The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

[bingalpaws]

I'm confused, I've been reading this and it seems some people are saying
- abortion will become a state issue, handled individually

Others are saying
- it will be a state issue, but because he wants to change the amendment, it'll just trump the state choice anyways (like in medical marijuana cases), making the state choice completely pointless in reality





It's kidna tough to tell who's right about how it would play out, but if he was truly interested in the states handling it, why on earth would a federal amendment be needed in the first place? I don't think 'so fed money doesn't help abortions' is a good reason because couldn't that just be passed as a law or something and not a friggin amendment? The constitution doesn't seem like soemthing that should be played with for hot button issues like this.

 

[phactor]

For the nth fuckin time; All you people bringing up abortion, education, or whatever, keep in mind he wants the state to handle a majority of these issues. Stop fucking saying he is going to ban abortion. His whole campaign is built on the federal government NOT overseeing these issues.

"I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence... All acts of violence under our Constitution are dealt with at the local level... The more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues... I believe strongly this should be at the local level...I am absolutely against the federal government funding abortion."
-Ron Paul candidates@google

I was waiting for this one. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say Ron Paul supporters appear to be uninformed about Ron Paul. Did you read my post? Obviously you didn't because I broke it down. By the way, swearing makes you and your candidate look bad. Please read my following post.

Of course he's against federal funding of abortion, he's a libertarian. The rest is just typical states right bull crap.

I will break it down again.


The "Sanctity of Life Act" which he sponsored (and has repeatedly introduced for years) would outlaw all abortions (and even some forms of birth control) at the federal level, by declaring that "life begins at conception", that the legal definition of "person" applies to the act, thus making abortion murder- which is a federal, as well as a state, crime.
To avoid any potential confusion,

the 3rd clause of the act would prohibit the Supreme Court from even hearing cases involving outright bans on abortion - thus radically increasing the power of the Executive Branch and eliminating one of the core checks and balances provided by the Constitution.

Clause 4 extends that prohibition to the other federal courts.

Don't believe me? Let's look at the actual wording.

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception , without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and (2) the term "person" shall include all such human life. Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state .

Amends the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: (1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or (2) prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1094.html

The important part again

Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

This means that as soon as the sperm fertilizes the egg, a "human being" exists according to congress once this happens.

Thus abortion ends a "human beings" life, it is a murder. Which is a Federal and State crime. The congressional definition of life will begin at the moment of conception.

This bill makes abortion equivalent to murder.

Freezes out Roe V Wade.


I don't know why Ron Paul keeps avoiding this. I mean he is the one who authored and his introduced the bill. This is a question you should ask them, but from what I've seen from the Ron Paul campaign I wouldn't trust there answer. Which is sad because the guy keeps portraying himself as honest.

Again I hope you read this, but if you don't I really don't care. Choose to remain ignorant for all I care.

 

[phactor]

I'm confused, I've been reading this and it seems some people are saying
- abortion will become a state issue, handled individually

Others are saying
- it will be a state issue, but because he wants to change the amendment, it'll just trump the state choice anyways (like in medical marijuana cases), making the state choice completely pointless in reality





It's kidna tough to tell who's right about how it would play out, but if he was truly interested in the states handling it, why on earth would a federal amendment be needed in the first place? I don't think 'so fed money doesn't help abortions' is a good reason because couldn't that just be passed as a law or something and not a friggin amendment? The constitution doesn't seem like soemthing that should be played with for hot button issues like this.

Yeah its all in the wording. Sure it prevents abortion funding. But it also does this

Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

thats the most important part. A fetus is a human being at the moment of conception thus is granted the rights of the constitution given to all American citizens, thus making an abortion a murder and a federal and state crime.

See people are never exposed to this stuff because RP supporters keep screwing with google and digg. Its too bad really. You have to dig for this stuff, he never comes out and says it. Furthermore, after pointing this out many Ron Paul supporter continue to believe this. Its like they are blindly following this guy, which is exactly opposed to what he is saying.

So far my impression of Ron Paul is less then stellar to say the least.

 

[phactor]

phactor, http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/11/05/kucinich/?source=whitelist

Sorry I don't really like Kucinich (as a senator yes, as POTUS no). He does have a smoking wife though . This isn't the approriate thread for me to go into why I support Obama.

Just know I'm from Illinois and have been involved with his campaign for many years. I've met both him and his wife several times and I know that he has our best interests at heart. Furthermore, I think that he is the most qualified, intelligent and rational individual for the job.

Also, he's offering a tax break. What other Democratic candidate is doing this??

