Catholics for Ron Paul Coalition

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristopherV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
I thought I read something about Perry going back and forth on the pro-life issue. Do you know if there’s anything to that?
Click to expand...
Passing an Executive Order to mandate that ALL 6th Grade Girls get vaccinated with Gardasil for Sexually Transmitted Diseases is NOT Pro-Life and it is not a limited government position either.
 
estesbob said:
it appears we need only one more pro-life judge on the court. . Are we more likely to get that judge with a Democrat or Republican president?
Click to expand...
That’s a huge assumption which you can not substantiate. The Supreme Court was 6-3 Republican Appointees when Roe was passed and has been a majority of Republican Appointed judges ever since. After 40 years maybe we should think of another way or do you have a different definition of insanity than everyone else?
govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2533
 
MMolloy said:
Passing an Executive Order to mandate that ALL 6th Grade Girls get vaccinated with Gardasil for Sexually Transmitted Diseases is NOT Pro-Life and it is not a limited government position either.
Click to expand...
That’s good to know about Perry. Thank you.
 
JMJSHJ said:
Anybody who thinks that the Bin Laden raid was wrong and wants to abolish the DEA because the war on drugs has been a failure can’t get my Catholic vote.
Click to expand...
Does being a Catholic mean anything to you people who so carelessly throw lies around?
Dr. Paul has been in favor of Letters of Marque and Reprisal which is basically the approach that was used on the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan

As far as Pseudo Wars like the War on Drugs, that has only been successful at increasing the size and scope of government and turning our legal system on it’s head, Dr. Paul’s position is that it is not the proper role of the FEDERAL Government to be involved in these issues and anyone who has even a slight knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise.
 
MMolloy said:
You would think on a Catholic Site that you wouldn’t have this kind of Disingenuous/Fallacious attack on the most Pro-Life Candidate in the Race
facebook.com/ProLifersForRonPaul
Click to expand...
Tis the season. Half-truths and rhetoric are bound to run rampant. It matters not to me. I know who I am supporting already, so I can sit back and shake my head at theses attempts to sway opponents.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Whatever. We will nominate another COuntry Clubber who wil do nothing, on a grand scale, about abortion. Nothing has happened in the last 30 years, all of the things that have been tried have been temporary and overturned by either SCOTUS or by Executive Order. But go ahead, find the “electable” guy so I can poke fun at his lame attempts to pacify the conservative base.
Click to expand...
The only thing the President really can do to limit abortions is to appoint Justices and issue executive orders (see Mexico City Policy). Bush appointed two conservative Justices who would probably be votes against Roe v. Wade. Indeed, they were instrumental in upholding a partial birth abortion ban that had previously been struck down by the Court (see Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Carhart).

What would Ron Paul do to limit abortions that Bush or Perry, so-called “Country Clubber” have not done?
 
MMolloy said:
Passing an Executive Order to mandate that ALL 6th Grade Girls get vaccinated with Gardasil for Sexually Transmitted Diseases is NOT Pro-Life and it is not a limited government position either.
Click to expand...
Dan_Daly said:
That’s good to know about Perry. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I agree, I was disturbed by Perry’s actions in this matter. However, it is good to know the fullness of events. First of all, there was an opt out provision in the executive order, so parents could opt not to have their daughters get the vaccine. Secondly, Perry later allowed a bill that rescinded his order to go into law.
 
MMolloy said:
That’s a huge assumption which you can not substantiate. The Supreme Court was 6-3 Republican Appointees when Roe was passed and has been a majority of Republican Appointed judges ever since.
Click to expand...
Republicans of 50 years ago are much different from Republicans of today, especially when it comes to social issues. Let’s look at the Court today:

Would overturn Roe v. Wade
Scalia (Reagan appointee)
Thomas (Bush I appointee)
Alito (Bush II appointee)
Roberts (Bush II appointee)

Would NOT overturn Roe v. Wade
Kennedy (Reagan appointee, but only after the definite pro-life nominee Robert Bork was defeated by the Senate)
Ginsburg (Clinton appointee)
Breyer (Clinton appointee)
Sotomayor (Obama appointee)
Kagan (Obama appointee)

It’s indisputable that Republican presidents have generally gotten better with their Supreme Court appointments, while Democrats have continually appointed anti-life justices.
After 40 years maybe we should think of another way or do you have a different definition of insanity than everyone else?
govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-2533
Click to expand...
Without changing the composition of the Supreme Court, the Sanctity of Life Act is laughably inadequate. The bill purports to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, saying in effect that the Court can no longer rule on issues relating to abortion. Here is the relevant part of the Act:
the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
‘(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
‘(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
‘(A) the performance of abortions; or
‘(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court has ALREADY ruled that such attempts to limit its jurisdiction are unconstitutional. What was the definition of insanity?
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
The only thing the President really can do to limit abortions is to appoint Justices and issue executive orders (see Mexico City Policy). Bush appointed two conservative Justices who would probably be votes against Roe v. Wade. Indeed, they were instrumental in upholding a partial birth abortion ban that had previously been struck down by the Court (see Stenberg v. Carhart and Gonzales v. Carhart).

What would Ron Paul do to limit abortions that Bush or Perry, so-called “Country Clubber” have not done?
Click to expand...

