Fred's Federalism Clashes with Potential Allies

FoxNews ^ | 9/5/07 | papasmurf

[Mr. Lucky]

Well, OK. I don’t much care what folks in Massachussets think constitutes morality and I certainly don’t want them having a say in what we think is proper in Indiana. The fact is that federalizing morality has led to the wholesale legal slaughter of unborn children.

[mnehring]

And just for the record, I don’t doubt that Paul is pro-life, I just believe, based on his votes and the excuses people make for these votes, that Paul is more concerned about the semantics of the commerce clause that may have been vaguely related to these bills than on actually voting to restrict abortions.

[tacticalogic]

Some of his votes against limiting or restricting abortion:

How many of those rely on the "living document" New Deal Commerce Clause for their constitutinal authority?

[G8 Diplomat]

The fact is that federalizing morality has led to the wholesale legal slaughter of unborn children.

True, in that case. But in this case it can lead to a ban on all gay unions.

I can see both sides of this coin, and everybody has their own opinon on which side is better.

[tacticalogic]

Paul is more concerned about the semantics of the commerce clause that may have been vaguely related to these bills than on actually voting to restrict abortions.

And you think the end justifies the means.

[mnehring]

EXACTLY! This goes right to my point about the difference in say, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul- both of which are federalists, but on the issue of abortion, Thompson always voted pro-life while Paul (in the votes I posted in a previous thread) thought it was more important to parse federalist words and vague references to the commerce clause than vote pro-life.

[G8 Diplomat]

True, in that case. But in this case it can lead to a ban on all gay unions.

Elaboration: The outcome of federalizing morality or leaving it to the states matters on who is the majority on the decision--libs or conservatives. With Roe v. Wade is was the libs. Had we been the majority, abortion would be illegal.

[mnehring]

I believe that saving life is more important than parsing words, that is not the ends justifying the means. That is weighing the importance of what side you take. If you think that vague references to the commerce clause that may or may not apply to a bill is more important than voting pro-life, so be it.

[mnehring]

How many children will die while Paul sees a phantom commerce clause reference in every bill? If that is Paul’s priority, so be it.. just put the cards on the table and let’s admit that is Paul’s priority.

[tacticalogic]

What you call a “vague reference” is the sole claim to authority Congress presents to enact the legislation. You don’t seem to care much for the idea of questioning whether Congress is legitimately empowered to enact a particular piece of legislation, and holding that to be sufficient to vote against it if it appears they are not.

[tacticalogic]

I believe that saving life is more important than parsing words, that is not the ends justifying the means.

When you live in a constitutional republic, and the words your parsing is their constitution, it is exactly that.

[mnehring]

Glad you agree that is Paul’s priority, I’ll be sure to quote you on it..

[tacticalogic]

How many children will die while Paul sees a phantom commerce clause reference in every bill? If that is Paul’s priority, so be it.. just put the cards on the table and let’s admit that is Paul’s priority.

I'm not buying the "if it saves just one child" song and dance. Do you have a constituional argument to present in favor of the New Deal Commerce Clause, or evidence to present that none of these bills rely on it?

[tacticalogic]

Glad you agree that is Paul’s priority, I’ll be sure to quote you on it..

Give you propensity for misrepresentation and mischaracterization, I don't doubt that you will, in the slimiest possible way.

[mnehring]

The ‘commerce clause’ was interpreted from the Constitution, how that is applied is a matter of debate.. the ‘vague reference’ is the fact that in some people’s opinion, people think that is the justification for these laws, and not the 14th amendment. But again, it goes to priority.. I don’t trust Paul regarding anything regarding national security or other issues.. Based on Paul’s history, if the shit ever hit the fan, I’m afraid he wouldn’t do anything because the words ‘red phone’ and ‘football’ wasn’t in the Constitution..

-If there is one thing that makes me sick, its when someone tries to hide behind politics- Joey Ramone.

I find it funniest, however, that Paul can vote any way on any issue and his minions will bow down before him because he claims it is because of the Constitution, even if it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

[Andy'smom]

This is disturbing to me as well, we can’t as a nation have such disparate marriage laws. I understand that Fred has said that we don’t need a constitutional amendment unless activist judges get involved, well, duh they already have: Massachusetts and now Iowa.

[tacticalogic]

the ‘vague reference’ is the fact that in some people’s opinion, people think that is the justification for these laws,

Congress is required to present the basis for their constitutional authority along with the legislation they propose. It's not "some people", it's our representatives in Congress, and it's our responsibility to examine that claim, and to do so with a skeptical and critical eye.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

You can believe what you want. The man is pro-life. He introduced the sanctity of life act in 2005. Those “no” votes against those two pro-life bills means nothing and those bills would have been shot down by activist judges anyway. For this to even come up for discussion is beneath FR.

[mnehring]

Hey, it’s cool.. if Paul thinks that a Pro-Life issue is trivial enough to make a point about Constitutionality then, so be it.. it just seems people wouldn’t die if he made his point with something like, say, funding wild shrimp farmers or creating a national child tracking database.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

It’s all about priorities.. I’m glad to see where Paul chooses to make a point.. after all, what’s a few lives to make a point.. it is sure isn’t as important as making sure those Wild Shrimp farmers are funded (BTW, where is Wild Shrimp in the Constitution?)

[tacticalogic]

I find it funniest, however, that Paul can vote any way on any issue and his minions will bow down before him because he claims it is because of the Constitution, even if it has nothing to do with the Constitution.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

13 Feb. 1829
Letters 4:14--15

For a like reason, I made no reference to the "power to regulate commerce among the several States." I always foresaw that difficulties might be started in relation to that power which could not be fully explained without recurring to views of it, which, however just, might give birth to specious though unsound objections. Being in the same terms with the power over foreign commerce, the same extent, if taken literally, would belong to it. Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."

-Justice Clarence Thomas