Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ron Paul's Approach to Reversing Roe v. Wade
The New American ^ | 2009-01-23 | Warren Mass

Posted on 01/24/2009 8:44:42 PM PST by rabscuttle385

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
To: GVnana

The 14th amendment took the definition of citizenship out of the hands of the states, and the language of the amendment makes personhood an unavoidable federal issue, since the amendment requires equal protection of all persons.

The federalism/states’ rights approach to abortion is inoperative.


21 posted on 01/24/2009 11:42:26 PM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius
I quote Ron Paul's article:

Since the federal "solution" to the abortion issue has resulted in a holocaust of 50 million preborn babies since 1973, why should a return to the pre-1973 approach of prohibiting abortion on the state level be rejected now in favor of another federal "solution"?

The states CAN address the issue, if we had politicians with any leadership, guts and intelligence.

22 posted on 01/24/2009 11:46:40 PM PST by GVnana ("I once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Hard as it may be to conceive, Ron Paul is wrong here; the 14th Amendment requires the Federal government to define personhood. In Roe v. Wade it did so, wrongly; if that definition were indeed rectified it would indeed require the Federal government, under the equal protection clause, to strike down abortion everywhere.

There is, barring another constitutional amendment, no longer any possibility of a house divided on this issue.


23 posted on 01/24/2009 11:50:54 PM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius
the 14th Amendment requires the Federal government to define personhood

Well, I'm no constitutional scholar, but it seems to me the 14th amendment defined federal citizens, but never removed the definition of state citizen.

14th Amendment. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How would the federal government circumvent a state giving the rights of citizenship to the unborn?

24 posted on 01/25/2009 12:07:10 AM PST by GVnana ("I once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: GVnana

Because the federal government has already declared the unborn nonpersons—state law cannot overturn federal law.


25 posted on 01/25/2009 12:08:41 AM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385
For 10 years Congressman Duncan Hunter introduced the Life at Conception Act. IIRC, the torch was passed to him by Rep. Dornan, who had introduced the bill for years prior.

If passed, it would define life as beginning at conception.
If that happened, the Preamble, 5th, and the 14th amendments would apply to protecting the lives of the unborn,
an admission made by the court in their Roe v. Wade ruling when Justice Blackmun wrote;
If this suggestion of person-hood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

Last year Hunter's bill had over 125 co-sponsors.
The republicans had the majority in the house from 1994-2006. Were these bills ever passed or even voted on?

With ultra sounds/sonograms there is no longer any question or confusion about the person-hood or humanism of an unborn child.

Recently someone I know had an ultra sound at 7 weeks pregnant. She commented how the new baby looks exactly like her little boy.

Another question for those that believe this issue should be relegated to the states:
Is the definition of murder left up to the states to define or is it federally set?

26 posted on 01/25/2009 12:08:48 AM PST by Just A Nobody (I *LOVE* my Attitude Problem - NEVER AGAIN...Support our Troops! Beware the ENEMEDIA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody

And this is precisely why the 14th Amendment was passed—to prevent the states from determining, for instance, that freed slaves were not legal persons.


27 posted on 01/25/2009 12:10:56 AM PST by Philo-Junius (One precedent creates another. They soon accumulate and constitute law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Can you name the bill(s) that Dr Ron Paul started to curtail abortion?

He has been in Congress since the Ford days, there must be dozens.


28 posted on 01/25/2009 12:16:55 AM PST by NoLibZone (Islam must be completely eradicated from the face of the Earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rabscuttle385

Yeah, brilliant. 535 members of Congress are all going to stand up and say “Hey, make me the target!”

This idea is dumber than something Gov. Moonbeam, Jerry Brown, of California would cook up.


29 posted on 01/25/2009 12:52:01 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
IOW, the train is headed in the opposite direction.

Any tactic that does not disable the "human shield" defense of abortion used by American woman is doomed to ignominious failure.

Extending "choice" to men is the only realistic approach to curtailing the female monopoly on "reproductive rights."

30 posted on 01/25/2009 1:12:42 AM PST by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Do the math
I asked a woman who was pro choice to prove to me that the babies that were being killed were not humans, and of course she could not. She tried to change the subject to viability, and I told her I was not interested in viability, only whether or not the baby was a human.

