The Only Pro-life Candidate

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul.

who's surprised?

here's some random baptist guy explaining it:
[url="http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm"]http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm[/url]

Ron Paul understands that Congress can overturn Roe v. Wade. President Ron Paul would put that on the agenda for congress to do. The Sanctity of Life Act, proposed by Ron Paul, is the only really pro-life initiative in Washington; and all the other candidates, even those who are nominally pro-life, have ignored it.

Ron Paul is the only hope against the abortion holocaust. I repeate: the ONLY hope. He is the only one who will insist upon congress discussing the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade by congressional law. Perhaps for the first two years of his presidency, the democrats will be a majority in congress and he won't get very far. But if he is seen actively promoting this for those two years, a that whole voter bloc that put Bush into office twice based on moral issues like abortion will no longer be disenchantized with the empty promises of the candidates who just use the term "pro-life" to win votes, and might have a vested interest in putting people into congress who would support this initiative.

Unless there's some other candidate out there who proposes signing an Executive Order which nullifies Roe v. Wade (the way the Emancipation Proclamation nullified the Dred Scott Decision), this is the best hope for America.

There is no other pro-life choice that will do a darned thing to give to the people the power to illegalize abortion. And that is really the only thing that can be done in this country: give the people the power to illegalize it by giving the states that power. A large portion of the Red States would illegalize it nearly altogether, many of the red states woul illegalize it with exceptions. The fight would become a winnable one... it is not a winnable fight, however, until congress legislates against Roe v. Wade.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1429676' date='Dec 4 2007, 08:44 PM']Ron Paul.

who's surprised?

here's some random baptist guy explaining it:
[url="http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm"]http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin415.htm[/url]

Ron Paul understands that Congress can overturn Roe v. Wade. President Ron Paul would put that on the agenda for congress to do. The Sanctity of Life Act, proposed by Ron Paul, is the only really pro-life initiative in Washington; and all the other candidates, even those who are nominally pro-life, have ignored it.

Ron Paul is the only hope against the abortion holocaust. I repeate: the ONLY hope. He is the only one who will insist upon congress discussing the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade by congressional law. Perhaps for the first two years of his presidency, the democrats will be a majority in congress and he won't get very far. But if he is seen actively promoting this for those two years, a that whole voter bloc that put Bush into office twice based on moral issues like abortion will no longer be disenchantized with the empty promises of the candidates who just use the term "pro-life" to win votes, and might have a vested interest in putting people into congress who would support this initiative.

Unless there's some other candidate out there who proposes signing an Executive Order which nullifies Roe v. Wade (the way the Emancipation Proclamation nullified the Dred Scott Decision), this is the best hope for America.

There is no other pro-life choice that will do a darned thing to give to the people the power to illegalize abortion. And that is really the only thing that can be done in this country: give the people the power to illegalize it by giving the states that power. A large portion of the Red States would illegalize it nearly altogether, many of the red states woul illegalize it with exceptions. The fight would become a winnable one... it is not a winnable fight, however, until congress legislates against Roe v. Wade.[/quote]

With all due respect to your passion for Rep. Paul, I have to correct one historical error.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not actually nullify Dred Scott decision; it only applied to slaves in states that were still under Confederate control. If anything, it was an act of Congress passed months earlier that prohibited slavery in the territories that did more to undo Dred Scott, and it was not until the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified that slavery was finally abolished.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation[/url]

[url="http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html"]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_...transcript.html[/url]

Now, as far as federal legislation to outlaw it is concerned, it could make a good test case before the SCOTUS, and it could be a strategy that could pay off.

[Aloysius]

well the executive order thing is not what Ron Paul supports, that's my personal opinion that a president ought to make an executive order to nullify a supreme court decision; Ron Paul himself supports limiting the power of the executive branch more than it has been in recent years; I personally agree with him on that a bit, but think that an executive order ought to be one possible balance to the supreme court's tyranny, but it would have to work together with congressional legislation as well the way the EP did, and I suppose the only way to once and for all cut off the power of the Supreme Court on an issue is with a Constitutional Amendment.

but the position Ron Paul supports is that congress may legislate contrary to a decision of the Supreme Court and effectively overturn that Supreme Court decision, that is part of the balance of powers. I suppose once that legislation was in force, a court case could rise back up to the SCOTUS, and thus the only way to finally go above the heads of the SCOTUS is with a Constitutional Amendment.

If congress passed it, the Sanctity of Life Act would become law. The Supreme Court ought not, in my opinion, to have the power to undo that law. I know Dr. Paul has an extensive knowledge of constitutional history, however, and a very well defined position on the branches of government.

[XIX]

Status-quo defenders. I like that term.

[CrossCuT]

[size=1]Mitt Romney anyone?
[/size]

[Aloysius]

a status quo defender. he would do nothing except appoint the right judges in the rare event of a vacancy on the court.

Ron Paul would set as part of congress's agenda the discussion of legislating a law which nullified Roe v. Wade. As a member of congress, he proposed such a law (The Sanctity of Life Act) and received no support from the nominally pro-life status quo defender Republicans, a title which I would give to basically every other republican candidate from Mitt Romney to Mike Huckabee.

Mitt Romney is just another face in the crowd among GOP candidates who wish to win the vote of the pro-life base by throwing them a few bones. He changed his mind on the issue in order to run for president... because he had a real change in conviction? highly dubious. even if he does actually beleive his current pro-life rhetoric, what has he proposed to do about it? no more than Rudy Guiliani proposed to do about it--appoint judges to the SCOTUS to appease the pro-life base.... but where are their initiatives? who among them will ask congress to make a law which permits the illegalization of abortion? Ron Paul would. none of the other ones would, though; some of them might sign such a law, though they have not said that they would or would not, and I'm not entirely sure that all of them that claim to be pro-life would. Ron Paul has AUTHORED such a law.

The status-quo defenders are good for some things; they push through partial birth abortion bans, parental notification laws, cut some funding, et cetera... those are all well and good, but don't make too much of a dent in the overall problem of baby murder, and are usually just used as tokens to appease the pro-life base so that they think they're doing to best they can. They can do better. Ron Paul would take away all federal funding of anything abortion related, and push the congress to enact a law overturning Roe v. Wade.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1429738' date='Dec 4 2007, 09:11 PM']well the executive order thing is not what Ron Paul supports, that's my personal opinion that a president ought to make an executive order to nullify a supreme court decision; Ron Paul himself supports limiting the power of the executive branch more than it has been in recent years; I personally agree with him on that a bit, but think that an executive order ought to be one possible balance to the supreme court's tyranny[/quote]

I can agree with him on reducing the power of the executive branch. But I think with the system of checks and balances that he should retain the power to veto something that is against a constitutional understanding of the law. That is to say, if the Supreme Court decided to start legislating from the bench (as they did with Roe) then someone should have the ability to erase that decision. Now, if the president took it as his responsibility to not only veto the decision but to go even further and instill a contrary law (ie: if a president overturned pro-choice Roe and then put a pro-life law into effect instead), then I think that would be overstepping his bounds. But a veto would simply be his responsibility as president to keep the other branches from abusing their powers.

[Aloysius]

there is no veto of Supreme Court decisions that I know of... I believe that a Supreme Court decision may merely be overturned by implementing contrary legislation, as the Sanctity of Life Act intends to do in congress.

[Aloysius]

there is no veto of Supreme Court decisions that I know of... I believe that a Supreme Court decision may merely be overturned by implementing contrary legislation, as the Sanctity of Life Act intends to do in congress.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1429947' date='Dec 5 2007, 01:29 AM']there is no veto of Supreme Court decisions that I know of... I believe that a Supreme Court decision may merely be overturned by implementing contrary legislation, as the Sanctity of Life Act intends to do in congress.[/quote]

I think you're right, I was just rolling with a hypothetical possibility there. Should've made that clear.

[The Joey-O]

Just a quick note: It's wrong to say that all other candidates are "status-quo" advocates. Huckabee, who is growing strong and faster than any other candidates out there (I recently heard a poll that said he's number 2, behind Romney in Iowa). [url="http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=11"]Here's [/url]his position on life (he supports legislation to over turn Roe v. Wade).

[Aloysius]

[quote]Why did John McCain not introduce Dr. Paul's Sanctity of Life bill in the U.S. Senate? Why have Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and Fred Thompson not committed to use the power of the bully pulpit of the White House to push Congress to implement this Act? Again, either these men are ignorant of their constitutional duties and responsibilities (in which case, they are unqualified for the office of President) or they are not truly serious about overturning Roe v. Wade and ending abortion-on-demand (in which case, they are conservative phonies and frauds).[/quote]-that random baptist guy I cited

Mike Huckabee needs to do more than support a Constitutional Ammendment, which is a very distant possibility, why is he not talking about supporting the concrete here-and-now legislation of the Sanctity of Life Act?

It's like you have a thirsty man, and Mr. Huckabee offers that, as soon as he can obtain the necessary mountain climbing equipment, he will climb up a mountain to a natural spring to obtain water. Dr. Paul just looks at the spicket sticking out of the Constitution and says, I say we just pour you a glass right here.

I won't question Huckabees sincerity, I just think he himself is being fooled into becoming ineffective, thinking he can do no more than a constitutional ammendment which will take a very long time and is not likely to get anywhere anytime soon. And I do fear what this guy said at the end of his artical: that Huckabee will end up as the VP to some Guiliani charecter in order to appease the pro-life base while continuing to be ineffective against abortion. I still think that, in practical matters, Huckabee would end up as a status quo defender... but it would be great if a Constitutional Ammendment were passed and I applaud him for those efforts.

edit: from the site you linked, it appears he does indeed support using the Bully Pulpit to support pro-life legislation, and though he hasn't said anything clearly about the Sanctity of Life Act (since it is not really considered an issue among most republican candidates who have largely ignored it), it seems he'd be likely to support it. I am still slightly wary of the possibility of his eventual ineffective limbo of becoming a status-quo defender.

also, the other problem with Huckabee as I see it, is that he was right up there with all the other GOP candidates saying he won't take anything off the table when it comes to threats from Iran et cetera, including nuclear weapons, including pre-emptive nuclear strikes. Now, a Catholic is not permitted to support the use of nuclear weapons when they are directed at places with civilian populations (I am of the opinion that we ought to have blown up Mount Fuji in Japan with our nukes, not the two most Catholic cities they had, but that's just me) because you cannot target civilians in war: period. This is an actual non-negotiable inherently evil act that no Catholic can support, and it's something that, if I heard in the debates correctly, no GOP candidate except Ron Paul was willing to take off the table.

[zabbazooey]

Ummm...hello??

[b]Fred Thompson, anyone?[/b]

[url="http://www.fred08.com"]http://www.fred08.com[/url]

Edited December 5, 2007 by zabbazooey

[dairygirl4u2c]

actually huckabee is number one. go to google, and then google news and you will see. in iowa.

he's also the one everyone asks and associates with being prolife. he always answers the questions that the number one concern is abortion. now, he isn't as militant about it as ron paul appears to be.
militancy might get one not elected. being elected is just as much a game, don't forget.

bush should be pushing prolife legislation as he's got nothing to lose, save hurting future repubs maybe, but not very direct. it'd be all on bush now given his status being the scapegoat for everything.

Edited December 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

the supreme court, at least in terms of following precedent and constitutaion would not allow the santity of life act to pass. they trump legislation when it violates the constitution... a principle that goes back to the very first justices like marbury v madison and justice john marshall.

of course, there was a lot of politics in that case, because he appeased the other branches by ruling in their favor, while taking a major power grab to the judiciary.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison[/url]

power grab, cause a lot of countries like britan have the legislature interpret the constitution such that they can be even hapharard. in my opinon not much of a constitution, but.

of course, that's assuming it's unconstutional abortion banning. really it's not, at least most abortion banning.

the btest approach, being to ban statutes that are clearly unconst and deferring to the legislature when it's reasonably disputed, or a reasonable law.

Edited December 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c