Why is Ron Paul running again? 5 theories

The Week ^ | 4/27/11 | Staff

[sickoflibs]

RE :”While I agree with you (and Ron Paul) that a huge percentage of the laws passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause are beyond the scope of congressional power, and ...I was saying that Congress could ban abortion pursuant to its powers under the 14th Amendment.”

You didnt read it closely. They CLEARLY said they would consider overturning the federal abortion law, not some nonsense about the 14th amendment.

Are you are saying that Scalia and Thomas are wrong about the US constition and abortion? They are plenty smart enough to realize the 14th amendment had NOTHING to do with a federal abortion law. The 14th amendment was passed to give ex-slaves US citizen rights. Abortion was illegal by the states at that time it was passed as was intended by the constitution including that amendment.

The Federal government outlawing abortion without an new amendment for it makes as much sense as Roe vs Wade.

You are making clear why Paul running is important: To teach badly needed :”Constitution 101”

[AuH2ORepublican]

I think that you should stop posting on this subject, lest you make it even clearer that you are completely ignorant about the U.S. Constitution.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”I think that you should stop posting on this subject, lest you make it even clearer that you are completely ignorant about the U.S. Constitution”

I think either you agree with Scalia, Thomas and Palin on the limits of the Federal government under the constitution but you just make believe you dont to attack Paul on abortion hoping readers wont know they agree with him, or ..

You actually disagree with Scalia, Thomas and Palin on the constitution, but feel you cant admit it here because it would hurt your cause, either way..

The 14th Amendment had nothing to do with Federal laws on Abortion(or murder even), extrapolating it to that makes as much sense as extrapolating it to granting citizens rights to illegals based on the 14th, which you would set a precident for if you could.

[AuH2ORepublican]

“Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, wrote an interesting concurrence in yesterday’s partial birth abortion case, indicating that he might be sympathetic to a Commerce Clause challenge to the federal partial birth abortion ban that was just upheld by the Court.”

---

Do you know what a “Commerce Clause challenge” is? In my long post, I explained that there are two distinct reasons why a federal law may be found to be unconstitutional on its face. One of them was because the law itself violated some constitutional provision (such as a law that provided that California would get 5 Senators and Rhode Island only 1 without getting the consent of all 50 states, or an outright ban on firearms in the District of Columbia), and the other was because Congress legislated without constitutional authority. What Justices Scalia and Thomas were saying was that they would consider a challenge upon the constitutionality of the PBA Ban based on the fact that Congress approved it pursuant to the Commerce Clause. What Justices Scalia and Thomas were *not* saying was that (i) they would rule that Congress could not pass the PBA Ban pursuant to its power to regulate commerce between the states (although I would hope that they would indeed rule that Congress overstepped its bounds there) or (ii) that the U.S. Constitution, as amended, was completely devoid of any ennumerated power of Congress that would permit it to legislate to prohibit states from allowing doctors to partially deliver a viable fetus and kill him or her right before the entire baby is fully outside the womb.

My positions are perfectly logical and consistent. The person who can’t possibly reconcile his positions is Ron Paul, who voted against several different abortion restrictions on numerous occasions supposedly based on his “principled” position that Congress was not authorized to pass abortion restrictions, but then voted for the Partial-Birth Abortion Act on numerous occasions. Ron Paul is either not very bright, or a hypocrite of the first order. And he certainly would not be a pro-life president, irrespective of what the Ronulans claim when talking to pro-lifers (which is the opposite of what they say when talking to pro-aborts).

As for the intent of the 14th Amendment, go back and read your John Bingham and the congressional debates. The 14th Amendment was adopted to prevent states from denying persons within their jurisdiction the God-given rights that the U.S. Constitution already prevented the U.S. Congress from denying to anyone. If you recognize the scientific truth that human life begins at conception (when an embryo is created, with its own individual DNA that he or she will keep forever), then you there should be no doubt in your mind that abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life. Of all of our God-given rights, the right to life is paramount, and to believe that the U.S. Constitution allows state or federal governments to countenance and abet the intentional taking of an innocent human life in the face of the constitutional prohibitions of denying any person the right to life without due process of law is to believe that there are no individual rights that the government has to respect.

If you truly were pro-life, this would be clear to you.

[sickoflibs]

RE :” If you truly were pro-life, this would be clear to you. ”

I am clearly NOT your definition of ‘truly pro-life’. I would not throw away the US constitution to serve some short term goal knowing a Democrat president even more liberal than you and Bush would use it to enslave me. Palin, Scalia and Thomas understand that. Nor would we try to extrapolate “ex-slaves’ to mean ‘unborn’ to serve some short term goal. We know which SCOTUS justices do stuff like that. But not those that agree with me : Scalia, Thomas and Palin.

Under your definition of ‘truly pro-life’ your US constitution would allow you to round up pregnant women to protect their unborn babies from them ahead of time, what's a silly US constitution when it is about ‘truly pro-life’ ? huh?

[sickoflibs]

RE :”For example, if you had read my posts carefully, you would have picked up on the fact that I was saying that Congress could ban abortion pursuant to its powers under the 14th Amendment.”

That is because you are making it up as you go along because the US constitution doesnt mean crap to you. But it does to me.
Try: Scalia: Abortion not in the Constitution(Life Site News | January 4, 2011 | JOHN JALSEVAC )

I interpret “Not in” meaning “not even in the 14th amendment“ contrary to your bogus claims Mr ‘If you were really pro-life you would agree to whatever I say no matter how wrong it is’

[sickoflibs]

RE :” Strictly on the issue of earmarks, Boehner supports the conservative position and Paul does not. QED.”

