Human Life Constitutional Amendment.

What Ron Paul is advocating is federalism. What you are advocating is called centralism.

If you don't think that passing a law is easier than passing a constitutional amendment then I suggest that you read a good book on the political process in these United States.

Also, repealing Roe v. Wade would automatically throw the issue back to the states.

 

Federalsim is used in a variety of ways politcally. And I have never advocated centralsim.

I never even alluded to such.

It should be repealed as it has no legal standing. But human life should be protected in every state as well.

I

 

fed·er·al·ism Pronunciation: \ˈfe-d(ə-)rə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1787 1 aoften capitalized : the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units — compare centralism b: support or advocacy of this principle2capitalized : Federalist principles

- www.m-w.com/dictionary/federalism

cen·tral·ism Pronunciation: \ˈsen-trə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1831 : the concentration of power and control in the central authority of an organization (as a political or educational system) — compare federalism

- www.m-w.com/dictionary/centralism

 

You just proved my point on centralism and this doesnt speak to the use of federalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

 

Actually, it does.

Frankly, I have to seriously question our reading comprehension and ability to think logically.

 

Good for you.:thumbs:

I can take that and add 1.25 to and get a cup of coffee from the 7/11

 

I don't deny that the life amendment is Reaganesque. I don't deny that it's a good idea. I'm just wondering if a strict constitutionalist wouldn't already have the basis to be pro-life. Hence my criticism of Ron Paul's less than pro-life record. I know that the Dec of Indy has "the right to life, liberty....." which is indeed pro-life. I'm just asking if a strict reading of the constitution wouldn't find the base principle of pro-life. Maybe this should be discussed seperately.

 

It just might be but we would have to have a presidence set at the Supreme court level to establsih that at this point.

 

That is not true. The Congress has the authority to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on this matter.

 

Oh you mean HR 300. Which, along with all his other bills, never even make it out of committee.

 

Ron Paul, and his handlers know full well that to confront Phyllis in this matter would be political suicide. She is widely followed and revered in the Christian community.

They wouldn't dare.

 

(Bolding mine.) That Giuliani differs with conservatives is precisely my point. Thanks for restating it. So, why does Rudy get the benefit of the doubt that he will do the exact opposite of what he believes? Where was Lady Eagle during your "Rudy for President" thread?

 

Elaborate, please.

 

1) I agree.

2) I agree.

 

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.

- Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. constitution