Ron Paul: Take abortion out of the federal courts

[Bradley in DC]

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/po...on_out_of.html

Ron Paul: Take abortion out of the federal courts

by Mark Silva

Ron Paul, the feisty physician from Texas who has twice served in Congress and amassed a loyal following in his campaign for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination, has gained widespread recognition as his party’s only anti Iraq-war candidate.

But Paul’s essential social conservatism may have been overlooked in his Libertarian view of government. Paul wants to abolish the federal income tax – that’s part of his governmental philosophy. But Paul also wants to ban abortion, proposing to overturn the landmark Roe versus Wade court ruling by legally removing jurisdiction over the issue from the federal courts.

“That should be our goal… to repeal Roe versus Wade,’’ Paul told an assembly of religious right voters in Washington today. “There is a couple ways that can be done…

“We can wait until we have our Supreme Court justices appointed... That’s taking a long time,’’ Paul said. “My approach is a little bit more direct… accepting the principle that we can as a legislative body and the president… remove the jurisdiction of this issue from the federal courts.’’

Paul told the Values Voter Summit today that he is “very pleased with the reception we are getting from young people… We have found that a lot of people are coming to join for the message we have been delivering. The message is not complex. It is rather simple… Freedom is much better than bureaucracy and government socialism… Freedom really works.

“I talk a lot about the lesson of life and liberty… It comes from our creator,’’ he said. “The pursuit of happiness means to lead our life as we choose… We should have the incentives to work hard and take care of our family…. If you do work and you do earn something and you do have something from the fruits of your labors, they belong to you and not the government.

“We reject the entire notion of the income tax,’’ he said.

Paul, alone among the Republican candidates in opposing the war in Iraq, said: “It’s not that I’m against wars per se. I’m against unnecessary, undeclared wars… We should not get into war to enforce U.N. resolutions, like we have done too many times.’’

For that matter, Paul says, the U.S. has no place in the United Nations. Speaking out against free trade treaties such as NAFTA and CAFTA, the congressman said: “I do not believe we should be in any of those organizations, including the United Nations.’’

[DaronWestbrooke]

This should appeal to the pro-choice and anti-abortion crowds as a good compromise. You don't have to worry about Paul federally banning abortion, but if you are against it, move to a state that makes it illegal.

[mwkaufman]

This should appeal to the pro-choice and anti-abortion crowds as a good compromise. You don't have to worry about Paul federally banning abortion, but if you are against it, move to a state that makes it illegal.

No, Ron Paul is a pro-life candidate and it is very clear. This could only be sold to the pro-choice crowd if there was a federal ban on abortion now. As it stands now, abortion is safe and legal in America and this just opens the door to that option being shut down in some states. They don't want Constitutional law if it means their "freedoms" are being taken away.

[steph3n]

No, Ron Paul is a pro-life candidate and it is very clear. This could only be sold to the pro-choice crowd if there was a federal ban on abortion now. As it stands now, abortion is safe and legal in America and this just opens the door to that option being shut down in some states. They don't want Constitutional law if it means their "freedoms" are being taken away.

then their own freedom to live will be cut short.....

[DaronWestbrooke]

No, Ron Paul is a pro-life candidate and it is very clear. This could only be sold to the pro-choice crowd if there was a federal ban on abortion now. As it stands now, abortion is safe and legal in America and this just opens the door to that option being shut down in some states. They don't want Constitutional law if it means their "freedoms" are being taken away.

Yes, he is pro-life, but he is also someone that doesn't want to limit freedoms from the ivory towers of Washington. Remmeber, you have a lot of followers who aren't anti-abortion, and we need to be sure to speak to them as well and not alienate their support. I am pro-choice but I don't feel threatened by Paul as president because I know we will have the opportunity in my state, as others, to vote yes or no.

[VoteRonPaul2008]

He is only pro-life on a personal level, he will leave the choice up to the states, don't forget he is for less government intervention, he won't allow the government to impose their views on anyone..................

[Adamsa]

Not to mention he'd have practically no chance in hell of ever being Republican president if he were pro-choice.

[Pete]

then their own freedom to live will be cut short.....

They are also free to use birth control.

[tfelice]

He is only pro-life on a personal level, he will leave the choice up to the states, don't forget he is for less government intervention, he won't allow the government to impose their views on anyone..................

