Ron Paul Thread

[JMJSHJ]

Having a “pro-life” SCOTUS is not necessary to overturn Roe.

Republicans need to stop crying about activist justices out of one side of their mouths and championing “pro-life” justices out of the other.

I don’t think Ron Paul is really pro life as some make him out to be. His solution to the abortion problem is to have congress pass the Sanctity of Life Act. How would he address the American people for it to withstand judicial (Courts) activism when they declare it unconstitutional or just simply overturn it? For Libertarians they should realize that the Courts overturn the will of the people so many times its not funny.

If Ron Paul were ever President, it would not help the abortion fight, because when a Supreme Court Justice would step down in the next 4 years, its very likely that finding a Justice who will overturn Roe vs. Wade won’t be found and then when a state tries to pass a pro life law, it’ll conceivably end up in the SCOTUS and the decision will be 5-4 Pro Choice.

Also since the Sanctity of Life Act has been introduced before and never passed, then all Ron Paul with his libertarian ideology will say is that its Congress fault because they didn’t pass his law.

Finally last night Judge Andrew Napolitano was on the Daily Show and Stewart made the comment about Libertarians that they don’t want the Federal Government interfering in our lives but its okay for the State Government and what gives with that. Napolitano corrected him saying that on some issues even the State Government does have the rights to interfere with Americans on. It made me wonder if Ron Paul thinks that the US states (Texas, Arizona) have the right to fight the war on drugs or must it be legalized?

 

[Ghosty]

The Courts wouldn’t be able to overturn the Sanctity of Life Act, because it would limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over abortion, and tell lower federal courts that they should interpret personhood as beginning at conception. Congress decides the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, did you know that?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I don’t think Ron Paul is really pro life as some make him out to be. His solution to the abortion problem is to have congress pass the Sanctity of Life Act. How would he address the American people for it to withstand judicial (Courts) activism when they declare it unconstitutional or just simply overturn it? For Libertarians they should realize that the Courts overturn the will of the people so many times its not funny.

If Ron Paul were ever President, it would not help the abortion fight, because when a Supreme Court Justice would step down in the next 4 years, its very likely that finding a Justice who will overturn Roe vs. Wade won’t be found and then when a state tries to pass a pro life law, it’ll conceivably end up in the SCOTUS and the decision will be 5-4 Pro Choice.

Also since the Sanctity of Life Act has been introduced before and never passed, then all Ron Paul with his libertarian ideology will say is that its Congress fault because they didn’t pass his law.

Finally last night Judge Andrew Napolitano was on the Daily Show and Stewart made the comment about Libertarians that they don’t want the Federal Government interfering in our lives but its okay for the State Government and what gives with that. Napolitano corrected him saying that on some issues even the State Government does have the rights to interfere with Americans on. It made me wonder if Ron Paul thinks that the US states (Texas, Arizona) have the right to fight the war on drugs or must it be legalized?

Ron Paul has been ery clear that drugs are a state problem and that states would be well within their rights to legislate them as they see fit. Paul doesn’t want to make the use of drugs a federal right under the Constitution, as some make it out to be. He just wants to defederalize it and return its control to the states.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The Courts wouldn’t be able to overturn the Sanctity of Life Act, because it would limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over abortion, and tell lower federal courts that they should interpret personhood as beginning at conception. Congress decides the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, did you know that?

Peace and God bless!

How any court could overturn a law that designates personhood is beyond me. One what grounds would they do it?

 

[Ghosty]

How any court could overturn a law that designates personhood is beyond me. One what grounds would they do it?

They couldn’t, of course. In fact the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade essentially said that the Supreme Court isn’t in the business of determining such things, that it’s Congress’ job. We’ve been waiting over 40 years for Congress to get around to answering that very simple challenge, but instead all we seem to hear about is how we need “just one more judge”.

No, what we need is for Congress to do what the Supreme Court all but asked them to do. Ron Paul has tried several times, even when the GOP controlled both Houses andthe Presidency. Where is the pro-life backing from the leaders of the GOP?

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

They couldn’t, of course. In fact the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade essentially said that the Supreme Court isn’t in the business of determining such things, that it’s Congress’ job. We’ve been waiting over 40 years for Congress to get around to answering that very simple challenge, but instead all we seem to hear about is how we need “just one more judge”.

No, what we need is for Congress to do what the Supreme Court all but asked them to do. Ron Paul has tried several times, even when the GOP controlled both Houses andthe Presidency. Where is the pro-life backing from the leaders of the GOP?

They’re busy trying to get the right judge on the Supreme Court!

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t think Ron Paul is really pro life as some make him out to be. His solution to the abortion problem is to have congress pass the Sanctity of Life Act. How would he address the American people for it to withstand judicial (Courts) activism when they declare it unconstitutional or just simply overturn it? For Libertarians they should realize that the Courts overturn the will of the people so many times its not funny.

Actually he is more pro life than many understand and certainly more pro life than any other Republican. I’m not sure of his exact position regarding the death penalty but I do know he is against the death penalty for federal crimes. He is of course against wars. He is against euthanasia. And he has clearly said abortion as is wrong. Most importantly he is an OB/GYN and has actually worked, even when serving in Congress, to deliver babies.