 

[bingalpaws]

Yeah that's what I'm reading that as too - life begins at conception, therefore abortion = murder, therefore there's nothing for states to really decide and it's just intentional misleading to say states will decide if the fed gov will just trump the states' choices anyways.

I like(d) ron paul's stances a lot but someone brought this up in another thread (may not have even been this board), and I was just reading the wording there and wondering how he can give the idea that states will be deciding, when he's also giving the fed gov the right to call it murder, which would clearly trump states' rights here.

Any others care to explain this as anything less than wordplay to cater to both sides of the abortion issue? Anyone have reasoning why states would still be able to decide on abortions if there's a federal amendment that dictates a fetus, at the second of conception, is a full human with full rights?

 

[phactor]

Yeah that's what I'm reading that as too - life begins at conception, therefore abortion = murder, therefore there's nothing for states to really decide and it's just intentional misleading to say states will decide if the fed gov will just trump the states' choices anyways.

I like(d) ron paul's stances a lot but someone brought this up in another thread (may not have even been this board), and I was just reading the wording there and wondering how he can give the idea that states will be deciding, when he's also
giving the fed gov the right to call it murder, which would clearly trump states' rights here.

Any others care to explain this as anything less than wordplay to cater to both sides of the abortion issue? Anyone have reasoning why states would still be able to decide on abortions if there's a federal amendment that dictates a fetus, at the second of conception, is a full human with full rights?

He does it with marriage too

he has written that
"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act..."

"I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts' jurisdiction."

And further advocates bypassing Constitutional Conventions, to deny citizens their right to be heard on the matter, by stating:

"In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law..."
"Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act."

The DOMA does this

2. The Federal Government may not recognize same-sex or polygamous marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

So on the federal level your marriage is meaningless. So yeah a state be able to allow gay marriage... but it won't be recognized by the federal government.

Sorry RP supporters but I gotta say this... States Rights my ass.

 

[Blacksoulman]

The "Sanctity of Life Act" which he sponsored (and has repeatedly introduced for years) would outlaw all abortions (and even some forms of birth control) at the federal level, by declaring that "life begins at conception", that the legal definition of "person" applies to the act, thus making abortion murder- which is a federal, as well as a state, crime.

Are you being paid to misinterpret Ron Paul? The act does the opposite of what you just said. It removes abortion from federal jurisdiction including enforcement and federal hearings.
the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to
review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or other
wise, 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,

It also allows states to enforce the right to life if they choose.
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

No where in the bill did it say the states can not perform abortions. In fact, the act grants them more power over abortion than the federal government.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that
the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under the amendments made by sections 3 and
section 4, is not binding precedent on the court of—
(1) any State or subdivision thereof;

 

[bingalpaws]

Are you being paid to misinterpret Ron Paul? The act does the opposite of what you just said. It removes abortion from federal jurisdiction including enforcement and federal hearings.
the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to
review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or other
wise, 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,

It also allows states to enforce the right to life if they choose.
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

No where in the bill did it say the states can not perform abortions. In fact, the act grants them more power over abortion than the federal government.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that
the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under the amendments made by sections 3 and
section 4, is not binding precedent on the court of—
(1) any State or subdivision thereof;

I'm not going to lie, I, among many others, can get a little confused by what exctly certain things will end up meaning in the real world when reading the way bills and whatnot are written.

What I've gotta ask is this - if he truly intends to make the issue of abortion a state choice, what the hell is the point of doing any constitutional amendments, or federal anything, on the topic? If he's saying states have the ultimate choice, why on earth would he even touch things like the constitution to add that whole life begins at conception clause? Doesn't make a lot of sense if it's irrelevant and states will be allowed free choice in the issue

 

[phactor]

Are you being paid to misinterpret Ron Paul? The act does the opposite of what you just said. It removes abortion from federal jurisdiction including enforcement and federal hearings.
the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to
review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or other
wise, 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,

It also allows states to enforce the right to life if they choose.
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

No where in the bill did it say the states can not perform abortions. In fact, the act grants them more power over abortion than the federal government.

Any decision of a Federal court, to the extent that
the decision relates to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction under the amendments made by sections 3 and
section 4, is not binding precedent on the court of—
(1) any State or subdivision thereof;

Am I being paid? You sound paranoid. The stuff I put in bold in your statement doesn't matter. I've explained this three times Please read what I write.

Last time I will explain it to you. The bill changes the defintion to "life" beginning at conception. If your ignoring what I'm writing then thats your fault, if you don't understand what I am saying then sorry because I can't explain it any better.


Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.


