The One and Only Official CEP Ron Paul Thread

[phactor]

'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.

1. The bill federally defines life as beginning at conception. Currently this isn't the case.

2. Again the bill really isn't about states rights. Life begins at conception at the federal level (at the very least). The fetus is a human being, which it is not right now. Abortion will be murder on both the state and federal level. This is because it is ending a human beings life.

3. As far as abortion all it address is funding and Roe v Wade. The rest of it is an attempt to change the federal definition of life as beginning at conception.

4. Do you understand that right now abortion is on both the federal and state level that a fetus is not a human being. That is what allows it to occur. The Sanctity of Life Act is trying to change this definition. With the first clause, which I keep posting for you over and over and over again.

I'm going to ignore anything more you post on this. You are misinterpreting what I am saying.

 

[phactor]

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........................

Agreed, health care is one of the biggest issues for me.

Especially living without it right now. Its a long story, but I should have it when I graduate college this year.

Yet another reason I like Obama. He has a rational health care plan.

 

[phactor]

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?

Anyone else want to take a shot at this?

I think its because of his religious beliefs. Extreme pro-lifers will stop at nothing to ban abortion in any way possible. They feel that it is a mission from God.

 

[foodisgood]

Sorry but I as an "annoying Ron Paul supporter" am gonna need point some things out. Unfortunately Ron Paul's positions are easily twisted and debates like this can happen. After reading the Sanctity of Life act, it states that the federal default is that life begins at conception. However it removes the federal government from the picture.

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Therefore, while the feds have said life starts at coneption, it is the states job of outlawing abortion or not outlawing abortion.

You then say well federal law trumps state law and that is completely true. That is why the other clauses exist. Section 3 removes the supreme court and section 4 removes the district courts.

SEC. 5. FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS NOT BINDING ON STATE OR LOCAL COURTS.

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;
(2) the District of Columbia; or
(3) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or any subdivision thereof.

All it essentially says is we define life as beginning at conception, but what the states do from that point on is their own choice.

Your next problem is the supression of the courts I would assume. Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution states,

"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."

Therefore, this act clearly leaves abortion as a states issue and is completely constitutional.

Also Phactor, and I mean this in no offensive way, but please don't walk into the Ron Paul thread and start bashing Ron Paul supporters. In your very first post you resorted to attacking Ron Paul and his supprters before anyone had even replied to you. I'll gladly admit that there are rude people out there that support Ron Paul just as there are rude people that support Obama. You are entitiled to your own opinions, but I would argue that you have done more to try to instigate name-calling and the such than anyone has done against you. It's one thing to respond to an unreasonable person, but it's entirely different to walk into a room of people that you know support ron paul and just start taking shots regardless of you past history. Thank you

 

[Blacksoulman]

@foodisgood. Ive already posted that information on the previous page, but he is still hammering 'abortion is murder.' We all understand that. Stop repeating it. It has nothing to do with enforcement or penalties. The states will continue to carry out abortions legally with out defying federal laws. (because there are none and the bill does not allow any to be made).


'With the first clause, which I keep posting for you over and over and over again. '

I already said the first part defines life. I don't know why you keep repeating that because I have said it too. It does not matter what the federal government defines as life because the states are the ones who decide what to do about it.

^^See post above me.

'The Sanctity of Life Act is trying to change this definition'
Yes it is changing the definition. It is removing federal jurisdiction.

 

[foodisgood]

@foodisgood. Ive already posted that information on the previous page, but he is still hammering 'abortion is murder.' We all understand that. Stop repeating it. It has nothing to do with enforcement or penalties. The states will continue to carry out abortions legally with out defying federal laws. (because there are none and the bill does not allow any to be made).


'With the first clause, which I keep posting for you over and over and over again. '

I already said the first part defines life. I don't know why you keep repeating that because I have said it too. It does not matter what the federal government defines as life because the states are the ones who decide what to do about it.

