giving the states back jurisdiction as it should be

So you are making claims post the langauge of the bill that backs your false premise

No, that is not what I have done, I posted a link to the Sanctity of life act in my OP, and unless you read that, you wont understand this topic, plain and simple. Do you need me to post the link again? Your entire first paragraph ignores the Sanctity of LIfe Act and what it means. Again, until you read it you wont grasp what is being said.

What the bill does is grant federally protected rights to a fetus. I posted the EXACT language in my OP. Until you read that, you are missing the point.

Originally posted by R0CR13
.

www.ontheissues.org...


It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states.
I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit fe4deral court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.

The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.


.


Funny He seems to be taking heat from both sides of this issue ...

I think we should let the states decide it is not a Federal concern .

.

edit on 2-5-2012 by R0CR13 because: add link

Again, letting the states decide is ok with me. Letting the states decide while pushing FEDERAL legislature to give human rights to a fetus is where it becomes an issue.

As I have already asked: IF he simply wants to make it about states rights, WHY is he pushing federal legislation on the matter?

Sanctity of Life Act of 2009 - Deems human life to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency and requires that the term "person" include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state . 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; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions. Makes this Act and the amendments made by this Act applicable to any case pending on, or commenced on or after, the date of enactment.

www.dailypaul.com... source of above for what its worth thats a summary of the bill and here is a link to the full one hopefully this answers some questions

‘

so hopefully this gets some more information and answers for those that want them in this thread

www.govtrack.us...

‘Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation ‘Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, 1257, and 1258, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--

only question i have on the above is would that be legal in any way shape or form to say the supreme court has no right to hear any cases on aborton if this is passed? arent they the supreme law of the land and prety much have the ability to review what ever they see fit? kinda confused on this part hope i can get some clarification

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by hawkiye

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Your Wrong!

He is not back dooring anything. The bill removes jurisdiction from The federal courts including the Supreme court therefore no doctor in a state where it is legal would be open to federal prosecution since the feds have no jurisdiction. You even stated it in your OP. It does exactly what he says he wants to do it leaves it completely in the hands of the states. He has never said anything different for 30 years and has made no bones that some states will outlaw abortion but most will not.

I think you mean "you're".

Your premise is wrong. Please do some reading Re: Sanctity of Life Act. It may clear things up.

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Wow you complain one is discussing the topic and just aying your wrong then you turn around and do the same thing...Sigh! You even stated in your OP that the supreme and federal district courts have no jurisdiction so how could they prosecute without such? Show me the language of the bill that says otherwise don't just tell me I am wrong. You are the one making claims I just proved you wrong with your own words even.

The feds do not prosecute crimes like murder the states do. All this biil does is put abortion in the same category of allowing states to decide of something is a crime or not which is where it should be. The feds technically have not jurisdiction on the matter. So even the langauge that states a fetus is a person at conception is meaningless.. The feds could say the death penalty is murder and it is meaningless because the States decide if the death penalty is legal or not period. Same thing here Paul is giving the states back jurisdiction as it should be

So you are making claims post the langauge of the bill that backs your false premise

No, that is not what I have done, I posted a link to the Sanctity of life act in my OP, and unless you read that, you wont understand this topic, plain and simple. Do you need me to post the link again? Your entire first paragraph ignores the Sanctity of LIfe Act and what it means. Again, until you read it you wont grasp what is being said.

What the bill does is grant federally protected rights to a fetus. I posted the EXACT language in my OP. Until you read that, you are missing the point.

edit on 2-5-2012 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

Dude are you mentally challenged? Here is what you quoted in your OP:

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;

That quote right there destroys your whole argument. That lanugage clearly removes any and all federal jurisidiction on the matter. You busted your own argument right from the get go and can't even fathom it because you are too emotionally attached to it.

So if the federal supreme and district courts have NO 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.. None zero zippo!!!

Please explain how anyone can be open to federal prosecution when there is NO FEDERAL JURISDICTION? Now quit trying to deflect by saying I don't understand blah blah. I understand this and the language of legislation far better then you and this nullifies any argument you have made thus far. You are just reading your own emotional bias into this and not looking at the facts which is the language you quoted in your OP and I re-quoted in this post.

Case closed you lose!

reply to post by KilrathiLG

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
only question i have on the above is would that be legal in any way shape or form to say the supreme court has no right to hear any cases on aborton if this is passed?

Legal? If he passes the Act, it would be legal to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing ANY abortion cases. That's what it says. A person would not have the recourse of taking their case to the highest court in the land.

arent they the supreme law of the land and prety much have the ability to review what ever they see fit?

Only on the federal level. In a state where abortion was made illegal (and many states have tried) a person who had a pregnancy that threatened her life (as I once did) would have NO recourse but to travel to another state to SAVE HER LIFE!

