The Only Pro-life Candidate

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4409625829240846974"]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4409625829240846974[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

here is the interview that compelled me to go for huckabee...

[url="http://www.charlierose.com/guests/mike-huckabee"]http://www.charlierose.com/guests/mike-huckabee[/url]

me, the hard core conservative basher. (actually some would say that only means he's liberal, but that's not true. i'm conservative too as a general rule)

[dairygirl4u2c]

i'm against ron paul as he's too extreme. only his interpretation of the constitution to mean no federal power. really the constuttuion stuff is a cop out.
he should justify his view with policy arguments.

states are notoriously bad at doing their own thing. the fed has to ensure a minimum exists. rivers caught fire before fed laws cause states felt they had to compete to keep businesses at expense of environ laws. busineses move if they are forced to pay minimum wage. or if they can get lower taxes. now, some competition is actually good, but you have to draw the right blanace. no federal powr is not the right balance as paul suggests.

the problem is that many conservatives think the states have to fail before the feds intervene, if they'd allow intervention at all. that is just unwise altogether. if the feds ensure a minimum for major things then states wouldn't be burdened by the laws unless they're not doing as they should. no child left behind is a good law at least in the attempt, yet ron paul cops out and says it unconstitutional.
you don't need them to fail before having minimum.
like i said with minimum wage, if state use it, that means it's doing its job, if they don't and pay more then it doens't matter. min wage is just an example, let's not get tied on the nuances of the min wage argument.

it takes smart policy, not cop out state or charity arguments. capitalism run amok has jacked the price of basic health for catostophic stuff and basic eductaion. so like require at least that you ahve screenings for basic health like high blood pressure as those are what wreck havoc on the system. it doesn't have to be a doctor for most stuff. huckabee talks about this stuff. regulate education so investors doin't go to the states where it costs so much. with ron paul, everyone would be paying the full 50000 for a four year public degree. with reasonable politicians, that'd be regulated or subsidized witha federal standard.
huckabee doesn't want to intervene he says on things like education. but he'd bully the states, he says, to ensure a minimum.

half of people are prochoice early on. 20 percent are prochoice later in the pregnancy. it's ridiculous to think you have a chance changing at least the early stuff.
paul in the 20 regard might be better, but huckabee is pretty firm himself.

the public has opinons, and care about these other issue i was talking about. vote for somehting that has a chance of changing. with things like social security and all the issues i talked about, huckabee would deliver. ron paul would not try to work on conservative spending, as he's all about no spending feds. he might a little but it's just not ron paul's expertise. mike huckabee's been doing that for a long time.

Edited December 5, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[The Joey-O]

[url="http://www.nysunpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/thompsons-1994-issue-positions.html"]Here's Fred Thompson's stance on Abortion (it's a bit dated, so he may have changed his mind since then).[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5a_Fpu_8KE"]And a video.[/url]

Edited December 5, 2007 by The Joey-O

[zabbazooey]

He has a 100% pro life voting record

[Aloysius]

to me, 100% pro-life voting record doesn't cut it anymore, such people are the status quo defenders, they want the pro-life issue to continue to be political fodder for the GOP without taking any radical initiatives against abortion. They need to be doing something about it, they need to pledge willingness to use the bully pulpit to get congress to act. We need acts like the Sanctity of Life act. We need a Constitutional amendment (I never said the water at the top of the mountain spring wasn't healthier, just that that's not the first thing you give someone dying of thirst).

sadly, I do have high doubts that Ron Paul will get the nomination; I will not support Huckabee as a VP candidate to any other GOP candidate, but if he were the main guy I might, though I do not think he could defeat the democrat candidate the way Ron Paul could. the great thing is that because of the LBJ law, Paul can simultaneously run for both his seat in congress and president, even if he gets the nomination he'll definitely remain in the house (no one can defeat him in that district, they absolutely love him there)... and he'll probably remain quite a nationally known figure and potentially get another shot at saving the constitution.

a Ron Paul nomination would do many things: first, you have a bunch of republicans that would vote for him to keep the boogey-woman out of the white house (you know who I'm talking about); heck, also I think a lot of them would get in touch with Ron Paul's reaganesque policies and be reminded that they, too, want to cut government spending. Then you'd have all the anti-war democrats, anti-war independents, and previously apathetic voter bases fired up to vote for him. I think you'd see most of the red states remain red, then you'd see Pennsylvania fall red (pro-life and anti-war? are you kidding me? pennsylvania democrats would love him as a candidate), which alone would be enough to swing the margin of victory... but I think you could even see something ridiculous, maybe even a state like NY or California falling red. don't think it could happen? there are a lot of democrats unsatisfied with the war stances of the democratic candidates, mark my words.

dairy, I think you've gotten a little mixed up on Ron Paul's positions, and you're pretty much judging Ron Paul by my opinions (ie when I explain the principal of subsidarity, while Ron might agree, he's also more knowledgeable about the dynamic process that'd be necessary to start bringing things into more conformity with that)... I get overly excited that he actually has some principals and go off talking about the ideal of what he'd do, he's really quite practical in his actual policies and plans, though. Abolishing the Department of Education was actually something Ronald Reagan talked about, for instance; it's not some extremist thing, it was mainstream in the Reagan days.

