"We don't believe abortion should be legal in Maine and illegal in Iowa."
I'd rather have abortion illegal in just one state than legal in all fifty.
A constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion will be dead on arrival and everyone from Planned Parenthood to the Pope knows it. Hence, any presidential candidate who pledges to end abortion by proposing a "personhood amendment" is pledging to do nothing.
On the other hand, Dr. Paul's approach has a non-zero chance of abolishing abortion in some states by removing the issue from federal jurisdiction. I wonder why the supposedly pro-life Republican party never tried that approach during the 2003-2007 period of GOP control?
"A constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion will be dead on arrival and everyone from Planned Parenthood to the Pope knows it. Hence, any presidential candidate who pledges to end abortion by proposing a "personhood amendment" is pledging to do nothing."
True, but as I've mentioned before, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Congress could simply pass a national ban on abortion (assuming it had the votes). You don't need a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion nation-wide. You only need a Constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling.
Of course, the Supreme Court doesn't really have that authority in the first place, but that's a separate argument.
For those who wish to have their view of Ron Paul informed by the writings of Ron Paul...
From _Liberty Defined_:
***
"Strangely, given that my moral views are akin to theirs, various national pro-life groups have been hostile to my position on this issue. But I also believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion. Legislation of this sort would probably allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.
"The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic. Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent. Ending nationally legalized abortions by federal court order is neither a practical answer to the problem nor a constitutionally sound argument."
***
It would be Paul's view of the Constitution, not his libertarian views, that has led him to his state-level responsibility position on the abortion issue.
Further, if anyone thinks Paul doesn't view the abortion issue as a moral one, they have neither read nor understood Paul.
So, according to Ron Paul, murder is not a national issue. If some states pass a law authorizing involuntary organ-harvesting, the Federal gov't has no right to interfere.
1. The title of your blog post is incorrect on Paul as my quotation from _Liberty Defined_ shows. Want to point that out before moving on.
2. You say, "So, according to Ron Paul, murder is not a national issue. If some states pass a law authorizing involuntary organ-harvesting, the Federal gov't has no right to interfere."
As Ron Paul says, "Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent."
What are the Fed's rights, Steve? Guess that would bring us back to the issue of the Constitution which is the angle from which Ron Paul argues. It's quite odd that he's faulted for doing so and then accused of being morally hamstrung by his libertarian views.
3. You say, "And why think the Supreme Court would defer to that law? What if the Supreme Court struck down that law? What is Ron Paul's backup plan, if any?"
Yeah, you're right. It's too messy. Let's just ignore the Constitution.
"Yeah, you're right. It's too messy. Let's just ignore the Constitution."
One reason I have so little regard for Ron Paul and his devoted supporters is the bumper-sticker level of reasoning. You don't have real solutions: you have pat little slogans.
You were the one who quoted Ron Paul's solution: take abortion out of the hands of the Federal courts.
So what if the Supreme Court strikes down that law as Unconstitutional? As long as the Supreme Court is deemed to be the final arbiter of what's Constitutional or not, Ron Paul's private opinion of what's Constitution or not is moot.
Steve says, "One reason I have so little regard for Ron Paul and his devoted supporters is the bumper-sticker level of reasoning. You don't have real solutions: you have pat little slogans."
Says the guy with a bumper-sticker level title to a blog entry on Ron Paul that demonstrates zero understanding of Ron Paul's position.
You keep illustrating your childishness. To begin with, it wasn't "my title." It was the title of the piece I linked to. Secondly, of course a title doesn't say everything. It's what follows. Do you really operate at such a preschool level that you have to have the most obvious, elementary things explained to you?
You need to break away from your cultic groupthink mentality.
If, by your own admission, the Constitution doesn't prohibit Congress from banning murder, then your Constitutional objection collapses. Try to stop spouting Ron Paul talking-points long enough to actually think through an issue.
So my last two comments showed my unfamiliarity with this a bit.
Steve, wouldn't a Sanctity of Life Act passed after Roe is repealed effectively be passing a "national ban on abortion"? How would that function differently?
"Tell me, Master, before I analyze the ramifications of what someone says, should I read them first?"
There are various ways of learning a candidate's position. For instance, you can go to his campaign website, where he tells you.
Or you can listen to (or read transcripts) of public debates.
