Posted on 02/24/2010 4:23:01 PM PST by EternalVigilance
States must protect innocent human life, and provide for the equal protection of the laws. The Constitution says so. It’s not optional.
Bill Johnson’s campaign continues to gain strength on the ground. Wherever these three candidates go it is apparent that Bill Johnson walks out the clear winner. After the Paducah debate Johnson’s tables were mobbed while the other two candidate’s tables were ignored. So I have no idea what you’re talking about.
And that is why he is teaming up with one guy to go after another guy on one issue?
Tell me Mr. Johnson, there is plenty to disagree with Greyson on. Would you team up with Paul to attack Greyson? Or is this just attack Paul so that one of you might have the chance to win.
So you write they flock to his table. Current poll numbers prove otherwise. But hey, a few undecided going over to a table sure means a victory to you.
He has some catching up to do and he can, but not by joining Greyson to attack Paul. Voters don’t usually go for that.
So can you vote in KY?
Hey, Grayson, to his credit has taken a position on life that lines up with the Reagan platform in recognizing the personhood of the child and their resultant protection by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Conversely, Rand Paul has taken Gerald R. Ford’s position, that states can alienate what the Founders called unalienable if they want.
So, in this case, there was no principled reason for Bill Johnson not to stand with Grayson.
Of course, Bill will actually lead in the fight to restore respect for the unalienable right to life, as he has throughout the debate which has exposed Paul’s egregious position, and Grayson almost certainly won’t. That’s one of the many reasons I support Bill.
Yeah, and, what is your point? That only a federal power grab to preempt a previous federal power grab is the only just solution?
This isn’t someone like Bush or Obama suddenly and hypocritically discovering federalism when it suits them. Rand, love him or hate him, wishes to return to the form of government this country was given us in the Constitution, which, some of us believe, God had a hand in.
So you think, from now on, the Federal government should prosecute all murders? Quit making cheap shots. Rand Paul is for a Life Amendment. The 14th should suffice but since it hasn't he is for a Life Amendment enforcable upon the states.
A phony one that doesn't require the states to protect the life of all innocent persons in their jurisdiction.
The Paul family deception in this matter is poison to the pro-life movement, to our form of government, and to our liberty.
He'd like you to think he is, but he's not.
As a matter of practicality it will be easier to get rid of most legal abortion be getting the Feds out of it- by simply reversing RoevWade and leaving it to the states. Then in Tennessee it will be much easier to properly include abortion with other forms of murder than it will be to also have to fight the California and New York voters to accomplish the end of legal abortion in Tennessee. Ending it nationally is not an option without a much more extensive religious revival in the country than has occurred in the past century. If we get that revival then legal abortion will be ended, perhaps in the whole country.
Just read Pauls site with regards to abortion. Reads solid.
I see no difference in what he writes vs the Team of G&J.
You should email J and let him know he needs to concentrate on his own campaign.
Only one guy goes to Washington out of this election. Not two Team G&J.
I myself will love it when Greyson fails. The other two are fine with me.
Federalism is a system of governance. The imperative duty to protect unalienable rights is the very reason for being of government.
I’m always shocked at the way Paulites and their imitators in the more “mainstream” GOP deceptively misuse the label “federalist.” Their stated positions would more properly be titled “neo-confederate,” not federalist.
Ron Paul is the most predictable politician in history. It's a very wise bet that Rand Paul will be no different. Either one would rather lose than lie, that is why they choose to defend unpopular positions in unpopular ways.
Your vehemence against the man seems deeply personal. What is your problem?
Watch Ron Paul's speech at CPAC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BWEBXKOkaI
He's a pencil necked geek. He could never win a popularity contest. He could never look in a mirror and be a narcissist. He will never be President. He obviously cares about the truth. He wants to gut a government that has enshrined child sacrifice and mass murder as a sacred constitutional right for 37 years!
The number one argument people around the world make against having children: "we can't afford them". Why can't we afford them? We are all becoming socialist serfs!
The personhood strategy is not about federalizing specific murder statutes; it is about defining the legal object in which the right to live is vested. The first principle of law is that if there is no right, there is no duty. If I have no right to own the Brooklyn Bridge, you cannot steal it from me. If I have a right to live, you have a duty to avoid killing me. Thus, rights and duties are always in symmetrical pairs. A central purpose of the federal Constitution is to describe the baseline rights of persons in relation to the federal government, and to prevent states from going below that baseline.
By establishing that these rights exist, corresponding duties are imposed on both the state and federal governments to protect those rights. With respect to personhood, however, if the unborn child is not a person, then murder cannot occur, because without a right to live, there is no duty to protect life. Killing the fetus would have the same legal effect as removing a cyst. Indeed, that is precisely how abortions are sold to many an unwary traveler.
Whereas, if an unborn child falls within the category called “person” described in the 14th Amendment, that proves the child’s right to live, and thereby establishes a duty in the state to create laws that protect the life of that child. The state may elect any number of responses to the event of killing, but if its laws fail to at least minimally uphold its constitutional duties respecting life, those laws would be struck down as unconstitutional. How long would a state law survive that explicitly permitted the open and unpunished murder of all people wearing polyester suits?
Therefore, the state and the federal components are interlocking pieces. One is not complete without the other. The personhood project seeks to fill a gap in that structure which arbitrarily omits unborn children as the proper objects of the legal protection offered by the 14th Amendment. Once that gap is filled, the states will be enabled to uphold their duty to protect those young lives at least as well as the federal Constitution requires.
That seems like a loaded question...but...yea. You probably have to explicitly state that the common law crimes are also abolished, but states abolish common law rules by statute all the time.
I’m not sure that property values would do very well in such a state though.
Wasn’t there an old wild west legend that ended with the judge freeing a murderer because “There was no law on the books outlawing the killing of a Chinaman” or something?
Once again, each state defines the various degrees of murder and self defense. None of them legalize murder.
No State legalizes murder.
“No State legalizes murder”
They all legalize homicide in some form. Plus they all legalize abortion which is murder.
No, they legalize justifiable homicide and define which actions are self defense. No State can over ride the oligarchy that is the Supreme Court.
What’s so bad about leaving those issues up to the states? With such pressing economic issues at hand, I’m not sure why these issues take such a forefront.
More than four thousand little children were butchered again today in this country. That many will be killed again tomorrow, and the day after that. If you don’t find that to be of the highest priority, there’s something wrong with you.
Protecting innocent human life is not optional, for the states or for anyone else.
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.