Posted on 05/03/2010 8:38:55 AM PDT by speciallybland
Since you refuse to read ansel12’s post on Rand Paul’s position on abortion (or the other posters who’ve provided it for you, here it is again. If you continue after this to post the tripe you’re posting, YOU ARE THE TROLLING LIAR:
Rand Paul: “I am 100% pro life. I believe abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being. I believe life begins at conception and it is the duty of our government to protect this life. I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term.”
Since murder (as with all other crime not SPECIFIED in the Constitution) is a matter for the STATES to deal with and punish, how is it that abortion, on EITHER side, becomes a federal matter? FedGov is NOT GRANTED ANY AUTHORITY over crimes such as murder... and I am as against abortion as anyone here. Read (and strive for comprehension) the Tenth Amendment. Then go back and try to find where the Constitution grants fedgov original jurisdiction over murder.
But what Dr. Paul HAS done over years is to introduce a bill defining the beginning of life as at conception, and denying the federal courts jurisdiction over that definition, He gets ZERO support even from his own party who style themselves as “pro-life.”
Look it up. It’s called the “Sanctity of Life” act or something similar.
If you think States can allow murder within their jurisdiction and not be in violation of their obligations under the Constitution, pray tell what other unalienable rights you believe this to be true about. Free speech? Freedom of the press and assembly? The Right to Keep and Bear Arms? Trial by jury? Parental rights? What?
By the way: Capital offenses ARE mentioned extensively in the Constitution. And it clearly proscribes killing those who haven’t been charged, tried and convicted of such.
"[T]he federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid." --Ron Paul
Ron Paul negates the first assertion of American liberty, the assertion as self-evident truth that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with the rights to life, liberty and private property, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. He also pretends that the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments with their imperative requirement that the lives of innocent persons be protected do not exist.
I will ask you again, the question I have asked you before: if a State were to legalize Rape (say, Arkansas -- where apparently Rape is legal already for certain Democratic Governors), what exactly should the Federal Government do about it, Constitutionally? What is the precise Constitutional recourse?
If I say that "Rape is a State legal matter", that does NOT mean that I think that any State should legalize Rape. Rather, I'm simply identifying which level of Government is Constitutionally responsible for writing the Laws against Rape -- and that's the several States.
If a State were to fail in its Constitutional duty to criminalize Rape, what precise action does the Constitution specify as the appropriate Federal response?
Or perhaps there is not a Constitutionally-specified Federal response, because the Founders did not establish any such mechanism.
Article 4, Section FourThe United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...
Amendment 5
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...
Amendment 14
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.
By the way, State "legalization" of such acts, acts that alienate what the founders called unalienable, violate every single clause of the statement of purpose of our Constitution.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
And by the way, the people, through the means of their Constitution, have granted to the Executive more than sufficient power and means to deal with insurrection.
It isn't a matter of "should they?" It is a question of "can they?" And the answer to that question under our Constitution is simply "NO WAY!"
Under our form of government EVERY officer of government, at EVERY level of government, in EVERY branch, has a sworn obligation to protect and defend the unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property of EVERY person.
No. You are as wrong as anyone can be. Go look in the mirror and introduce yourself to the one person MOST responsible for protecting YOUR rights. And your family’s rights, should you have one. True, we hire police, etc., but in the final analysis, WE, each of us, is responsible for our own protection-— and the protection of those around us, the innocent and helpless in particular. But it is and can be ONLY at the state and local level that the murder of the pre-born can legitimately be outlawed and prosecuted. Because We, the People, did NOT vest FedGov with that sort of authority, period, end of story. It is only at the State level that every crime save Treason, Piracy and Counterfeiting, is charged and prosecuted. You may WISH it otherwise, but it is NOT SO. Government, as intended by the Founders, was to be kept as LOCAL as possible, and that for a reason: OUR CONTROL OVER GOVERNMENT, NOT its control over US.
With Congress declaring that life begins at conception and forbidding the Courts to look at that matter, they would have gone as far as they can legitimately go. Then it is up to the States to ensure that abortion is defined as murder and properly prosecuted. And THAT is where your efforts should be concentrated. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that’s the way it was set up and that’s the way it must be maintained. Thinking otherwise and looking to FedGov for solutions to all our problems is what got us into this mess to begin with.