Push the “Sanctity of Human Life ACt”, like he has done for 3 consecutive sessions of Congress, and then make it a very public issue as to why Congress will not guarantee personhood to the unborn. Roe even admitted in the ruling that it could not determine when personhood started and that duty rested on the Congress. The Sanctity of Human Life Act would upend Roe v. Wade without a SCOTUS challenge. The Democrats know this, which is why they keep killing the bill in committee.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
Here is a video in which Ron Paul argues against a constitutional amendment defining marriage:

youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

Ron Paul: I Would Not Have Ordered Bin Laden Raid
Click to expand...
Just because he does not believe that the federal governmnet should be in the “marriage” business does not make him “pro gay marriage”. Its an intentional misrepresentation of his position. Just like his position on the federal decriminalization of drugs does not make him “pro drugs”. Its a sophomoric argumentation. He believes that the federal government should only do those things that are enumerated in the Constitution, no more, no less.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
Republicans of 50 years ago are much different from Republicans of today, especially when it comes to social issues. Let’s look at the Court today:

Would overturn Roe v. Wade
Scalia (Reagan appointee) (CATHOLIC)
Thomas (Bush I appointee) (CATHOLIC)
Alito (Bush II appointee) (CATHOLIC)
Roberts (Bush II appointee) (CATHOLIC)

Would NOT overturn Roe v. Wade
Kennedy (Reagan appointee, but only after the definite pro-life nominee Robert Bork was defeated by the Senate) (CATHOLIC)
Ginsburg (Clinton appointee) (NON RELIGIOUS JEW)
Breyer (Clinton appointee) (JEWISH)
Sotomayor (Obama appointee) (CATHOLIC)
Kagan (Obama appointee) (NON RELIGIOUS JEW)
Click to expand...
Ironically, the supreme court is comprised exclusively of Jews and Catholics. The “Constitutionalist” justices are practicing Catholics, all 4. The others are, possibly with the exception of Kennedy, nominally religious or non-religious. I think this goes back to the precept that it has less to do with the President who nominates but rather the formation of conscience of the person nominated.
 
MMolloy said:
Does being a Catholic mean anything to you people who so carelessly throw lies around?
Dr. Paul has been in favor of Letters of Marque and Reprisal which is basically the approach that was used on the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan

As far as Pseudo Wars like the War on Drugs, that has only been successful at increasing the size and scope of government and turning our legal system on it’s head, Dr. Paul’s position is that it is not the proper role of the FEDERAL Government to be involved in these issues and anyone who has even a slight knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise.
Click to expand...
I think the above poster is a troll.
 
Urbano_Macchi said:
…A fair reading of the text of the Constitution, taking into account the historical background of the adoption of the 14th Amendment, makes it quite clear that abortion is neither outlawed, nor is it protected. Abortion was well known at the time that the 14th Amendment was adopted. And yet, in all the discussions about the adoption of the amendment, no one ever believed that it would have the effect of outlawing abortion from the moment of conception. No one who adopted the amendment had that understanding of the words, nor did anyone for two hundred years after its adoption. Be aware that only modern science has made it perfectly clear that life begins at conception.
Click to expand...
Unborn persons have been excluded from Constitutional protection by unfair reading of the text. And far too many prolifers just accept it. When the state of Texas defended its abortion statute before the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, they argued correctly that it was required by the 14th Amendment. If the unborn are persons (and they are), then the 14th Amendment requires the states to protect them. Blackmun rejected that in his majority opinion, saying they weren’t persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment, unleashing 38 years of unrestricted killing.
 
This is a brilliant post and deserves repeating:
Urbano_Macchi said:
There is no way that any person who honestly reads the Constitution in the context of when the 14th Amendment was written would come to the conclusion that personhood included unborn children. That was clearly not the intent of the equal protection clause. Scalia is stating the correct constitutional law position.

We should actively be working to amend the Constitution to protect the rights of the unborn, but it’s fantasy to read into the Constitution what we want to see.

We know that the four conservative Catholic members of the Supreme Court, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts will probably take the correct constitutional position regarding abortion. That is, abortion is not in the constitution, and should be left to the states. If such a view were to become the law of the land, we would expect many states to outlaw abortion completely, and the rest of the states would probably pass laws greatly restricting abortions.

If the Court is given a chance to revisit Roe v. Wade, it will probably only be given such a chance if a Republican appoints a Justice (we only need one more) who holds the correct constitutional view on the matter. Indeed, there is a much greater chance that these men will strike it down than relying on the Obama/Clinton appointments, who are obviously pro-death and follow an unserious and activist approach to constitutional interpretation.

In sum: electing a Republican president is the only plausible way to overturn Roe v. Wade and thus to give greater legal rights to the unborn.

As for Ron Paul, he is unelectable. The various media have been quite easy on him because they know he is on the fringe and would never threaten Obama. Furthermore, they like his positions on drugs and foreign policy. He’s basically only an interesting novelty who will be completely dismantled in the primary. Should he ever reach the general election (which is highly unlikely), he would be beaten by a landslide, especially when the media starts to harp on his loony positions, ties to white supremacists, and conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
Ishii
 
pnewton said:
That is an opinion, one supported by a chart from 2008, that shows no one electable, except McCain, who was actually not elected. It matters not one whit to me. I am voting for the man.
Click to expand...
Good. Vote for the man - the pro-life man who has the best chance of winning. (Hint: its not Ron Paul)

Ishii
 
ishii said:
Good. Vote for the man - the pro-life man who has the best chance of winning. (Hint: its not Ron Paul)

Ishii
Click to expand...
Again, I have no desire to listen to you and your opinion of who** I **should vote for. Your opinions here seem to be too favorable or the Republican establishment for me. I will vote my own conscience, thank you very much, as should you. The difference between you and me is that I do not run around here telling you who to vote to. I would rather respect your ability to decide that for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top