[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by PastorKevin

Who cares what others have said. I want you to establish THAT position first. That is the foundation your whole view of the American Civil War stands on. That the North was unjustified, right? The South was innocent, Lincoln was Satan.......

The North acted against the Constitution in doing what they did. Unless of course your making the absurd claim against all history that the Constitution doesn't allow for succession. And if you are making this absurd claim, please point in the direction where the Constitution says this in the original document.

[PKevman]

Originally Posted by Ktoyou

Well this thread is about abortion and Ron Paul; I say I am against abortion and that Ron Paul is not perfect, that is not my augment.

I do think the North pushed us into war by high taffies for their own internal improvements.

As my mother has said, had we known that the north would not honor a state’s right to succeed, we should have fought along side the British, they would have treated us far better than the Yankees, tax wise and otherwise!

And I have no desire to turn this into a debate about the Civil War either. Unfortunately many false views of current law and government rest on false views of what happened during the war between the states.

[PKevman]

Originally Posted by drbrumley

The North acted against the Constitution in doing what they did. Unless of course your making the absurd claim against all history that the Constitution doesn't allow for succession. And if you are making this absurd claim, please point in the direction where the Constitution says this in the original document.

I have a family member who wrote some very definitive books on the subject, where most of what he wrote was compiling letters and information from that time period. The real history tells a completely different story.

[drbrumley]

I am thinking to do this justice, we need a new thread.

[PKevman]

Originally Posted by drbrumley

I am thinking to do this justice, we need a new thread.

I agree. I'd be willing and interested to engage you on the subject. As long as we stayed on target. Maybe a one on one would be decent too...

[drbrumley]

Originally Posted by PastorKevin

I agree. I'd be willing and interested to engage you on the subject. As long as we stayed on target. Maybe a one on one would be decent too...

I am game for that. Yankee!

[Vine&FigTree]

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul, an OB/GYN who has delivered over 4,000 babies, issued the following statement in support of state efforts to pass "Right to Life" amendments:

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

"Under our Constitution, the states have the duty to protect citizens against murder, and protecting the unborn from having their right to life violated is no exception.

"I find it unconscionable that the Supreme Court overrules states when they pass pro-life legislation. As president, I will fight to end this judicial tyranny.

"Many talk about being pro-life. In Congress, I am the lead sponsor of HR 2597 the ‘Sanctity of Life Act’ and a similar bill, HR 300 the ‘We the People Act.’ Both bills would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation that protects life. My bills could pass by a simple majority vote and allow states such as Michigan and South Carolina to end abortion immediately.

"I challenge every candidate who claims to be pro life to support these bills to get the Supreme Court out of the life issue so states can quickly and constitutionally protect the unborn."

www.RonPaul2008.com

Bob Enyart says:

Ron Paul claims to believe in the God-given right to life, that human life begins at conception. And right here on the air, I'm calling Ron Paul a liar. Ron Paul is pro-choice.

as well as "hypocrite," "lawless" "moral relativist," "humanist," who "throws off all Biblical morality."

[Vine&FigTree]

I have posted some resources on the 14th Amendment here. In summary:

1. The 14th Amendment was not legally ratified
2. It was never intended to be used the way the Supreme Court has used it ("Government by judiciary")
3. It applied only to blacks, to give them such rights as entering into contracts, testifying in court, etc.
4. It was never intended to repeal the 10th Amendment or the doctrine of "enumerated powers."
5. It was never intended to apply the First Amendment (e.g., "establishment of religion") or other issues (even abortion) to the states, as has been done by the Supreme Court.
6. It expressly gives power of enforcement to Congress (sec. 5), not to the President, and not to the Supreme Court
7. The Framers of the Constitution, and even many who supported the 14th Amendment, would be appalled at the idea of taking authority from the states and giving more power to the federal government.

I will accuse those on this thread who attack Ron Paul of misunderstanding the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, but I will not accuse them of being "liars," "hypocrites," "lawless" "moral relativists," or "humanists" who "throw off all Biblical morality."

[Delmar]

Doc, Vine&Fig
Let's say I buy the premise that Amendment 14 is not valid. Congress, Every US President in recent years, and SCOTUS accept it as valid! Where do we go from here?

[Vine&FigTree]

Originally Posted by Delmar

Doc, Vine&Fig
Let's say I buy the premise that Amendment 14 is not valid. Congress, Every US President in recent years, and SCOTUS accept it as valid! Where do we go from here?

Pass Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" which would IMMEDIATELY overrule Roe v. Wade, freeing states to stop abortion. No longer will the federal government have the power to strike down anti-abortion laws in the states. Simple.

Why would any Christian oppose this? I don't know, but many on this thread do.

[PKevman]

Originally Posted by Vine&FigTree

Pass Ron Paul's "Sanctity of Life Act" which would IMMEDIATELY overrule Roe v. Wade, freeing states to stop abortion. No longer will the federal government have the power to strike down anti-abortion laws in the states. Simple.

Why would any Christian oppose this? I don't know, but many on this thread do.

Overruling Roe v. Wade at this point would be like trying to stop the first rock after an avalanche has already begun. Surely you understand this logic. There are so many laws on the books now that Roe v. Wade would only be the tip of the iceberg. What needs to happen instead is ONE law striking down all others:

Murder will not be permitted or excused in any state, province, territory, or stretch of land that wants to call itself part of the United States of America. Join the real fight!

[PKevman]

Originally Posted by PastorKevin

Murder will not be permitted or excused in any state, province, territory, or stretch of land that wants to call itself part of the United States of America. Join the real fight!

Ron Paul doesn't have the courage to take a stand like the one mentioned above. He views the TYPE of government that we have as more important than the RESULTS of that government. Ron Paul would defend the right of the states OVER the right of the unborn.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by PastorKevin

There are so many laws on the books now that Roe v. Wade would only be the tip of the iceberg.

Right! And each state abolishing abortion is the rest of the iceberg (or avalanche).

Of the presidential candidates that have the most chance of winning the general election, I think that Ron Paul would be the best for eradicating baby killing.

[PKevman]

Originally Posted by Newman

Of the presidential candidates that have the most chance of winning the general election, I think that Ron Paul would be the best for eradicating baby killing.

I'm sorry Newman but I just don't see it.

[kmoney]

Originally Posted by Newman

Of the presidential candidates that have the most chance of winning the general election, I think that Ron Paul would be the best for eradicating baby killing.

Not completely eradicating baby killing, because there's no chance that all 50 states would outlaw abortion. But it would potentially lessen the baby killing because I think it'd be easier to get the abortion issue back to the states where at least some of them would outlaw abortion than passing an amendment getting rid of Roe v. Wade.