PDA

View Full Version : Counterpoint to a common objection




LibertyCzar
06-20-2007, 12:00 PM
Some people object to Ron Paul because he wants to allow the States to decide certain issues, such as abortion. They say he'll take their rights away. He'll make abortion illegal. This argument is used on places like Digg, and elsewhere.

Here is my counterpoint: that's what the governor and State legislatures are for. Ron Paul is running for a Federal position. He will make it easier for people to customize laws. If people want a certain law, they can elect to the States anyone they please.

The same goes for municipalities. Having Ron Paul in the presidency will make it easier for a mayor and town council to pass certain ordinances. The only thing Ron Paul will limit is Federal laws. Not all laws. If people want a certain law, all they have to do is elect the appropriate municipal officials.

JoshLowry
06-20-2007, 12:01 PM
It's also a step in the right direction taking this power away from the central government that allows the fed to pass a law that is one size fit all.

LibertyCzar
06-20-2007, 12:05 PM
You see, read my signature. While it might indeed be the role of government, as an entity, it is not always the role of the centralized Federal government. The thing is, I don't want a town two thousand miles away deciding everything I do. I want the people in my own town making such decisions.

kylejack
06-20-2007, 12:10 PM
I don't think that's really going to resonate. A state government should not have the authority to take away the rights of the people, and if they do, I do believe the federal government needs to step in, and I'm pretty sure most Americans agree on that. Since abortion is typically thought to be a right, that argument is going to fall flat with most Pro Choice people. A better argument is that abortion can't be returned to the states without a Constitutional amendment, and the President plays no part in the Amendment process.

JoshLowry
06-20-2007, 12:13 PM
This is more about passing laws on a local level, not about taking rights away from people.

Yes laws restrict people from doing things. I'd rather it be on a level where I am more likely to be heard in a local government.

kylejack
06-20-2007, 12:32 PM
Yes, I've always been in favor of that. I just don't think this is the right argument to use when it involves rights that states could potentially restrict, rights seen by the public as legitimate rights. It works perfectly well for social spending and the like.

LibertyCzar
06-20-2007, 12:36 PM
The States are already limited by the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

angrydragon
06-20-2007, 12:44 PM
This is why we have cities and states, if you didn't like the laws of one state, move to another. This is the way the founders saw it, and the way it should be. Whatever is not in the Constitution, is left up to the states and the people.

tsoldrin
06-20-2007, 12:58 PM
There is a basic principle here which I think could really resonate... but hasn't been articulated in an easy to understand way for the masses. Probably because it doesn't fit into a sound bite. As I see it, the principle is that it's MUCH easier to effect change at your local level, therefore by moving the power from a gigantic, far away, behind high walls central government back to a very accessable and changeable local governing body where your individual actions and votes really do count, you're really moving the power back into the hands of the people.

SeanEdwards
06-20-2007, 03:40 PM
Since abortion is typically thought to be a right, that argument is going to fall flat with most Pro Choice people.

Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution even once, and it's certainly not enumerated as a fundamental human right. "Roe V. Wade" was a terribly flawed ruling and amounts to nothing more than a panel of judges imposing their morality on the nation and usurping the legitimate constitutional role of the legislature.

Tsoman
06-20-2007, 04:08 PM
I really like Ron Paul's solution. I'm very tired of constantly hearing about abortion. If states could decide for themselves, hopefully the importance of abortion as an issue at the national level would be reduced.

Why should a state whose people are largely against abortion be forced to tolerate it? Equally, why should a very liberal state have to worry about the federal government outlawing something that the people of that state want to keep?

All of these issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) are distractions and have nothing to do with leadership.

Shmuel Spade
06-20-2007, 04:19 PM
People would have to have a change in attitude regarding the role of government. When people even use the word government these days they're most likely referring to the feds, and that's scary enough as it is.

At the founding of the Constitution people thought of their states as individual nations suborned to a federal government of strictly limited and explicated powers. For the people in my state (NY) to worry about what laws were passed in another state (let's say Mississippi), would be the same as worrying about what laws were passed in Canada or France. The people in the one state knew that different laws would exist in different states, just as they existed in different countries.

Things are different these days where government no longer means that thing the governor is in charge of, so people of course have changed their attitudes as to what's acceptable for one state to do or not do. Now they feel that they must take action whenever anything happens anywhere. It is this attitude that contributes to the easy building of war fever.

Highmesa
06-20-2007, 04:43 PM
There is a basic principle here which I think could really resonate... but hasn't been articulated in an easy to understand way for the masses. Probably because it doesn't fit into a sound bite. As I see it, the principle is that it's MUCH easier to effect change at your local level, therefore by moving the power from a gigantic, far away, behind high walls central government back to a very accessable and changeable local governing body where your individual actions and votes really do count, you're really moving the power back into the hands of the people.

Highmesa's Corollary:

The greater the distance between a problem and those deciding how to solve the problem, the higher the probability that the decison made will be incorrect.

I've been saying this for years when faced with the fed/state/local question. Very few things should rise to the level of federal involvement.

mikelovesgod
06-20-2007, 05:47 PM
I really like Ron Paul's solution. I'm very tired of constantly hearing about abortion. If states could decide for themselves, hopefully the importance of abortion as an issue at the national level would be reduced.

Why should a state whose people are largely against abortion be forced to tolerate it? Equally, why should a very liberal state have to worry about the federal government outlawing something that the people of that state want to keep?

All of these issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc) are distractions and have nothing to do with leadership.