[rkwright]

I think some earlier posts were missing the point. The abortion battle is ultimately in the courts. The only way to side-step the courts would be to pass a constitutional amendment, which seems highly unlikely. However by passing legislation banning abortion, it would go to the courts where it would be battled out again.

Courts do not always follow prior decisions, that is key here! With the right judges in place something like this can be overturned. Thats the only way it will happen. The posts that say any legislation aimed at banning abortion is dead on arrival are misguided. The courts do overturn cases, especially after lengthy periods (ie 30 years!)

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='zabbazooey' post='1430305' date='Dec 5 2007, 07:19 PM']He has a 100% pro life voting record[/quote]

He's really only had 3 chances to vote on abortion related issues. He's lobbeyed for Planned-Parent Hood and is OK with abortions in the first trimester. Here's his record according to [url="http://www.ontheissues.org/Fred_Thompson.htm"]OnTheIssues.org[/url]

[walk_on_water]

Not to open another can of worms, but Huckabee also has an interesting economic policy. I like that he is socially conservative, yet on economic issues more liberal than the other candidates. I feel that he can better address the needs of the poor in our society because of his economic policy.

Although abortion takes precedence, I think this is also an important factor.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1429947' date='Dec 5 2007, 03:29 AM']there is no veto of Supreme Court decisions that I know of... I believe that a Supreme Court decision may merely be overturned by implementing contrary legislation, as the Sanctity of Life Act intends to do in congress.[/quote]
Not at all. The Supreme Court are the final arbiters of what's constitutional, i.e. they have the power of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States"]Judicial Review[/url]. In this situation, rightly or wrongly, the Court determined that a right to privacy permitting abortions is guaranteed by the Constitution. Hence, neither an executive order or a law passed by Congress and signed by the president could "overturn" Roe v. Wade as a constitutional matter. The only point of that as a strategy would be to deliberately set up the need for a constitutional review, as in South Dakota, in which the law would be challenged as unconstitutional, and which would then have to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. And given that both Roberts and Alito gave undertakings during their respective confirmation hearings to be cognizant of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis"][i]stare decisis[/i][/url], i.e. legal precedent, I'm not sure that overturning Roe via that means would be a "slam dunk."

Edited December 6, 2007 by kenrockthefirst

[Aloysius]

[img]http://files.meetup.com/516631/ron-paul-constitution-dees.jpg[/img]

Artical III, Section 2: Congress has the power to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over any issue (and it has been done before, it is possible, it was done in the 1860s). This is what the Sanctity of Life Act would do, it would strip Federal Courts of jurisdiction on the issue of abortion, so that nobody could appeal to the Federal Courts on the issue of abortion, and every state in the union would have full jurisdiction over it; the Federal Court would no longer be able to hear appeals against any state law against abortion.

[XIX]

Ron Paul is talking about doing it, I wonder if he'll actually do it. Moreover, I wonder if he's still going to be singing the same tune during the general election, should he make it that far.

LOL, I'm strongly leaning towards voting for the guy that has the best shot at beating Rudy.

[Aloysius]

Ron Paul already introduced the act in the House, it's HR 776, The Sanctity of Life Act. He's not just talking about doing it, he's doing it. The problem is that the rest of congress isn't following his lead.

As president, he could use the power of the bully pulpit to force it on Congress's agenda.

I wouldn't count on him flip flopping on anything; he has the most consistent voting record probably that this country's congress has ever known.

Ron Paul's growth is seriously impressive; and his position at this point in the primaries is the same position as John Kerry in the democratic primaries at this point during the last election. Don't count him out yet. He's setting ALL TIME RECORDS for single day fundraising. There is something there, it's not all smoke and mirrors. A lot of people are saying he is going to surprise us, and not just his supporters.

But anyway, you might as well wave the white flag in surrunder of any pretense of democracy we have left when you start voting for a "most likely candidate" at this point in the election. Can you not see the absolute destructive power of that thought process to the idea of your vote actually counting? when you do that, it is not your vote which is effecting something, it is the polls put out by the media which is affecting it. You simply become an agent of the media; you are casting a vote that the media has given you to cast. I suggest breaking out of that cycle of only voting for "likely candidates"... especially not in primaries for God's sake, vote for GOOD candidates. the more we find ourselves forced to vote against someone instead of for someone, the more our vote simply doesn't matter.

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430679' date='Dec 7 2007, 04:37 AM'][img]http://files.meetup.com/516631/ron-paul-constitution-dees.jpg[/img]

Artical III, Section 2: Congress has the power to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over any issue (and it has been done before, it is possible, it was done in the 1860s). This is what the Sanctity of Life Act would do, it would strip Federal Courts of jurisdiction on the issue of abortion, so that nobody could appeal to the Federal Courts on the issue of abortion, and every state in the union would have full jurisdiction over it; the Federal Court would no longer be able to hear appeals against any state law against abortion.[/quote]

That is a funny picture - I saved it!