If Ron Paul were ever President, it would not help the abortion fight, because when a Supreme Court Justice would step down in the next 4 years, its very likely that finding a Justice who will overturn Roe vs. Wade won’t be found and then when a state tries to pass a pro life law, it’ll conceivably end up in the SCOTUS and the decision will be 5-4 Pro Choice.

The Republicans almost completely controlled the court for many years and never overturned abortion. If they really wanted to overturn abortion they could work on an amendment. If we could make alcohol illegal in our constitution surely we could make killing babies.

 

[irishpatrick]

Ron Paul will give you that justice. Romney will not. Paul and Romney are the only two who have a chance at beating Obama.

I do not believe Paul has any chance.

 

[irishpatrick]

Not according to the polls. Romney and Paul are about evenly matched and ahead of the pack in terms of their ability to do well against Obama. Paul has greater populist appeal than Romney though.

If Paul has higher numbers than Romney, than Obama gets a second term.

 

[irishpatrick]

I doubt it.

I agree.

 

[pnewton]

Or…

How about if we do that now, we get Obama for four more years…

I do not believe the world will end four years from now. This same line of reasoning was used four years ago for McCain, and we got Obama anyway. At my age, I try to think of more than just this day, this year, this election. Republicans will continue to pay lip service to the anti-abortion crowd while always seeking business as usual and abortion will continue until the nation falls.

 

[pnewton]

Ron Paul can win the nomination–but if he does, he will lose big to Obama.

Again, unless you are divine, you can not know this. This may be your opinion, but I remember that Clinton Democrats said the exact same thing about Obama. The future is unknow to all but God.

 

[pnewton]

I never said the poll predicted the future. The poll showed that 60% of the voters don’t think he is an acceptable candidate. Now, you may still think he can win the nomination, but all indicators show he has no chance.

Dismiss reality as propaganda, if you will. Ron Paul isn’t losing because of propaganda, misdirection, big media conspiracy, etc. He’s losing because a majority of voters don’t even think he’s acceptable, let alone agree with him…

The poll did not predict the future. You did. You then used the poll as evidence. Now you say the poll can’t predict the future. Your logic is hard to follow. You do know that opinions shift with time don’t you and the election is November?

 

[irishpatrick]

I do not believe the world will end four years from now. This same line of reasoning was used four years ago for McCain, and we got Obama anyway. At my age, I try to think of more than just this day, this year, this election. Republicans will continue to pay lip service to the anti-abortion crowd while always seeking business as usual and abortion will continue until the nation falls.

Many people thought that about slavery.

I never said the world would end…plenty of pain can happen without the world ending.

 

[irishpatrick]

Again, unless you are divine, you can not know this. This may be your opinion, but I remember that Clinton Democrats said the exact same thing about Obama. The future is unknow to all but God.

I never said I had Divine knowledge, never even implied that. It is my opinion, which I thought was obvious.

Paul is too extreme for the majority.

Paul is too old for the majority.

I believe those two points (it makes no difference it if is unfair) will keep him out of the WH, if he won the GOP nomination (which I do not think he will).

IMO, of course.

 

[Nec5]

I do not believe the world will end four years from now. This same line of reasoning was used four years ago for McCain, and we got Obama anyway. At my age, I try to think of more than just this day, this year, this election. Republicans will continue to pay lip service to the anti-abortion crowd while always seeking business as usual and abortion will continue until the nation falls.

Nicely put.

 

[rlg94086]

The poll did not predict the future. You did. You then used the poll as evidence. Now you say the poll can’t predict the future. Your logic is hard to follow. You do know that opinions shift with time don’t you and the election is November?

You are partly correct. I did predict the future. Then, I made a factual statement, backed up by polling data. I realize you have difficulty following basic logic. I don’t think I can help you with that.

You can certainly believe that everything will shift in Ron Paul’s direction and bring about his election. Again, it requires logic, and a little common sense, to not believe that.

 

[pnewton]

I realize you have difficulty following basic logic. I don’t think I can help you with that… Again, it requires logic, and a little common sense, to not believe that.

…(sigh)… Really? Why is it that so many arguments against voting for Ron Paul end up with insults? Those supporting him will have their morality impugned and their intelligence questioned. May God give us all the patience and charity to stand by our moral convicts with dignity.

 

[pnewton]

I never said I had Divine knowledge, never even implied that. It is my opinion, which I thought was obvious.

Paul is too extreme for the majority.

Paul is too old for the majority.

I believe those two points (it makes no difference it if is unfair) will keep him out of the WH, if he won the GOP nomination (which I do not think he will).

IMO, of course.

Then I apologize for missing the context. There have been many that have said the same thing with absolute conviction so sometimes I do not know when one is using metaphor(?) in phrasing an opinion as a certainty. Your points are well taken. However, I will point out that he also draws from the younger crowd and the disenchanted voters that so heavily voted for Obama last time.

For me it is not even an issue. I will vote for the candidate I see as the most moral regardless of chances. I believe in doing what I think right and leaving the results to God.

 

[Vangaurdian]

Anyone notice that the percentages in this “poll” are broken?
They don’t add up.

Also, why is the Ron Paul thread the only one with a divisive poll?
Can’t we just have a clean thread for each candidate that is a positive news ticker/commentary?

If you don’t like a candidate then fine, just go to the thread of the candidate you support and post positive. Why waste time just focusing on the that one candidate you can’t stand?

Nothing charitable or healthy about that.