In your imaginary world, try this:

Speaker Boehner lost a fight earlier this year to keep a military project with deep ties in Ohio in the defense budget. Boehner fought hard to keep a joint venture between General Electric (disclosure: GE is a minority partner in NBC) and Rolls Royce to build an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The plant that builds the engine is located in a Cincinnati suburb just outside of Boehner’s district. The Secretary of Defense called the $3 billion project a waste of resources. Most Republican budget hawks agreed and joined Democrats in voting to eliminate the project.

Just to the north of Boehner’s district, another defense contractor is facing potential cuts and Boehner and fellow budget hawk, U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) will confront the dilemma that has bedeviled congressmen since the dawn of the republic.
The General Dynamics Plant in Lima, OH repairs and retrofits M1A2 Abrams tanks. Like General Electric, they employ approximately 1,000 people in the congressional district of one of the nation’s most avid budget hawks in Rep. Jordan. The Army says it has enough M1A2 Abrams tanks. Speaker Boehner and Rep. Jordan want to keep the plant and its 1,000 jobs in Lima, a post industrial city hit hard by plant closings over the last 20 years.

Is it pork when your bacon is being fried?(on Boehner F-35 JSF and M1A2 Abrams tanks pork in his district) by Brian Schwartz 04.29.2011

You can see why Boehner cut a deal on the FY11 budget only cutting 1/2 billion, but told us it was $40B.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Now you’ve really jumped the shark. Did you even read the article you posted? Here’s what Justice Scalia says that led the author to write that headline:

“You want a right to abortion? There’s nothing in the Constitution about that,” he said. “But that doesn’t mean that you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it’s a good idea and pass a law.”

So what Justice Scalia is saying is that the Constitution does not contain a “right to abortion,” and that abortion can be prohibited through legislation. Thank you for proving my point for me.

There is nothing in the Constitution about beer bottles. However, that does not mean that Congress can’t pass a law prohibiting states from adopting protectionist statutes that discriminate against goods in interstate commerce (such as, say, a Delaware law that only allows bottled beer to be sold in the state if it’s in a purple glass bottle with a crab engraved in the bottle such as the one used by a Delaware bottler), because the Commerce Clause specifically empowers Congress to regulate commerce between the states. Similarly, the Constitution does not need to mention the word “abortion” for Congress to be able to legislate through Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to prevent states from killing unborn children; after all, states cannot deny anyone their life without due process of law, and if courts recognized (as all pro-lifers do) the scientific fact that life begins at conception, no state would be able to permit abortion.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]

If it isn’t IN his district it is not an earmark, whatever else you might want to call it. Paul has earmarks, Boehner doesn’t.

[stephenjohnbanker]

” You can see why Boehner cut a deal on the FY11 budget only cutting 1/2 billion, but told us it was $40B “

Sure....Boner is a RINO fraud, and a liar.

[shield]

He’ll soon be 77 years old....c’mon cranky old man...give it up and a rest...

[Bokababe]

He’ll soon be 77 years old....c’mon cranky old man...give it up and a rest.

Maybe he thinks that "77" is the new "70" --Reagan's age when he first took office. Apparently RP bikes 10 miles a day and is in excellent shape, for what that's worth -- but I also think that he's too old.

Listen, RP may not be the one, but unfortunately I don't see another single Republican out there who can rouse the people, rock the house, and beat Obama. At least right now, all the Republican leads in the polls -- Romney, Huck, Sarah -- I can't see standing a chance of stealing a single vote from Obama's base. There are a lot of disaffected Democrats and Independents, but they aren't going to jump ship for just anything "Republican" -- it's going to take somebody special -- an "un-Republican" Republican, in their mind. And I don't know who in the heck else that could be, unless it's another milquetoast RINO which would be even worse.

[okie01]

At least right now, all the Republican leads in the polls -- Romney, Huck, Sarah -- I can't see standing a chance of stealing a single vote from Obama's base.

And, I would submit, if Ron Paul can actually steal even a single vote from Obama's base, that would prove he absolutely isn't the candidate that conservatives should get behind.

Ron Paul isn't going to win squat. He doesn't even want to win. All he wants to do is pee in the soup.

The word is "gadfly".

[shield]

This is what Dr. Jack Wheeler thinks of Ron Paul and he is right:

Then there's the tingling running up libertarian legs caused by Ron Paul, who announced Tuesday (4/26) he was forming a presidential exploratory committee.

I know this is going to really tick off the Paulistas in the TTP crowd, but Paul makes me ill. He is a cranky unsmiling old man with a hectoring voice like fingernails on a blackboard who has absolutely no desire to defend our country.

In all his years since being elected to Congress in 1996, he has not voted for a single Defense Authorization Bill, not one, not ever.

He is a Blame-America-First Libertarian in the mold of Murray Rothbard, the black flag anarchist founder of the Libertarian Party who never once in any dispute between the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War took America's side - not once, not ever.

Here's confirmation. See if this doesn't turn your stomach as you watch Paul blame America for 9/11:

Here

Yes, he's admired for his courageous advocacy of limited constitutional government, and rightly so. Yet he's so charmless and humorless in his advocacy with that whiny scratchy voice and looking like he's sucking lemons, he's a real turn-off for many who could be persuaded by someone actually friendly.

Worse, though, is the danger that his constitutionalism may be associated in the public's mind by an unwillingness to defend America and stand up to the enemies that are actively trying to destroy her.

Besides, he'll be 77 in 2012. It's time for him to give up his octogenarian candidacy and stop being libertarianism's Harold Stassen. Please, Ron, hand the baton to the next generation.