^^See post above me.

'The Sanctity of Life Act is trying to change this definition'
Yes it is changing the definition. It is removing federal jurisdiction.

I saw what you posted. I just wanted to reiterate that and also I believe section 5 of the SOL act makes it even more clear that it gives the power to the states. I also wanted to point out that congress can remove federal courts from the picture.

 

[mulberryman]

Its never gonna happen. These pro-lifers should really just give up and go home. Most of them aren't pro-"life" at all, I mean how can anyone call themselves that and support a war, or oppose a fair healthcare plan?

 

[foodisgood]

The main problem I have with welfare or any social program is that my money should not go towards it. Being pro-life means that you won't let people be murdered. I would save an unborn child, but if he grew up and went onto welfare I wouldn't support him then. The fact is that it may be an immoral and socially unpopular idea, but thats the way I and many others feel. That is why charity exists. If you wish to help the poor by all means do so. But if I walk out and say I don't want to help the poor, than the government shouldnt use my tax money to do so. The same goes with healthcare. If I live a long healthy life I'm not gonna see any of that money back. If you want some sort of social healthcare program, than a third party should propose it and all the money that you would be paying the government for it, you would pay that third party. Therefore it is entirely optional and it doesnt spend taxpayers money

 

[bingalpaws]

Anyone else want to take a shot at this?

I think its because of his religious beliefs. Extreme pro-lifers will stop at nothing to ban abortion in any way possible. They feel that it is a mission from God.

ya I really want a concise reason why, if this will be up to the states, there's any relevance for him to put 'life begins at conception' on my/our constitution - even in general principal I do not like that, even if they do allow them at state level. But this isn't about abortion being okay or not as much to me, because that's not as important of an issue as some others (to me personally at this time in my life) - however if this is some kind of shady maneuvering by him it'd hurt him a lot in my eyes, he is my current favorite at this point.

 

[phactor]

The main problem I have with welfare or any social program is that my money should not go towards it. Being pro-life means that you won't let people be murdered. I would save an unborn child, but if he grew up and went onto welfare I wouldn't support him then. The fact is that it may be an immoral and socially unpopular idea, but thats the way I and many others feel. That is why charity exists. If you wish to help the poor by all means do so. But if I walk out and say I don't want to help the poor, than the government shouldnt use my tax money to do so. The same goes with healthcare. If I live a long healthy life I'm not gonna see any of that money back. If you want some sort of social healthcare program, than a third party should propose it and all the money that you would be paying the government for it, you would pay that third party. Therefore it is entirely optional and it doesnt spend taxpayers money

I'm sorry but this sounds inhumane to me. Actually its pretty disgusting. But no offense.

 

[phactor]

Sorry but I as an "annoying Ron Paul supporter" am gonna need point some things out. Unfortunately Ron Paul's positions are easily twisted and debates like this can happen. After reading the Sanctity of Life act, it states that the federal default is that life begins at conception. However it removes the federal government from the picture.

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

Therefore, while the feds have said life starts at coneption, it is the states job of outlawing abortion or not outlawing abortion.

You then say well federal law trumps state law and that is completely true. That is why the other clauses exist. Section 3 removes the supreme court and section 4 removes the district courts.

SEC. 5. FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS NOT BINDING ON STATE OR LOCAL COURTS.

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;
(2) the District of Columbia; or
(3) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or any subdivision thereof.

All it essentially says is we define life as beginning at conception, but what the states do from that point on is their own choice.

Your next problem is the supression of the courts I would assume. Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution states,

"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."

Therefore, this act clearly leaves abortion as a states issue and is completely constitutional.

