H.R. 2597: Sanctity of Life Act of 2007

Discussion in 'Politics' started by 2 Timothy2:1-4, Dec 13, 2007.

  1. 2 Timothy2:1-4

    2 Timothy2:1-4
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2006
    Messages:
    2,879
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-2597



    Ronnie sponsored this Sanctity of Life bill. Is it normal to set such limitations on the courts:

    `Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
    • `Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof--
    `Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction

    • `Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.'.
     
  2. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Interesting bill. Maybe an attempt to try to shore up his weak pro-life voting record.
     
  3. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    When the Congress has the courage. From Article III, section 2 of the U.S. constitution:

    "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."
     
  4. Bro. James Reed

    Bro. James Reed
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,992
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr. Paul first introduced the bill in 2005, a full two years prior to running for President.
     
  5. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    And his weak pro-life record has been hanging around his neck even longer. It's not possible he was considering running for president then? The date of this introduction was last summer, btw.
     
  6. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    To say that Ron Paul has a weak pro-life record is an extreme statement with no basis in reality. Sure I agree that his record is not perfect, but whose is in reality, not according to some interest group?
     
    #6 KenH, Dec 15, 2007
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2007
  7. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    The only presidential candidate who has a commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies and who understands the constitutional authority of Congress to end abortion-on-demand is Texas Congressman Ron Paul (with the exception of Alan Keyes, who recently announced his candidacy).

    Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.

    If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that "human life shall be deemed to exist from conception." The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.

    Is it not more than interesting that "pro-life" President George W. Bush, along with the "pro-life" Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused--and continues to refuse--to support Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single "pro-life" presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law. Not Huckabee; not McCain; not Thompson; not Romney; none of them!

    Source: http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071130.html
     
  8. TomVols

    TomVols
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,170
    Likes Received:
    0
    Congressman Paul's record speaks for itself. I know it troubles you as well as me. I will not, however, castigate Paul for his strengths. This record is not one of them, though.
     

Share This Page

Loading...