Has Congress stripped the federal courts of power anytime since the 1860s? (I have a vague recollection of stripping the federal courts of power over citizens suing states recently, but I could be wrong). I suspect that the whole issue of Congress's striiping the courts of abortion authority could itself become a court case in itself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1430679' date='Dec 7 2007, 05:37 AM'][img]http://files.meetup.com/516631/ron-paul-constitution-dees.jpg[/img]

Artical III, Section 2: Congress has the power to strip the Federal Courts of jurisdiction over any issue (and it has been done before, it is possible, it was done in the 1860s). This is what the Sanctity of Life Act would do, it would strip Federal Courts of jurisdiction on the issue of abortion, so that nobody could appeal to the Federal Courts on the issue of abortion, and every state in the union would have full jurisdiction over it; the Federal Court would no longer be able to hear appeals against any state law against abortion.[/quote]


can you provide the actual text that says that? Aritcle III section 2 that I read does not say that.

In fact, most lawyers say the USSC has last say on matters of constitutional interpretaion. That's what marbury was all about that I mentioned above.

Now, USSC oftentimes defers to the Congress on matters of discretion, if it's not clearly one way or the other constitutionally. The matter is whether they say it's clear or not, and who should have the power, a separation of powers argument of principle. So in these matters they could strip the court. In clear matters though, they theoretically cannot. (they could act rogue but that's not the case yet that I know of)

[quote]Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, 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.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.[/quote]

In reality, privacy etc is not in the constitution to justify abortion. So, the court could give it to the state and congress. But, since it's spoken, what's blue is green. This matter is different than theretically speaking of judicial review. If it's clearly unconstitutional, they could go against the court.
I've never heard of them going againt the court even if it's truly not a constitiotnal interpretaion and they're saying blue is green and saying it is a matter of const inter.

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

Granted, the constitution does not allow judicial review even of the constitution when a statute is made, but it's been implied in marbury. and this link...

[quote]No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea. Alexander Hamilton wrote,

“ The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[1][/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

also just to clarify, in legal circules "congress" simply means congress acting pursuant to statute, not to const amendment. if it's to const amend, then the court must in theory comply.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ron pauls constituional stuff like i said i often a cop out. it's his interpretation of it usually.

the right to bear arms shouldn't be impied to say assualt rifles and murder weopons should be allowed as ron paul espouses. for one, they wouldn't have thought about murder weopons, and even if it was around then, would they be expected to say arms only for hunting and self defense and king of england and your own etc etc. is ron paul putting the burden on congress to make an encyclopedia of the constitution? be reasonable. yet a clueless conservative would say "yeehuck, it says ther that guns b allowed" (ron paul also says allowing murder weopons wouldn't change anything because they're already freely accessible. but, this is rationalization, because it surely does prevent wide spead use of them, even if not completely preventing)

his interpretations on commerce clause are more decent but still not necessarily his views. if it's not clearly within commerce then perhaps it shouldn't be regualted. but, it's not unreasonable to think something substantially affecting commerce can be regulated. (commerce clause is often the basis of federal law for many questionable things like enviro regs and very controversial. look it up on wiki if you're interested) i'd argue if it's substantial, then it should be allowed. you have ot draw a line somewhere, and it's somewhat subjective, but that's reality, and that's life.

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

ron paul also thinks you should have trial by jury to make the law as they go; he doesn't believe in instructing the jury. at least that's what wikipedia says about him. it might have misinterpreated him to mean state and localities should decide or something. i don't know but that's what wiki says so, it must be true. guiilty until proven innocent would mean much less, only if the jury decides to embrace the sentiment.

he also says school should be paid for by credits. poor children who parents don't pay taxes would be penalized. he says it's unfair to give vouchers to the poor kids and credits to the others as the others have to pay taxes and get no vouchers.

ron paul is extreme and sometimes unreasonable.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul#Right_toeep_and_bear_arms"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_pos...p_and_bear_arms[/url]

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

also just fyi.
also, the 14th amendment leads to substantive due process, and incorporation. the UCCS categorically says what they think should be applied against the states. the first and rest of the bill of rights they said only applies to the federal govenrment. "congress shall make no law... etc etc" so, the 14, they said, can apply to the states, as a matter of what they think is funadmental rights, not necessarily what's in the bill of rights. so, right ot bear arms might not apply to the states. the upcoming case on the matter should be informative, if they rule on incorporation and gun rights.

most of the bill has been applied, but not all, and some of been prevented from applying to the states. like, i think right... i forget but here's more info.
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)#Origins"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation...Rights)#Origins[/url]

i have a test on this stuff coming up, but wikipedia has all the info, it's amazing.

Edited December 7, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c