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul supporters aren't entitled to form a provisional opinion of Newt Gingrich unless they read all of his books and articles?
"Steve, wouldn't a Sanctity of Life Act passed after Roe is repealed effectively be passing a "national ban on abortion"? How would that function differently?"
Not according to the text of the bill, which reads: "The Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."
That simply leaves it to the discretion of individual states. It means the Federal judiciary can't prevent a given state from banning abortion, which is completely different from actually banning abortion (at a state level, much less a national level).
"If, by your own admission, the Constitution doesn't prohibit Congress from banning murder, then your Constitutional objection collapses."
The reservation clause reserves to the states and the people all the powers not enumerated. The power to ban murder (throughout the states) is not enumerated. That is (in a nutshell) the objection.
"Are you suggesting that Ron Paul supporters aren't entitled to form a provisional opinion of Newt Gingrich unless they read all of his books and articles?"
The blog entries on Triablogue re: Ron Paul are best described as "provisional" opinions? Thanks for clarifying.
"Relevant question because, of course, we're discussing Gingrich's political positions."
So you'd rather be evasive. Fine.
I'm drawing a comparison. If you insinuate that a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Ron Paul's candidacy unless he reads his books, then, by parity of argument, a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Newt Gingrich's candidacy unless he reads his books.
Ron Paul supporters are quite critical of Gingrich. Is that because they've read all his books, articles, speeches, interviews, &c.?
You're the one avoiding my question. Don't project your proclivity for evasiveness onto me.
"I'm drawing a comparison. If you insinuate that a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Ron Paul's candidacy unless he reads his books, then, by parity of argument, a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Newt Gingrich's candidacy unless he reads his books."
I'm not insinuating. I've made an explicit statement about the article you linked to. Specifically, it faults Paul for his libertarian ideology when, in fact, it's his constitutionalism that has led him to his stance on how the abortion issue should be handled politically.
"Ron Paul supporters are quite critical of Gingrich. Is that because they've read all his books, articles, speeches, interviews, &c.?"
Have I demonstrated any criticism of Gingrich in this exchange? If not, how is this anything other than evasiveness on your part?
"Not according to the text of the bill, which reads: "The Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."
That simply leaves it to the discretion of individual states. It means the Federal judiciary can't prevent a given state from banning abortion, which is completely different from actually banning abortion (at a state level, much less a national level)."
I see, thanks for the clarification. This is definitely, for me, one of the very few (in my opinion) issues in which federalism doesn't make the most sense. Generally the concern is that national approaches are a double-edged sword- the power we might use for good could also equally be used for evil against us.
But I appreciate you bringing up this- definitely a point where I disagree with Ron Paul.
On a side note, you've done a lot of analysis of the candidates individually, but as it is we are left with a narrow set of options where obviously no candidate fully reflects our views. Do you have plans to compare and contrast the candidates on the issues overall (I know that's a big undertaking, but I was just curious)?
"We don't believe abortion should be legal in Maine and illegal in Iowa."
ReplyDeleteI'd rather have abortion illegal in just one state than legal in all fifty.
A constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion will be dead on arrival and everyone from Planned Parenthood to the Pope knows it. Hence, any presidential candidate who pledges to end abortion by proposing a "personhood amendment" is pledging to do nothing.
On the other hand, Dr. Paul's approach has a non-zero chance of abolishing abortion in some states by removing the issue from federal jurisdiction. I wonder why the supposedly pro-life Republican party never tried that approach during the 2003-2007 period of GOP control?
UNCLE DICK SAID:
ReplyDelete"A constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion will be dead on arrival and everyone from Planned Parenthood to the Pope knows it. Hence, any presidential candidate who pledges to end abortion by proposing a "personhood amendment" is pledging to do nothing."
True, but as I've mentioned before, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, Congress could simply pass a national ban on abortion (assuming it had the votes). You don't need a Constitutional amendment to ban abortion nation-wide. You only need a Constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court ruling.
Of course, the Supreme Court doesn't really have that authority in the first place, but that's a separate argument.
For those who wish to have their view of Ron Paul informed by the writings of Ron Paul...
ReplyDeleteFrom _Liberty Defined_:
***
"Strangely, given that my moral views are akin to theirs, various national pro-life groups have been hostile to my position on this issue. But I also believe in the Constitution, and therefore, I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being. I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all fifty states. Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion. Legislation of this sort would probably allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters. It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that.