Also Phactor, and I mean this in no offensive way, but please don't walk into the Ron Paul thread and start bashing Ron Paul supporters. In your very first post you resorted to attacking Ron Paul and his supprters before anyone had even replied to you. I'll gladly admit that there are rude people out there that support Ron Paul just as there are rude people that support Obama. You are entitiled to your own opinions, but I would argue that you have done more to try to instigate name-calling and the such than anyone has done against you. It's one thing to respond to an unreasonable person, but it's entirely different to walk into a room of people that you know support ron paul and just start taking shots regardless of you past history. Thank you

Yeah but Ron Paul supporters have been spamming every board I am on. Your reasoning is well thought out. Furthermore, I can attack Ron Paul and his supporters if they start a thread about him. I may have done it somewhat disrespectfully though. To be honest though I hate the politics of the guy and view him as a negative person for this country. This is just my opinion. Though flawed here's why.

What you posted earlier is well and good but it still doesn't change the fact that you are ending the life of a human being. Currently Euthenisa in this country is illegal because it ends a life. The only time we can ever end a "life" and not be punished is if the federal or state government approves of it. Two Examples: Legit self defense or sending someone to the death chamber .

Again I repeat that making life begin at conception, that fetus has human rights. Which include the right to live. This is why abortion is legal now. I believe this is what Roe v Wade established, but I'm not sure.

Okay second I think you are misreading certain parts:

You wrote

"Therefore, while the feds have said life starts at coneption, it is the states job of outlawing abortion or not outlawing abortion."

This still doesn't change the fact the a person is ending a life. Its still murder on the federal level at the very least.

Lastly,

I believe you used this but only quoted one part, if you read the full text you will see something interesting

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.[1]

Did you notice earlier the bill defines that the fetus is a person. So therefore if the law doesn't "protect" the rights of the newly defined fetus as a person its void. So basically a state couldn't legally allow abortion because is doesn't protect the fetuses right.

Also, this would allow the state the challenge Roe V Wade. That is true. But once again on the federal level that "person" has the protection of a right to live on the federal level.

As for this part

"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;
(2) the District of Columbia; or
(3) any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, or any subdivision thereof."

Thats well and good, but still doesn't address the point that the fetus is a living person if the SOL passes who's life is now protected by both state and federal law.

Also look at the Dread Scott case as an example of why federal law always triumphs over state law. The federal court is at a higher postion then any state.

Another example is The Supreme Court making the supreme decision regarding a case. Its the final stop and binding decision.

The only way that Abortion would be ever legal is if murder is both legalized federally and in the state you are in. This is why I keep calling the rest of the bill "fluff".

Could you provide an example of a state law ever surpassing a federal law?

All it essentially says is we define life as beginning at conception

You can't ever legally kill/end a life. Unless it is approved by the state. Again even if the state says "go ahead and abort" its still ending a life on the federal level.

BTW I'm drinking now so if I get too drunk I will wait to post till tommorow, for the benefits of all in this thread. I can get really heated over this stuff. We have a rule among my friends and I and its "No politics after a sixer"




Awaiting your response.

 

[phactor]

ya I really want a concise reason why, if this will be up to the states, there's any relevance for him to put 'life begins at conception' on my/our constitution - even in general principal I do not like that, even if they do allow them at state level. But this isn't about abortion being okay or not as much to me, because that's not as important of an issue as some others (to me personally at this time in my life) - however if this is some kind of shady maneuvering by him it'd hurt him a lot in my eyes, he is my current favorite at this point.

This is a very valid point. Why would Ron Paul even do this.

 

[mulberryman]

I'm sorry but this sounds inhumane to me. Actually its pretty disgusting. But no offense.

Yes, it does seem that way, but as is mostly the case, its not a matter of being inhumane, as people just not comprehending their roles within the human race. As its been said before, a Democrat is a Republican who's ever had to have surgery. If thats sounds a bit too much to take in for some of you, its likely you either A, are very rich (and selfish, or very religious<basically the same thing>), or B, have never had to deal with a teminal illness or had to watch someone close to you die of one.