Buddy it can say all the stuff in the world it wants. This statement is all that matters. If a "life" begins at conception the an act of abortion ends a human life. The fetus is regarding "a human being"

So when the sperm fertilizes the eggs... at that moment the fetus becomes a "human being".

When you end the life of a "human being" it is a murder. A abortion ends that life.


Murder is a federal crime. As well as a state.

Federal Law always overrides State Law


The rest of that stuff is basically fluff that also freezes Roe V Wade.


Your not reading my posts or you are misunderstanding them.

Listen I don't really care if you understand me or not. Your beloved Ron Paul is misleading you. He's not being honest with you. Don't ask me why he is hiding this.

Are you pro-life? Then this is fine for you. Abortion would never be able to happen again.

If your pro-choice you are currently supporting one of the most pro-life candidates. Its up to you to decide if this a big issue for you.

 

[Blacksoulman]

Buddy it can say all the stuff in the world it wants.

Federal Law always overrides State Law

The rest of that stuff is basically fluff that also freezes Roe V Wade.

That 'stuff' is what makes your interpretation false. This act specifically states State law overrides Federal intervention regarding abortion. Not only does this act specify State jurisdiction over Federal regarding abortion, We the People Act does the same for abortion and other issues.

'We the People Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts. The legislation would be immune to any constitutional challenge other than to the Act itself.'

Do you see a reoccurring theme? The theme in all his bills is State Law overrides Federal intervention (States' Rights).

 

[phactor]

That 'stuff' is what makes your interpretation false. This act specifically states State law overrides Federal law regarding abortion. Not only does this act specify State overrides Federal law regarding abortion, We the People Act does the same for abortion and other issues.

'We the People Act would forbid federal courts (including the Supreme Court) from hearing cases on subjects such as the display of religious text and imagery on government property, abortion, sexual practices, and same-sex marriage, and would forbid federal courts from spending any money to enforce their judgments. It would also make federal court decisions on those subjects non-binding as precedent in state courts. The legislation would be immune to any constitutional challenge other than to the Act itself.'

Do you see a reoccurring theme? The theme in all his bills is State Law overrides Federal Law (States' Rights).

It doesn't matter what Ron Paul says, he cannot change it so state law overrides federal. He doesn't have magic powers. The US Constitution cannot ever be overridden by a state law. Do you understand this.

The Stuff doesn't make my argument false. The We The People Act has nothing to do with this by the way. It doesn't refute my argument in any way. The We The People Act is terrible and misleading as well. I can explain why but I have a feeling it will distract you.

The last time. I would like to talk to the others in this thread. The discussion was going good until you entered it. No not because you proved me wrong, but because you've made me explain the same concept over and over.


Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

Explain to me what that statement means. Do you agree (Yes or No) that this statement would change the federal law that to define life (the fetus is a human life) as begining at conception?[b/]

The bold part (the number 1) is the 1st clause in the bill. It overrides anything else in the rest of the bill.

There is a reason it is written before anything else in that whole bill.

Explain to me what that statement means. This way I will know if you understand what I am writing and reading what I am saying. Otherwise I refuse to go back and forth with you.

What I will tell you is your focusing on the wrong part of the bill. All that stuff doesn't disprove what I have written.

BTW the theme of state overriding federal is what he is misleading you with. He intends to do this and your falling for it.

The constitution will always override the state law.

Anyone else in this thread got any more thoughts about this? Otherwise lets discuss some other issues.

 

[Blacksoulman]

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

'Do you agree (Yes or No) that this statement would make it federal law that life (the fetus is a human life) begins at conception?'

No, this clause gives the right for States to ban abortion if they choose.

Making a Federal Law on abortion would be contridictory to the bill. The federal government would have no jurisdiction on abortion, therefor the federal government can not make a federal law regarding abortion.

'Federal Law always overrides State Law'
Yes you are correct, but since this act forbids any federal law regarding abortion, there will be no Federal abortion laws to override state laws.

 

[phactor]

Sanctity of Life Act of 2007 - Declares that: (1) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.

'Do you agree (Yes or No) that this statement would make it federal law that life (the fetus is a human life) begins at conception?'

No, this clause gives the right for States to ban abortion if they choose.

Making a Federal Law on abortion would be contridictory to the bill. The federal government would have no jurisdiction on abortion, therefor the federal government can not make a federal law regarding abortion.

'Federal Law always overrides State Law'
Yes you are correct, but since there is no Federal Law, and this act forbids any federal law regarding abortion, there will be no Federal abortion laws in the first place.