"The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution. Instead of admitting that my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic. Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent. Ending nationally legalized abortions
by federal court order is neither a practical
answer to the problem nor a constitutionally sound
argument."
***
It would be Paul's view of the Constitution, not his libertarian views, that has led him to his state-level responsibility position on the abortion issue.
Further, if anyone thinks Paul doesn't view the abortion issue as a moral one, they have neither read nor understood Paul.
So, according to Ron Paul, murder is not a national issue. If some states pass a law authorizing involuntary organ-harvesting, the Federal gov't has no right to interfere.
ReplyDeleteBARNZILLA SAID:
ReplyDelete"[Ron Paul] Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion."
And why think the Supreme Court would defer to that law? What if the Supreme Court struck down that law? What is Ron Paul's backup plan, if any?
Steve:
ReplyDelete1. The title of your blog post is incorrect on Paul as my quotation from _Liberty Defined_ shows. Want to point that out before moving on.
2. You say, "So, according to Ron Paul, murder is not a national issue. If some states pass a law authorizing involuntary organ-harvesting, the Federal gov't has no right to interfere."
As Ron Paul says, "Demanding a national and only a national solution, as some do, gives credence to the very process that made abortions so prevalent."
What are the Fed's rights, Steve? Guess that would bring us back to the issue of the Constitution which is the angle from which Ron Paul argues. It's quite odd that he's faulted for doing so and then accused of being morally hamstrung by his libertarian views.
3. You say, "And why think the Supreme Court would defer to that law? What if the Supreme Court struck down that law? What is Ron Paul's backup plan, if any?"
Yeah, you're right. It's too messy. Let's just ignore the Constitution.
Where does the Constitution say Congress can't pass a law banning murder?
ReplyDeleteBarnzilla said...
ReplyDelete"Yeah, you're right. It's too messy. Let's just ignore the Constitution."
One reason I have so little regard for Ron Paul and his devoted supporters is the bumper-sticker level of reasoning. You don't have real solutions: you have pat little slogans.
You were the one who quoted Ron Paul's solution: take abortion out of the hands of the Federal courts.
So what if the Supreme Court strikes down that law as Unconstitutional? As long as the Supreme Court is deemed to be the final arbiter of what's Constitutional or not, Ron Paul's private opinion of what's Constitution or not is moot.
Nowhere.
ReplyDeleteSteve says, "One reason I have so little regard for Ron Paul and his devoted supporters is the bumper-sticker level of reasoning. You don't have real solutions: you have pat little slogans."
ReplyDeleteSays the guy with a bumper-sticker level title to a blog entry on Ron Paul that demonstrates zero understanding of Ron Paul's position.
Physician, heal thyself.
You keep illustrating your childishness. To begin with, it wasn't "my title." It was the title of the piece I linked to. Secondly, of course a title doesn't say everything. It's what follows. Do you really operate at such a preschool level that you have to have the most obvious, elementary things explained to you?
ReplyDeleteYou need to break away from your cultic groupthink mentality.
If, by your own admission, the Constitution doesn't prohibit Congress from banning murder, then your Constitutional objection collapses. Try to stop spouting Ron Paul talking-points long enough to actually think through an issue.
ReplyDeleteWhat books authored by Ron Paul have you read?
ReplyDelete"If, by your own admission, the Constitution doesn't prohibit Congress from banning murder, then your Constitutional objection collapses."
ReplyDeleteNon sequitur.
Read something by Ron Paul, or even the portion of _Liberty Defined_ that I quoted earlier.
What books by Constitutional scholars have you read?
ReplyDeleteBarnzilla said...
ReplyDelete"Read something by Ron Paul, or even the portion of _Liberty Defined_ that I quoted earlier."
Which I already responded to. Try to master the difference between quoting someone and analyzing the ramifications of what they say.
"What books by Constitutional scholars have you read?"
ReplyDeleteSo you've never read a book by Ron Paul, correct?
"Which I already responded to. Try to master the difference between quoting someone and analyzing the ramifications of what they say."
ReplyDeleteTell me, Master, before I analyze the ramifications of what someone says, should I read them first?
So my last two comments showed my unfamiliarity with this a bit.
