Quote Originally Posted by epxroot
I would like to see how you found the evidence that most of his supporters don't understand how the Government works! I don't think your research has lead you in the right direction. I know that all of the people I work with and canvas with understand completely how the Government works. We also understand that he does not have the power to just start making new laws, but having a man with his understanding on individual human rights and of economics he has a good idea where to start.
It's things like this that make people think his supporters don't know how government works:

Quote Originally Posted by Zimzum
No, he wants to give states back their rights to make laws without much federal interference. If Ron got elected and overturned Roe vs. Wade this would give citizens the right to vote on this matter and I highly doubt a ban would pass in any state. "Roe" just recently endorsed Ron Paul. No where in Article III of the constitution does it say that a supreme court ruling is law of the land.
Zimzum, as a practical matter, how exactly would he overturn Roe vs. Wade and give states the right to make their own decisions on abortion? It's a Supreme Court ruling. He is the President. He can't just declare a Supreme Court ruling overturned. What kinds of real actions could he take to accomplish what you are talking about? Is there any legistlation he could propose? Are there any executive branch actions he could take? I can't think of any. States already have the right to make all the laws they want about abortion, and then the Supreme Court rules them to be unconstitutional and strikes them down. Ron Paul cannot give the states the right to make laws that the Supreme Court deems to be unconstitutional. As far as I can tell, the only action Ron Paul, or anyone else, could take as president would be to appoint Supreme Court justices who shared his views.

As for whether states would make laws restricting abortion if they were allowed to by the Supreme Court: of course some of them would! I can't believe that you think they would not. What do you think all this fighting has been about for all these years?

And about whether the constitution says that a supreme court ruling is law of the land: among other things, the constitution gives the supreme court the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws and strike them down if unconstitutional. It doesn not give the court the right to make new laws, if that is what you mean. But there is no higher authority on the law, so a Supreme Court ruling is the "law of the land" in the sense that there is no other recourse for appeal.

Personally, I support a woman's right to choose, so I would not support Ron Paul based on his anti-abortion positions anyway. But I don't really see how he would have any practical way to accomplish what he wants to do anyway --- to give states a right the Supreme Court says they do not have.