Which other unalienable rights besides the right to live do you think the States can alienate if they want to?
The STATES are the ones charged with enacting and enforcing the CRIMINAL STATUTES, One Note Johnny. The Feds have EXTREMELY LIMITED authority, which is as it should be. If you have a problem with our Constitution, just say so. Otherwise, deal with it.
My copy of the Constitution states as its crowning purpose the securing of the blessings of liberty to posterity. It also says that NO PERSON shall be deprived of life without a fair trial. Twice. It also enjoins that specifically on the States, along with the imperative demand that the States provide for the equal protection of the laws to ALL PERSONS in their jurisdiction. I have no idea what you copy says. Maybe those critical portions have been excised out.
It also contains a guarantee of a Republican form of government to all the States. Exactly what do you think a Republican form of government is, in the American context? Is it just a form, or must it include the spirit and the soul of our nation’s foundational laws? Can any truly American Republican State allow the destruction of what the Founders called God-given and therefore unalienable and still be in fact considered American?
By the way, you didn’t answer the question. Again. Do you think any particular State can outlaw the keeping and bearing of arms, for example?
Without commenting on the specifics of this election in any way, it is not the job of the Republican Party to tell Dr. Dobson who to endorse. I am not a huge fan of the Republican Party most of the time, but Dobson blaming the GOP is flatly unacceptable.
If Dr. Dobson is incapable of doing his own research or making his own decisions, or lacks discernment, we should let the record reflect that fact and take his opinion for what it is worth, i.e., nothing.
I am solely responsible for my opinions. You are solely responsible for yours. If Dr. Dobson blames someone else for his decisions, he needs to bow out of the public spotlight immediately.
Actually murder is against the law around the US because the 50 state legislatures have passed laws declaring it a crime. Any state would be perfectly able to pass a law legalizing murder, though I doubt that it would be possible politically.
Common-Law Civil Harms are legislated by the States. Suppose that the State Legislature of Arkansas were to vote to abolish their State laws against Rape. (you can almost hear Bill Clinton rejoicing). What, precisely, should the Federal Government DO about it?
This is the question which you refuse to answer: If a State Legislature DOES abolish its Laws against some form of Civil Harm (Rape, or Abortion, or what have you), what precisely is the Federal Government supposed to DO about it, according to the Constitution?
Under our form of government EVERY officer of government, at EVERY level of government, in EVERY branch, has a sworn obligation to protect and defend the unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property of EVERY person.
I repeat: If a State Legislature DOES abolish its Laws against some form of Civil Harm (Rape, or Abortion, or what have you), what precisely is the Federal Government supposed to DO about it, according to the Constitution?
Please answer the question.
The important thing is, Dobson realized the deception, corrected his mistake, endorsed the Real Conservative in this race, and left the RINO hack Trey Grayson looking more egg-faced than ever.
All's well that ends well.
“WHO IS IN CHARGE AT THE GOP AND WHAT THE *HELL* ARE THEY DOING????????”
They are in the process of trying to keep their jobs. They have no core principles. Some would call them prostitutes.
They aren’t to be trusted.
Just so we're clear: are you saying that if any State does legalize Abortion (or Rape, or some other Civil Harm against the citizenry), that the President should launch a punitive military assault upon that State?
Just so we're clear. If that's what you're saying, then just say it. I've (vastly) more respect for someone who stakes out a definite position with which I might agree or disagree, than someone who criticizes those with whom they disagree while refusing to precisely declare their own position.
Wrong. So wrong. Ever heard of due process? No state has the power to declare legal the deprivation of life, freedom, or property without due process of law. That the states can formulate their own scheme for prosecution and punishment does not liberate them from the federal guarantee of the underlying natural right upon which the definition of murder depends. So until they start finding babies guilty of capital crimes, you will not soon find any state declaring murder legal. How bogus we can get when trying to justify a popular but failing legal strategy!
By the way, after reading this thread I was motivated to send another contribution to Rand Paul. Think I'll get right on that.
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.