A 3 day old baby isn't capable of taking care of itself...it is not viable without outside help...so I guess murdering living babies would be fine by her as well. And suppose the woman had a 25 year old daughter who was in a car crash and was seriously injured and wouldn't live without medical assistance...guess she believes her daughter ceases to be a human for a time and she may be allowed the choice rather to kill her daughter or not. Viability is not a rational, moral argument.

With the blood of 50,000,000 babies on their hands, liberals owe the nazis an apology.

31 posted on 01/25/2009 1:21:10 AM PST by highlander_UW (The only difference between the MSM and the DNC is the MSM sells ad space in their propaganda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
Is the definition of murder left up to the states to define or is it federally set?

Murder falls under state criminal jurisdiction.

32 posted on 01/25/2009 1:34:17 AM PST by GVnana ("I once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius

Im what decision did the federal government make such a declaration? Seems to me they have tip-toed around the issue.


33 posted on 01/25/2009 1:36:40 AM PST by GVnana ("I once dressed as Tina Fey for Halloween." - Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

“Pro-choice” for individuals or “pro-choice” for states, either way, the babies are dead, and so is the heart of our founding documents.


34 posted on 01/25/2009 2:45:36 AM PST by EternalVigilance (God is watching and listening.)(The Personhood Imperative: www.BanAbortionNOW.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
Can you name the bill(s) that Dr Ron Paul started to curtail abortion?

Can anyone name anything cut and run has done except blame America for everything bad that has happened in the world.
35 posted on 01/25/2009 2:56:26 AM PST by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Philo-Junius
the 14th Amendment requires the Federal government to define personhood

The 14th Amendment was passed because the federal government desired the ability to define 'personhood', something that it was never given by the Framers.

But a contract of this nature actually existed in a visible form, between the citizens of each state, respectively, in their several constitutions; it might therefore he deemed somewhat extraordinary, that in the establishment of a federal republic, it should have been thought necessary to extend it's operation to the persons of individuals, as well as to the states, composing the confederacy.
It was apprehended by many, that this innovation would be construed to change the nature of the union, from a confederacy, to a consolidation of the states; that as the tenor of the instrument imported it to be the act of the people, the construction might be made accordingly: an interpretation that would tend to the annihilation of the states, and their authority. That this was the more to be apprehended, since all questions between the states, and the United States, would undergo the final decision of the latter.

Volume 1 - Appendix, Note D, Section 1
St. George Tucker's View of the Constitution of the United States

The 14th Amendment is pure, legalistic slight-of-hand in an effort to give the appearance of federal control over the States.

In fact, you can see the hubris yourself in the quote by one of the 14th's co-sponsors:
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Senator Jacob Howard, 1866

How about that! Congress decided it could re-write the Laws of Nature.

-----

For those with a penchant for truth, the 'limits of the United States' can be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the US Constitution.

Here is an excellent article on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

IMHO, the general government has illegitimately ASSUMED a power that it was never intended to have, and our Republic has suffered greatly for it.

36 posted on 01/25/2009 6:13:20 AM PST by MamaTexan (I am not a political, public, collective, corporate, administrative or legal entity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gwilhelm56

or they would have been on welfare


37 posted on 01/25/2009 9:01:34 AM PST by mel (Obama- show me the BC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Do the math
You know mathematically that there is only one logical point at which life begins, and that is conception. It is a fact that abortion kills a human life.
What this would imply that life ends at the death of the last cell.

Think of the implications of that.
38 posted on 01/25/2009 9:32:03 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Just A Nobody
If this suggestion of person-hood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.
Even if it were the case, it would not prohibit abortion.

The 14th Amendment only prohibits state and federal action, not private action.
39 posted on 01/25/2009 9:36:48 AM PST by dbz77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

In a democratic system it is not possible to reverse a judicial decision you disagree with unless you have overwhelming public support.

It is highly debatable whether there is at present even a bare majority for repeal of Roe. Certainly politicians, media, academics and other elites are overwhelmingly in favor of keeping Roe in force. Probably a 2/3 majority in the general population would be required just to make it an even fight.

The only way a dramatically unpopular initiative can be passed is to have the Court find such a “right” hidden in the Constitution. So far, only liberals have been able to use this tactic.

Talking about possible methods for overriding Roe in these circumstances is like talking about how if your aunt had b*lls she’d be your uncle. The statement may be technically accurate, but it is comprehensively irrelevant.


40 posted on 01/25/2009 9:42:30 AM PST by Sherman Logan (Everyone has a right to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson