The Only Pro-life Candidate

[Aloysius]

[img]http://files.meetup.com/516631/ron-paul-constitution-dees.jpg[/img]

Artical III, Section 2: Congress has the power to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over any issue (and it has been done before, it is possible, it was done in the 1860s). This is what the Sanctity of Life Act would do, it would strip Federal Courts of jurisdiction on the issue of abortion, so that nobody could appeal to the Federal Courts on the issue of abortion, and every state in the union would have full jurisdiction over it; the Federal Court would no longer be able to hear appeals against any state law against abortion.

[XIX]

Ron Paul is talking about doing it, I wonder if he'll actually do it. Moreover, I wonder if he's still going to be singing the same tune during the general election, should he make it that far.

LOL, I'm strongly leaning towards voting for the guy that has the best shot at beating Rudy.

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul already introduced the act in the House, it's HR 776, The Sanctity of Life Act. He's not just talking about doing it, he's doing it. The problem is that the rest of congress isn't following his lead.

As president, he could use the power of the bully pulpit to force it on Congress's agenda.

I wouldn't count on him flip flopping on anything; he has the most consistent voting record probably that this country's congress has ever known.

Ron Paul's growth is seriously impressive; and his position at this point in the primaries is the same position as John Kerry in the democratic primaries at this point during the last election. Don't count him out yet. He's setting ALL TIME RECORDS for single day fundraising. There is something there, it's not all smoke and mirrors. A lot of people are saying he is going to surprise us, and not just his supporters.

But anyway, you might as well wave the white flag in surrunder of any pretense of democracy we have left when you start voting for a "most likely candidate" at this point in the election. Can you not see the absolute destructive power of that thought process to the idea of your vote actually counting? when you do that, it is not your vote which is effecting something, it is the polls put out by the media which is affecting it. You simply become an agent of the media; you are casting a vote that the media has given you to cast. I suggest breaking out of that cycle of only voting for "likely candidates"... especially not in primaries for God's sake, vote for GOOD candidates. the more we find ourselves forced to vote against someone instead of for someone, the more our vote simply doesn't matter.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430679' date='Dec 7 2007, 04:37 AM'][img]http://files.meetup.com/516631/ron-paul-constitution-dees.jpg[/img]

Artical III, Section 2: Congress has the power to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over any issue (and it has been done before, it is possible, it was done in the 1860s). This is what the Sanctity of Life Act would do, it would strip Federal Courts of jurisdiction on the issue of abortion, so that nobody could appeal to the Federal Courts on the issue of abortion, and every state in the union would have full jurisdiction over it; the Federal Court would no longer be able to hear appeals against any state law against abortion.[/quote]

That is a funny picture - I saved it!

Has Congress stripped the federal courts of power anytime since the 1860s? (I have a vague recollection of stripping the federal courts of power over citizens suing states recently, but I could be wrong). I suspect that the whole issue of Congress's striiping the courts of abortion authority could itself become a court case in itself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430679' date='Dec 7 2007, 05:37 AM'][img]http://files.meetup.com/516631/ron-paul-constitution-dees.jpg[/img]

Artical III, Section 2: Congress has the power to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over any issue (and it has been done before, it is possible, it was done in the 1860s). This is what the Sanctity of Life Act would do, it would strip Federal Courts of jurisdiction on the issue of abortion, so that nobody could appeal to the Federal Courts on the issue of abortion, and every state in the union would have full jurisdiction over it; the Federal Court would no longer be able to hear appeals against any state law against abortion.[/quote]


can you provide the actual text that says that? Aritcle III section 2 that I read does not say that.

In fact, most lawyers say the USSC has last say on matters of constitutional interpretaion. That's what marbury was all about that I mentioned above.

Now, USSC oftentimes defers to the Congress on matters of discretion, if it's not clearly one way or the other constitutionally. The matter is whether they say it's clear or not, and who should have the power, a separation of powers argument of principle. So in these matters they could strip the court. In clear matters though, they theoretically cannot. (they could act rogue but that's not the case yet that I know of)

[quote]Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.[/quote]

In reality, privacy etc is not in the constitution to justify abortion. So, the court could give it to the state and congress. But, since it's spoken, what's blue is green. This matter is different than theretically speaking of judicial review. If it's clearly unconstitutional, they could go against the court.
I've never heard of them going againt the court even if it's truly not a constitiotnal interpretaion and they're saying blue is green and saying it is a matter of const inter.

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Granted, the constitution does not allow judicial review even of the constitution when a statute is made, but it's been implied in marbury. and this link...

[quote]No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea. Alexander Hamilton wrote,

“ The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[1][/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

also just to clarify, in legal circules "congress" simply means congress acting pursuant to statute, not to const amendment. if it's to const amend, then the court must in theory comply.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ron pauls constituional stuff like i said i often a cop out. it's his interpretation of it usually.

the right to bear arms shouldn't be impied to say assualt rifles and murder weopons should be allowed as ron paul espouses. for one, they wouldn't have thought about murder weopons, and even if it was around then, would they be expected to say arms only for hunting and self defense and king of england and your own etc etc. is ron paul putting the burden on congress to make an encyclopedia of the constitution? be reasonable. yet a clueless conservative would say "yeehuck, it says ther that guns b allowed" (ron paul also says allowing murder weopons wouldn't change anything because they're already freely accessible. but, this is rationalization, because it surely does prevent wide spead use of them, even if not completely preventing)

his interpretations on commerce clause are more decent but still not necessarily his views. if it's not clearly within commerce then perhaps it shouldn't be regualted. but, it's not unreasonable to think something substantially affecting commerce can be regulated. (commerce clause is often the basis of federal law for many questionable things like enviro regs and very controversial. look it up on wiki if you're interested) i'd argue if it's substantial, then it should be allowed. you have ot draw a line somewhere, and it's somewhat subjective, but that's reality, and that's life.

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

ron paul also thinks you should have trial by jury to make the law as they go; he doesn't believe in instructing the jury. at least that's what wikipedia says about him. it might have misinterpreated him to mean state and localities should decide or something. i don't know but that's what wiki says so, it must be true. guiilty until proven innocent would mean much less, only if the jury decides to embrace the sentiment.

he also says school should be paid for by credits. poor children who parents don't pay taxes would be penalized. he says it's unfair to give vouchers to the poor kids and credits to the others as the others have to pay taxes and get no vouchers.

ron paul is extreme and sometimes unreasonable.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Right_toeep_and_bear_arms"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos...p_and_bear_arms[/url]

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also just fyi.
also, the 14th amendment leads to substantive due process, and incorporation. the UCCS categorically says what they think should be applied against the states. the first and rest of the bill of rights they said only applies to the federal govenrment. "congress shall make no law... etc etc" so, the 14, they said, can apply to the states, as a matter of what they think is funadmental rights, not necessarily what's in the bill of rights. so, right ot bear arms might not apply to the states. the upcoming case on the matter should be informative, if they rule on incorporation and gun rights.

most of the bill has been applied, but not all, and some of been prevented from applying to the states. like, i think right... i forget but here's more info.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)#Origins"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation...Rights)#Origins[/url]

i have a test on this stuff coming up, but wikipedia has all the info, it's amazing.

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Norseman82]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1430853' date='Dec 7 2007, 06:32 PM']can you provide the actual text that says that? Aritcle III section 2 that I read does not say that.[/quote]

Here is the actual text of Article III section 2 from [url="http://www.usconstitution.net"]www.usconstitution.net[/url] :

[quote]In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, [b]with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make[/b].[/quote]

I bolded the part that I think Al was referring to.

It would also be nice if Ron Paul's campaign website had more to say on some of the other issues you mention instead of having to go to Wikipedia, because anyone can edit anything there (someone could edit the article on him to say "Ron Paul wants to give the right to vote to cocker spaniels, and people would actually believe it about him).

Edited December 8, 2007 by Norseman82

[dairygirl4u2c]

that makes sense that'd be what he's referring to. because i am aware that they can change appellate jurisdiction. and i'd assume people would unwittingly think that means they can cancel anything from the court.

appellate jurisdiction is different than judicial review. appellate jurisdiction is only that congress can say how a case gets appealed. whenever it tries to change original jurisdiction, like suits between states, the USSC has not allowed it. this has nothing to do with judicial review.

fyi, they can change appellate jurisdiction so much in fact, that no one is guaranteed an appeal to them.

[Pontifite 7 of 10]

I thought Mitt was Pro-Life...did he change his position?

[BurkeFan]

All I have to say is: Ron Paul is my hero.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Pontifite 7 of 10' post='1431614' date='Dec 8 2007, 11:41 PM']I thought Mitt was Pro-Life...did he change his position?[/quote]
Well, he decided to say he was pro-life when he decided to run for President of the US (though there are quotes from throughout his political carreer where he indicates pretty unequivicolly that he wants abortion to be safe and legal). I'm talking about candidates who actually have plans to do something more than just wait to make good appointments to the Supreme Court. The only two with plans in that regard are Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, everyone else who claims to be pro-life suggests maintaining the status quo. Ron Paul would ask congress to redefine the Supreme Court's Jurisdiction, Mike Huckabee would seek a constitutional Ammendment. Ron Paul's plan would be more immediate and affective in my opinion.

But I don't think the pro-life movement should trust Mitt any further than they can throw him. Even if he did have a true change of heart on the issue (which I find unlikely, it seems like just good politics to appease the pro-life republican base and get a leg up against candidates like Guiliani), he still doesn't have any effective proposals.

Personally, I think Huckabee's proposal would also be ineffective because it takes a lot to get a constitutional ammendment. I think it far more likely that a president could use the bully pulpit to get Congress to talk about the Sanctity of Life Act, and it's more likely that such a law could get passed than that an ammendment would be.

But what I'm saying is let's stop settling for these candidates who throw a bone here and there to the pro-life voting bloc to get votes, and look for someone with an effective plan to stop abortion.