Friday, January 12, 2007

Finally, Someone I Can Vote For

Ron Paul is considering running for the presidency. At last an anti-war, pro-life candidate who doesn't shill for corporate interests.

"Dr. No" voted against the authorization of force in Iraq and believes that the US should withdrawal from the United Nations. He opposed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), arguing correctly that it would increase the size of government and diminish American sovereignty, and has supported border security and opposed illegal immigration. He voted against allowing gay couples in Washington, DC to adopt but opposed re-writing the Constitution by voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment. Unlike "pro-life" GOPers who merely want an issue to gin up the Christian Right, Paul introduced legislation to prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and states that the court's precedent in these areas would no longer be binding. Heck, he even supports the gold-standard.

Do you think the Religious Right will support this agenda? Unfortunately, the question is merely rhetorical.


Blogger Lawrence said...

I voted for Paul in '88 when he ran and will be going to the primaries to do so again.

12:06 AM  
Blogger Joe said...

I vowed many years ago that I would never support in any way whatsoever, any candidate who does not pledge and act to defend and promote the inviolable right to life of innocent human beings, from the moment of fertilization to natural death -- without exception.

As I understand Dr. Paul's position he is a very strict "states rights" person- that is, he doesn't believe that the Constitution addresses the matter or that the federal government has the power to do so absent a Constitutional Amendment. So he is for overturning Roe v. Wade and barring the federal judiciary from asserting any Constitutional right to abortion under any constitutional theory. I suppose his take on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments are, that the original intent was not to include unborn persons in the meaning of the word "person." Thus, under his view, the Constitution as it now stands would neither provide for a right to abortion, nor would it stand as a bar to state laws legalizing abortion.

Most of this analysis may be gleaned from his lack of endorsement of the RTLA 2005 and his offering a substitute that would only go so far as to repudiate the theory of a constitutional right to abortion. His position seems very different than Michael Peroutka's, the candidate whom I voted for President in 2004. Peroutka promised that, if elected, he would have ended all "legal" abortion in America on his first day in office. However, I will be paying very close attention to Dr. Paul's statements on baby murder during the campaign and will extend an open invitation for him to meet with the members of our state party to answer questions about baby murder and other important issues.

2:37 PM  
Blogger Lawrence said...


Peroutka got my vote this last time too, but really he could not, given our present form of government, have ended abortion his first day in office.

Roe v Wade was irrelevant once the Partial Birth Abortion bill passed. The bill declared illegal just one of several types of partial birth abortion which in effect made the others legal by act of Congress. If Roe v Wade is overturned then this will be a really easy argument to win in court as similar ones have already shown.

In Texas the state and its minions have sovereign immunity. They got it not through a law passed to give them sovereignty over the lives and property of the citizens of Texas, but because they argued that a particular law from the 1960's which forbade immunity in one particular and narrow area meant that the state already legal possessed sovereignty over its citizens in all other areas.

Put this to work in the abortion scenario and you have a situation where Congress has already in a round about way made all abortion except one method of partial birth abortion absolutely legal. Ironically, where Roe v Wade did not make abortion the "law of the land" as its supporters stated, the congressmen and senators who voted for the Partial Birth bill and the President who signed it did, regardless of their intentions. What the Court now does with Roe v Wade as awful as that decision was, will not alter one iota whether abortion is legal or not. The Partial Birth abortion ban does it regardless.

I thank you for pointing out that Paul may be shaky on abortion I will have to look into this and adjust accordingly.

10:31 PM  
Blogger Joe said...


You are welcome. I am under no illusion I am under no illusion that he actually could have ended all baby murder in America, any more than civil government can end all murder, rape, theft etc. What he was talking about is ending the illusion that baby murder is lawful in America on his first day in office. Baby murders would still occur surreptitiously, but instances would be investigated and prosecuted. I am not yet convinced Dr. Paul would do likewise, but I encourage you to contact The American View and encourage Michael to interview Ron Paul:

4:49 PM  
Blogger izzy said...

D.D., Here's the link to Dr. Paul's
exploratory committe site,
incase folks want to contribute or volunteer to his campaign:

11:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently Paul is quite the pro-lifer according to this article from Chuck Baldwin:

Good to know.

9:38 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home