I think you need to reread Paul's page on abortion on his site. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/ Particuarly this quote: "As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life"

[mwkaufman]

Yes, he is pro-life, but he is also someone that doesn't want to limit freedoms from the ivory towers of Washington.

Right now, the right to abortions is being upheld by the ivory towers in Washington. Paul would seek to end this protection. Because he views as the right to live as more important. There's nothing to be gained for a pro-choice person here.

[steph3n]

They are also free to use birth control.

maybe not before Bush leaves office!

[steph3n]

Right now, the right to abortions is being upheld by the ivory towers in Washington. Paul would seek to end this protection. Because he views as the right to live as more important. There's nothing to be gained for a pro-choice person here.

sorry, but if you listen to him even today, it returns it to STATE control.

[Joey Wahoo]

Dr. Paul has introduced legislation again this year, to amend the constitution to provide that life begins at conception. That would solve the issue once and for all.


Of course, unless the Constitution is amended, he recognizes that the federal government has no authority in this area. Roe should be overturned, and to prevent such abuses again, Dr. Paul has introduced legislation that would strip federal courts of any authority to review state laws on abortion.

There is absolutely no stronger pro-life candidate. After all he has delivered over 4,000 babies!

[mwkaufman]

sorry, but if you listen to him even today, it returns it to STATE control.

And undoubtedly, some states would choose to end most abortions, and the pro-choice people take a hit. As it is now, states can not prevent abortions.

There is no way to sell Ron Paul as favorable to pro-choice interests. He is not Rudy or Mitt Romney. He is very principled, and against abortion.

[specsaregood]

There's nothing to be gained for a pro-choice person here.

There is also this argument: What you allow the Federal Courts to mandate, can go against you. How many more "conservative" judges will it take to overturn roe vs. wade?

The state level argument can be supported by pro-choice people as well. Controlling it at the state-level work for everybody.

[mwkaufman]

The state level argument can be supported by pro-choice people as well. Controlling it at the state-level work for everybody.

But as it stands, pro-choice people have won. Were it the other way around and the Supreme Court ruled abortions were a violation of the baby's rights, they could make the same argument to return it to the states. Do you think the pro-life crowd would be okay with that? Pro-choice are not going to support reopening the question to the republic while the federal government rules in their favor.

[apropos]

There's nothing to be gained for a pro-choice person here.

That's true...government intervention is the only obstacle. But there is the choice not to have sex, of course. Can't have that.

[CMoore]

The idea that Congress can take an issue away from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a novel one for which I can find no basis in the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish lower courts in Article III Section 1, but this is something entirely different and I really don't think Congress can do it. Generally one branch of Government can't dictate what the other branches can do. The president can veto legislation, the supreme court can rule on the constitutionality of a law, etc. But I don't think Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that they can't consider laws pertaining to one particular issue.

I may be overlooking something here or I may be misunderstanding. Now a constitutional amendment would work, but these are very hard to enact.

[mwkaufman]

The idea that Congress can take an issue away from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is a novel one for which I can find no basis in the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish lower courts in Article III Section 1, but this is something entirely different and I really don't think Congress can do it. Generally one branch of Government can't dictate what the other branches can do. The president can veto legislation, the supreme court can rule on the constitutionality of a law, etc. But I don't think Congress has the authority to tell the Supreme Court that they can't consider laws pertaining to one particular issue.

I may be overlooking something here or I may be misunderstanding. Now a constitutional amendment would work, but these are very hard to enact.

The power of judicial review derives not from the Constitution, which contains no explicit reference to this authority, but from a series of cases dating back to the late 1700s. (http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ex...alReview.shtml)

[Thrice]

When did Paul say he'd let legality of abortion be determined at a state level? On one of the videos for Google candidates that I watched, I recall him saying that he'd treat it like any other "crime", and leave the punishment up to the states.

[CMoore]

Actually judicial review comes from Marbury v. Madison. The supreme court sort of just gave itself the power of judicial review. That being said, I still don't understand how Congress can alter or amend the jurisdiction of the supreme court. I guess they can pass some law or something, and the president can sign it, but how are they going to make it binding on the court?

[Corydoras]

There is no way to sell Ron Paul as favorable to pro-choice interests.

