Ron Paul - clear on abortion

[UtzChips]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think it is more complicated then that. Except for cases where a health problem threatens the mothers life, the pain of child birth can in no way justify murder.

Don't try to feed me the it's my body arguement. It was your body when you decided to have sex too. And now you've got a responsibility to deal with, because you created a life. If we charge people with murder for throwing a newborn in a dumpster, we should charge them with murder for doing it 10 minutes before birth too.

------------------------------------------------------------

I think his personal experience is very relevant. Pro-life people are only able to support thier posistion if they believe the fetus isn't alive. The arguement that it is alive but it is ok to committ murder because the women finds pregnancy inconvienient is sickening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't it a fact, that unless the Prez manipulated the Supreme Court by stacking it with ultra conservatives, that we will never see Roe v. Wade overturned?

Wouldn't that be a misdemeanor act by a prez opening himself up to impeachment? Isn't Prez elected to protect our Constitution and doesn't the Constitution call for the Supreme Court to a representative body of all the people?
Wouldn't that require 3 conservatives, 3 moderates and 3 liberals?

And since the Court has ruled on Roe v. Wade, how can the Congress say, no, the Supreme Court is wrong, we are going to give the states the right to decide? The Supreme Court has spoken. They can't be overruled by a law passed by Congress can they?

[Dima2000123]

There is nothing libertarian about being pro-choice. Libertarians face the same fundamental question that everyone else faces regarding whether the fetus has a right to life. Even a libertarian can't be pro-choice if he thinks that the fetus has a right to life, since libertarians don't support freedom to kill others.

[lehighguy]

This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

[/ QUOTE ]

As someone who has read Roe v Wade, are you sure you are not just reading in this venom of legislating from the bench?

This argument that Roe v Wade is some absolutely astonishing clearly anti-constitution decision is just propaganda.

I clearly follow the logic of the decision, from liberty we get the right to privacy, and from the right to privacy the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating? It is preventing legislation.

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal. The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.


As far as to right of privacy, those on the Supreme COurt who would like to overturn Roe v Wade (Scalia, Thomas) would strongly disagree with you there

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that prohibits the states from violating rights.

[Roland32]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the court simply states that it is unconstitutional for a government to MANDATE what a person can do with their own body. How is this legislating?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Constitution was designed to restrict the federal government, not the state governments.

[ QUOTE ]

Remember those who wish to say Roe v Wade is unconstitutional are stating that the constitution gives us NO RIGHT TO PRIVACY!! We are not just talking about abortion here.

I can think of nothing more closely tied to liberty than privacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Complete BS. Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, but there is definitely a right to privacy. The reason RvW is unconstitutioanl is because it restricts the states and the Constitution simply doesn't restrict the states in this way. If there had been a federal law banning abortion and the Supreme Court rules that unconstitutional, they would have been correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, maybe you should brush up on the 10th amendment. The states have power that is neither prohibited by the constitution or handed to federal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The court says that right of privacy is being infringed upon by State LAW banning abortion, this is PROHIBITED by the constitution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please point out the section of the Constitution that prohibits the states from violating rights.

[/ QUOTE ]


I love your question begging, instead of pointing out the obvious, I will ask you to please reread previous post.

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT! Everyone wants activist judges for their pet issues.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
This is laughable. The supreme court is not a political body that passes legislation. There aren't supposed to be liberal or conservative judges. There are suppose to be impartial judges that protect the consitution. They don't change it, they enforce it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they don't. You say so yourself later on in your own reply. They are human beings and their personal beliefs, i.e., "their" interpretation of the Constitution weigh in heavily on close votes.
That's why I think you need 3/3/3.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the supreme court is specifically there NOT to be a representative body of the people. That is what the president and congress are suppose to be. The supreme court is suppose to enforce the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to say NO to the legislative body when it violates what the constitution says. We live in a constitutional democracy, which means it is not mob rule.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. What I meant was that the Court represents the people's voice in the interpretation of the Constitution, which is what many of us (those of who are Constitutionalists anyways) what our government to strictly adhere to.

[ QUOTE ]
Read Roe v Wade. Read the whole thing. The opinions, the justification, the dissents. You'll quickly realize one thing: these guys want abortion to be legal, even if it isn't in the constitution. If the constitution says that "the sky is blue", and a judge comes along and says from now on he interprets "the sky is blue" to mean "the sky is brown" it still says "the sky is blue" in reality. Judges have the power to make it say what they want and have that enforced, but that doesn't actually change the truth. Think for yourself. Read the actual bloody cases. Study the theory of constitutional law.

[/ QUOTE ]

"These guys want abortion." You're saying the Court wanted abortion, right? That's why I'm saying 3/3/3 and you don't get that manipulation. Or at least, it's harder to achieve it.