Again, it comes to the great hypocritical mantra that the gov't shouldn't legislate morality except when it comes to their morality. That's why the states should have that right instead of playing the hypocrite card.

If you think it's moral to do vote pro-death.
If you think it's immoral to take away another person's right to live vote pro-life

You go to the state which carries your beliefs. It's just that simple.

CJLauderdale4
06-20-2007, 05:54 PM
Again, it comes to the great hypocritical mantra that the gov't shouldn't legislate morality except when it comes to their morality. That's why the states should have that right instead of playing the hypocrite card.

If you think it's moral to do vote pro-death.
If you think it's immoral to take away another person's right to live vote pro-life

You go to the state which carries your beliefs. It's just that simple.

It's when all of the States become against my beliefs...that's when I become a Pilgrim too.

RJB
06-20-2007, 06:01 PM
What we have right now are consevatives in Missouri who want to stop pot smokers in CA. And liberals in CA who want Missourians to have unlimitted abortions. Think of how much happier we'd be if we minded our own darn business.

CJLauderdale4
06-20-2007, 06:01 PM
And, since it was Christians who started the whole experiment, they said things that would be found quite disturbing today:

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, address to military leaders

"It is impossible to govern the world without God and the Bible...Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that our national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." -- George Washington's Farewell Address

"I am a Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our Creator and, I hope, to the pure doctrine of Jesus also." -- Thomas Jefferson

I think we all in America, whether we are devout or not, have inherited a sense of morality that stems from what these guys were talking about...

CJLauderdale4
06-20-2007, 06:02 PM
What we have right now are consevatives in Missouri who want to stop pot smokers in CA. And liberals in CA who want Missourians to have unlimitted abortions. Think of how much happier we'd be if we minded our own darn business.

Agreed.

LibertyEagle
06-20-2007, 06:04 PM
hought to be a right, that argument is going to fall flat with most Pro Choice people. A better argument is that abortion can't be returned to the states without a Constitutional amendment, and the President plays no part in the Amendment process.

How are you coming up with that? Abortion isn't guaranteed in the Constitution.

kylejack
06-20-2007, 07:29 PM
How are you coming up with that? Abortion isn't guaranteed in the Constitution.

According to the Supreme Court, it falls under the 9th Amendment as the "right to privacy". Whether you or I agree or not is really pretty immaterial. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court seized the right to interpret the Constitution, and the other branches have long ago surrendered that. As such, there is little chance of killing the Court's power of judicial review, again, without a Constitutional Amendment. So again, Ron Paul as President would not going to have much power on abortion with the exception of vetoing spending for abortion and things like that.

Ron Paul actually has more power to adjust the Constitution to return abortion to the states as a member of Congress than he would have as President. If Pro-Choice people don't want Ron Paul to return abortion to the States, they should get him out of the Congress by electing him to the Presidency. ;)

kylejack
06-20-2007, 07:34 PM
Edit: Bah, double post. Website was acting wonky.

JoshLowry
06-20-2007, 07:37 PM
Edit: Bah, double post. Website was acting wonky.


Haha, it crashed again. :o

I'll get this thing figured out eventually.

LibertyCzar
06-20-2007, 07:59 PM
According to the Supreme Court, it falls under the 9th Amendment as the "right to privacy". Whether you or I agree or not is really pretty immaterial. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court seized the right to interpret the Constitution, and the other branches have long ago surrendered that. As such, there is little chance of killing the Court's power of judicial review, again, without a Constitutional Amendment. So again, Ron Paul as President would not going to have much power on abortion with the exception of vetoing spending for abortion and things like that.

Ron Paul actually has more power to adjust the Constitution to return abortion to the states as a member of Congress than he would have as President. If Pro-Choice people don't want Ron Paul to return abortion to the States, they should get him out of the Congress by electing him to the Presidency. ;)

I do believe an explicit federal amendment to the constitution needs to be added to expressly protect privacy. But it should also define what privacy is. It should make clear that issues such as abortion are left to the States.

mikelovesgod
06-20-2007, 08:48 PM
According to the Supreme Court, it falls under the 9th Amendment as the "right to privacy". Whether you or I agree or not is really pretty immaterial. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court seized the right to interpret the Constitution, and the other branches have long ago surrendered that. As such, there is little chance of killing the Court's power of judicial review, again, without a Constitutional Amendment. So again, Ron Paul as President would not going to have much power on abortion with the exception of vetoing spending for abortion and things like that.

Ron Paul actually has more power to adjust the Constitution to return abortion to the states as a member of Congress than he would have as President. If Pro-Choice people don't want Ron Paul to return abortion to the States, they should get him out of the Congress by electing him to the Presidency. ;)

right of privacy can't stop the right to life

kylejack
06-20-2007, 09:41 PM
Yes Mike, that is true, which is why fetuses can't be aborted in the third trimester. I think you're missing the point, though. I'm not here arguing abortion with anyone, but rather pointing out that there is little a President can do to return abortion to the states. This thread, as I read it, is about the best way to cater Ron Paul's message to the public, and I think this is one of the better ways to present Ron Paul to Pro Choice people. Its not totally without flaws, though. The President does appoint federal judges, Supreme Court included.

literatim
06-20-2007, 09:47 PM
All the people who cringe at the thought of Roe vs Wade being overturned and States deciding are scared of what follows. Most States, including many Blue States, will make abortion illegal and they know it.

Look at happened with Norma McCorvey (alias: Jane Roe). She did not have an abortion and became adamantly pro-life.

Frankly, I believe it is in the jurisdiction of federal under the Declaration of Independence and the Fifth Amendment, the right to life.