Of course there is. If you return it to the states, the right to abortion in liberal states is no longer going to be at the mercy of a single Supreme Court justice being appointed and tipping the court against all abortions. [sorry, I hadn't read specsaregood's response, which is basically the same, before I wrote this.]

[austin356]

Actually judicial review comes from Marbury v. Madison. The supreme court sort of just gave itself the power of judicial review. That being said, I still don't understand how Congress can alter or amend the jurisdiction of the supreme court. I guess they can pass some law or something, and the president can sign it, but how are they going to make it binding on the court?

The Constitution grants "Natural jurisdiction" to the SC for certain things that cannot be removed from its jurisdiction.

But outside of its original jurisdiction the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate the courts in the manner Dr. Paul is proposing.


It does appear Unconstitutional at first glance but we must remember who is proposing it; The Champion of the Constitution.


Congress has the authority to keep state statues from being challenged in FEDERAL Court.



Study this Article: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...rticleiii.html

[CMoore]

There is a lot to like about Ron Paul even if you are pro-choice. The president has very little control regarding this issue. He can appoint supreme court justices, but that is a power quite removed from being able to actually influence a particular issue in some substantive manner. The things I like about him are the things the president CAN do. The president can bring the troops home, for example. The president can rescind prior executive orders.

[TheIndependent]

There is no way to sell Ron Paul as favorable to pro-choice interests.

Yes, there is. Pro-choicers should be confronted with the fact that under centralized government, one judicially-stacked decision or a constitutional amendment can virtually seal off legal abortion for all 300,000,000 citizens at once.

The case for states' rights in this situation is that some would rather take that power away (like Dr. Paul); the irony is that in this situation, it would be virtually impossible to ban abortion in a majority of states due to the red/blue divide, but those people in red and blue states alike can decide what's best based on their citizens' desires, and the citizens have more influence when it's 5M:1 rather than 300M:1.

The question to pose: "Would you like your life decided by a select few impersonal bureaucrats with a hunger for power that would like to stack the judiciary, or would you like to have actual influence over the laws of your state? Would you rather have 25 or 30 of 50 states keep abortion legal even if a power-hungry non-constitutionalist took power, or would you rather take your chances and hope he didn't work tooth and nail to find a ways to decide for everyone?"

And, all you have to do in order to see this in action is look at Federal drug prohibition. States *want* to decide their own fate (see: medical marijuana and decriminalization), but can't because of the looming fear of the Federal government cracking down on them because Federal law supercedes the states'. Now, imagine that states' rights were restored and the Feds were prevented from interfering... Sure, Cali and other states have passed laws, but that doesn't mean for a second that the Feds haven't taken action before.

As for my own view on the subject, I remain neutral.

[austin356]

There is a lot to like about Ron Paul even if you are pro-choice. The president has very little control regarding this issue. He can appoint supreme court justices, but that is a power quite removed from being able to actually influence a particular issue in some substantive manner. The things I like about him are the things the president CAN do. The president can bring the troops home, for example. The president can rescind prior executive orders.

Carolynn you are a legal person you probably have a better grasp on "removing jurisdiction of a federal court" than I do..... Was I correct in the previous post?

[TheIndependent]

I should add, that line of reasoning I posted has been effective in making liberals think twice about promoting Federal involvement in such matters and consider states' rights again. The only real opposition I get is from the people who can't look past the 'slavery' issue they tie to any mention of states' rights.

[CMoore]

Carolynn you are a legal person you probably have a better grasp on "removing jurisdiction of a federal court" than I do..... Was I correct in the previous post?

Yes, you are correct that Dr. Paul is the Champion of the Constitution.

I have read and reread Article III and I just don't see how Congress has the authority to keep state statutes from being challenged in Federal Court. Nor do I know of any instance where they have even tried.

Congress exercises their control over the Judiciary when they confirm the justices.
Otherwise, they can't tell them what they can and can't do. If the Court interprets a law in a manner that Congress feels is a misinterpretation of their intent, they can come back and pass further legislation to clear up the intent, and the Supreme Court can request in an opinion that Congress pass some legislation directed at some issue. They do this kind of stuff all the time, but for Congress to say to the Supreme Court, "you can't consider cases involving XXXXXX" is not something I have ever heard of.