Okay no it doesn't. That statement has nothing to do with state law. You are simply wrong on that part. The first clause has nothing to do with state law at all.


As far as it being contridictory I agree. Thats why the bill is totally misleading. It basically does this so it can freeze Roe V Wade though. But this is not important when Abortion = murder. You must be willing to look at the core clause in this bill.


I'm done explaining this to you. I'm sad to see you misled, but in reality it doesn't matter. In fact its probably why Ron Paul supporters can be so annoying.

 

[Blacksoulman]

He is saying abortion is murder, but murder is also handled by the state.

"I deal with the abortion issue like I deal with all acts of violence... All acts of violence under our Constitution are dealt with at the local level... The more difficult the issue, the more local it should be for sorting out these difficult issues... I believe strongly this should be at the local level...I am absolutely against the federal government funding abortion."
-Ron Paul candidates@google

So even if abortion is murder, he would want the enforcement and penalties handled at the local level.

 

[phactor]

True, most of the time. The state usually handles it, but Murder is a federal and state crime.

But, suppose that a state were to legalize abortion and the federal definition of life still states that "life" begins at conception (which the Sanctity of Life Act would do) that federal law would still define the act of abortion a murder, because it is ending the life of a human being. This isn't because it was an abortion, simply because the act ended a "life" as defined by federal law.


That would mean that the federal law would override state law. As it always will.

Thats exactly why I am saying Ron Paul is misleading people with the statement you posted. Sure he says he feels its a state rights issue, but that doesn't change the fact that he is trying to pass a bill which federally defines life as beginning at conception.

A state could go crazy and pass a bill (at the state level) that murder is legal. But, the Federal law still states murder is illegal. So that state's bill would be overridden by the federal law.

Its odd that someone so obsessed with states rights and state law is trying to do something at the federal level. It is in direct conflict with the statement by Ron Paul that you posted.

This stuff is confusing isn't it? This may make it easier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder

Here's something I posted earlier.

The "Sanctity of Life Act" which he sponsored (and has repeatedly introduced for years) would outlaw all abortions (and even some forms of birth control) at the federal level, by declaring that "life begins at conception", that the legal definition of "person" applies to the act, thus making abortion murder- which is a federal, as well as a state, crime.

Again this is the most important part.

To avoid any potential confusion, the 3rd clause of the act would prohibit the Supreme Court from even hearing cases involving outright bans on abortion - thus radically increasing the power of the Executive Branch and eliminating one of the core checks and balances provided by the Constitution. Clause 4 extends that prohibition to the other federal courts.

Okay this is really the last time. We are clogging up this thread.

 

[bingalpaws]

Anyone else in this thread got any more thoughts about this? Otherwise lets discuss some other issues.

yes.

to anyone who's saying that abortion will be considered as solely a state issue, why does he want to make an amendment declaring life beginning at conception?

 

[mulberryman]

That would mean that the federal law would override state law. As it always will.

This may be, but if the people of that state really feel strongly enough about their rights and laws, they will continue to defy the federal government, until the Fed's look like a bunch of fools and thugs who serve only to extort money from the people. Just look at California's Proposition 215, for an example of this.

 

[mulberryman]

Health care is a meaningless diversion.

For many, healthcare is anything but a meaningless diversion. But I probably shouldn't get into that, since the vast majority of Americans would rather see all those "welfare babies" (probably all black and born to crackheads, right) die than suffer any kind of tax increase, whatsoever, since life is should never be guaranteed to those tho can't afford it. Oh, wait, I thought we were talking about abortion........................

 

[Blacksoulman]

'If murder is committed within the borders of a state, that state has jurisdiction. If the victim is a federal official, an ambassador, consul or other foreign official under the protection of the United States, or if the crime took place on federal property or involved crossing state borders, or in a manner that substantially affects interstate commerce or national security, then the Federal Government also has jurisdiction'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder#United_States

The federal government can only get involved under certain conditions. Murder by abortion is not one of them and this bill states that the federal government can not get involved even if the state is committing murder by abortion.

'Sure he says he feels its a state rights issue, but that doesn't change the fact that he is trying to pass a bill which federally defines life as beginning at conception.'

The Sanctity of Life is not trying to empose federal punishment on what it defines as murder. It is defining life as a basis for States who then determine the consequences.

 

[phactor]

This may be, but if the people of that state really feel strongly enough about their rights and laws, they will continue to defy the federal government, until the Fed's look like a bunch of fools and thugs who serve only to extort money from the people. Just look at California's Proposition 215, for an example of this.

Right dude, but its still illegal.

I'm more arguing about the intentions of Ron Paul.