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?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


ah thank you learned something today i figured that nothing could remove the supreme court from hearing a case if it requested it thank you

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Where, specifically, do you interpret the notion of fetus rights per H.R. 1096? Is section 2 binding or non-binding? If section 2 is binding then what statutory addendum and/or amendment within H.R. 1096 makes it so?

Link: www.govtrack.us...

Put succinctly, I don't understand the connection you've made with this bill and your argument that "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." That is, the consequence which you speak of hinges on what you describe as fetus rights, and yet nowhere in H.R. 1096 do I find a statutory prescription to support that conclusion.

What am I missing here?

I do not agree with Ron Paul's pro life stance. I am a firm believer in Pro Choice.

That being said, I have no fear of putting the abortion issue where it belongs... at the State level!

Ron Paul has said, by removing the Federal Government from the debate, you would over turn Roe vs Wade overnight and he is right. That being said, so what? Why are people so scared to get involved in their local political process to ensure that abortion can remain a matter of choice in your own area?

Putting the power to keep abortion legal or make it illegal into the hands of your local representatives, then maybe people would be more informed and make better choices as to who represents them at home on the local level.

That being said, Abortion is not an issue for the Federal Government. This whole debate should not even matter when choosing a President. It should matter when choosing your Council persons, your Mayor, the Governor, but not the President. Fact is, abortion might as well be illegal in some areas. The area of SW Louisiana in which I reside is VERY pro life. If someone from here wants to have an abortion they have to drive to Texas because it is much more easier to do that than drive several hours to another part of the state where there is a clinic, because you will NOT find a clinic in my area that will perform the procedure. So why hide it?? If my area want to be pro life.. great, do it. Make it illegal at the State level and people can CHOOSE to move out of State, but to pretend that abortion is illegal while at the same time making it hard for anyone to get one is just stupid and silly and that is part of the problem with Politics.

By doing this, the power then belongs with the people. If your State goes against your beliefs, then move to place more in line with your beliefs and pay your State taxes there instead. It is no different to me than the issue of race. I do not believe the Federal Government should be involved in making laws to dictate people's thought, beliefs, or behaviors. If people want to be racist, let them be openly racist without fear of prosecution. If a business is owned by a racist and wants to post a sign saying "We refuse service to Blacks", then let them do it!! The only thing that will come from it is an empowerment to the people. Because now I have a choice to not support the racist business with my money and I can go elsewhere and support a business that does not discriminate.

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?

Dude learn to read...Sigh!

"or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth;"

What part of "they can't even interpret such a measure as protecting rights of human persons between conception and birth" do you not understand? The language clearly removes them from having any say in regards to fetuses period. Each state will decide that on their own just like they decide all other criminal matters. And just for the record I am pro choice but I disagree with Ron Paul that it should be left up to the states. I don;'t think it is any of governments business period.

This is what Ron Paul does for any controversial issue that he is against.

If he doesn't like the current law...he just says it is a "state issue"...meaning that if he can get it to the states, at least SOME states will change it to the opposite of current law.


Similar to the OP, this is a huge issue with me and Ronny...but not with abortion...with "property rights" and allowing business to discriminate against people for any reason.

Originally posted by hawkiye

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?

Dude learn to read...Sigh!

"or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth;"

What part of "they can't even interpret such a measure as protecting rights of human persons between conception and birth" do you not understand? The language clearly removes them from having any say in regards to fetuses period. Each state will decide that on their own just like they decide all other criminal matters. And just for the record I am pro choice but I disagree with Ron Paul that it should be left up to the states. I don;'t think it is any of governments business period.

So, answer me this: is a fetus, after abortion, considered birthed?

Aside from that, from the bill itself:

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

www.govtrack.us...

Therefore, it isnt even about the "rights of the fetus" as I incorrectly worded it early, as the fetus will be considered a "person".

And finally, what you arent grasping with this, is that it wont be the act of abortion that will be prosecutable. It will be the infringement of the rights of the fetus. If that fetus is a person, as the act states, after the abortion, the "person" has been "murdered". Different case altogether.

Originally posted by Kovenov
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Where, specifically, do you interpret the notion of fetus rights per H.R. 1096? Is section 2 binding or non-binding? If section 2 is binding then what statutory addendum and/or amendment within H.R. 1096 makes it so?

Link: www.govtrack.us...

Put succinctly, I don't understand the connection you've made with this bill and your argument that "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." That is, the consequence which you speak of hinges on what you describe as fetus rights, and yet nowhere in H.R. 1096 do I find a statutory prescription to support that conclusion.

What am I missing here?

apparently, this:

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (B) the term ‘person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

www.govtrack.us...