 

[phactor]

Yes, it does seem that way, but as is mostly the case, its not a matter of being inhumane, as people just not comprehending their roles within the human race. As its been said before, a Democrat is a Republican who's ever had to have surgery. If thats sounds a bit too much to take in for some of you, its likely you either A, are very rich (and selfish, or very religious<basically the same thing>), or B, have never had to deal with a teminal illness or had to watch someone close to you die of one.

I don't get what you are saying.

I think that human beings deserve free health care. Welfare and health care are a nessecity simply because they exist. Not everyone can afford to live day to day or pay for health care. This is a huge problem for me.

I actually think you argued against me when you actually agree with me.

 

[phactor]

So again what I am saying is:

How would a state be able to "tell" the federal government that the fetus is not a human being if the SOL would ever pass?

I'm not saying that the act of abortion would become murder because its abortion. It would become murder because the person performing the procedure is "killing" a "person" (the fetus).

There's nothing in that bill that would ever allow a state to change the definiton of when life begins if I'm reading it correctly.

 

[bingalpaws]

I'm sorry but this sounds inhumane to me. Actually its pretty disgusting. But no offense.

it's not disgusting, what's disgusting is that people will take cash out of my check so that, in essence, I'm working while they're chilling
(intentionally phrased to incite, but I won't go further on that til someone answers the 'life at conception' amendment clause )

 

[bingalpaws]

Yes, it does seem that way, but as is mostly the case, its not a matter of being inhumane, as people just not comprehending their roles within the human race.

Haha but it goes both ways! Think of a family living off the system, free healthcare, money every month, food, they certainly don't comprehend their role now do they?!

As its been said before, a Democrat is a Republican who's ever had to have surgery.

I know this is a pointless question to even ask, but why the hell do people need to feel a part of a party? I mean, the issues are so goddamned diverse, it's like if I happen to disagree with what I consider a socialist approach towards healthcare, thn I'm republican and should also consider abortions murder? This labeling shit is retarded.

If thats sounds a bit too much to take in for some of you, its likely you either A, are very rich (and selfish, or very religious<basically the same thing>), or B, have never had to deal with a teminal illness or had to watch someone close to you die of one.

you seriously need to win an award for something, if not over-generalizations then conspiracy theories lol!

 

[phactor]

it's not disgusting, what's disgusting is that people will take cash out of my check so that, in essence, I'm working while they're chilling
(intentionally phrased to incite, but I won't go further on that til someone answers the 'life at conception' amendment clause )

All I will say my friend is that this is where we differ. No way around it. We can't say that either one of is "right".

Here is a real quick reason why:

Life isn't fair, not everyone has an equal chance. This is the fault of our system, not there own.

A child born in the ghetto will not have the same chance in life as a burb kid. Thats not the ghetto kids fault, but is a fault because of a flaw in society.

This is one of the biggest differences in outlook that conservatives and liberals have in what role we as a people and government have.

So I will respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[mulberryman]

it's not disgusting, what's disgusting is that people will take cash out of my check so that, in essence, I'm working while they're chilling
(intentionally phrased to incite, but I won't go further on that til someone answers the 'life at conception' amendment clause )

Many people's paychecks don't cover the costs of having healthcare for their whole family. Perhaps we should return to the days of child labor and sweatshops, if that's what your suggesting.

 

[phactor]

BTW I am waiting for someone to point out how:

The SOL bill would allow a state to redefine the federal definition of "life begining at conception" in a way that would make ending the "life of the human being (the fetus)" through abortion legal.

An example of state law overruling federal law would be very helpful. A really good example would be a state court overruling a federal courts (supreme courts) decision. I don't think you will be be able to do this.

A good example of a federal court overruling state court can be found here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine#Brown_v._Topeka_Board_of_Education

Also here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

Basically Alabama State Courts ruled against desegregation, the Supreme Court said "nope, they are deseged" and it happened wether Alabama liked it or not.

Food - Check my response to your post before you do this please.