ReplyDeleteSteve, wouldn't a Sanctity of Life Act passed after Roe is repealed effectively be passing a "national ban on abortion"? How would that function differently?
BARNZILLA SAID:
ReplyDelete"So you've never read a book by Ron Paul, correct?"
So you've never read a book by Newt Gingrich, correct?
Barnzilla said...
ReplyDelete"Tell me, Master, before I analyze the ramifications of what someone says, should I read them first?"
There are various ways of learning a candidate's position. For instance, you can go to his campaign website, where he tells you.
Or you can listen to (or read transcripts) of public debates.
Are you suggesting that Ron Paul supporters aren't entitled to form a provisional opinion of Newt Gingrich unless they read all of his books and articles?
MATT KLEINHANS SAID:
ReplyDelete"Steve, wouldn't a Sanctity of Life Act passed after Roe is repealed effectively be passing a "national ban on abortion"? How would that function differently?"
Not according to the text of the bill, which reads: "The Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."
That simply leaves it to the discretion of individual states. It means the Federal judiciary can't prevent a given state from banning abortion, which is completely different from actually banning abortion (at a state level, much less a national level).
"If, by your own admission, the Constitution doesn't prohibit Congress from banning murder, then your Constitutional objection collapses."
ReplyDeleteThe reservation clause reserves to the states and the people all the powers not enumerated. The power to ban murder (throughout the states) is not enumerated. That is (in a nutshell) the objection.
"So you've never read a book by Newt Gingrich, correct?"
ReplyDeleteRelevant question because, of course, we're discussing Gingrich's political positions.
"Are you suggesting that Ron Paul supporters aren't entitled to form a provisional opinion of Newt Gingrich unless they read all of his books and articles?"
ReplyDeleteThe blog entries on Triablogue re: Ron Paul are best described as "provisional" opinions? Thanks for clarifying.
BARNZILLA SAID:
ReplyDelete"Relevant question because, of course, we're discussing Gingrich's political positions."
So you'd rather be evasive. Fine.
I'm drawing a comparison. If you insinuate that a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Ron Paul's candidacy unless he reads his books, then, by parity of argument, a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Newt Gingrich's candidacy unless he reads his books.
Ron Paul supporters are quite critical of Gingrich. Is that because they've read all his books, articles, speeches, interviews, &c.?
"So you'd rather be evasive. Fine."
ReplyDeleteYou're the one avoiding my question. Don't project your proclivity for evasiveness onto me.
"I'm drawing a comparison. If you insinuate that a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Ron Paul's candidacy unless he reads his books, then, by parity of argument, a voter isn't qualified to evaluate Newt Gingrich's candidacy unless he reads his books."
I'm not insinuating. I've made an explicit statement about the article you linked to. Specifically, it faults Paul for his libertarian ideology when, in fact, it's his constitutionalism that has led him to his stance on how the abortion issue should be handled politically.
"Ron Paul supporters are quite critical of Gingrich. Is that because they've read all his books, articles, speeches, interviews, &c.?"
Have I demonstrated any criticism of Gingrich in this exchange? If not, how is this anything other than evasiveness on your part?
BARNZILLA SAID:
ReplyDelete"Have I demonstrated any criticism of Gingrich in this exchange? If not, how is this anything other than evasiveness on your part?"
You're being duplicitous. Ron Paul supporters oppose Gingrich. If you can't bring yourself to argue in good faith, refrain from further comments.
Barnzilla said...
ReplyDelete"You're the one avoiding my question."
Because you commit the fallacy of question-framing.
Steve said:
ReplyDelete"Not according to the text of the bill, which reads: "The Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State."
That simply leaves it to the discretion of individual states. It means the Federal judiciary can't prevent a given state from banning abortion, which is completely different from actually banning abortion (at a state level, much less a national level)."
I see, thanks for the clarification. This is definitely, for me, one of the very few (in my opinion) issues in which federalism doesn't make the most sense. Generally the concern is that national approaches are a double-edged sword- the power we might use for good could also equally be used for evil against us.
But I appreciate you bringing up this- definitely a point where I disagree with Ron Paul.
On a side note, you've done a lot of analysis of the candidates individually, but as it is we are left with a narrow set of options where obviously no candidate fully reflects our views. Do you have plans to compare and contrast the candidates on the issues overall (I know that's a big undertaking, but I was just curious)?