Just a thought..

[Zimzum]

Overturn Roe v. Wade?! Is this man absolutely loony? I read that on his website, too. Paul preaches near absolute freedom in the markets, in taxes, in medicine, and his supporters claim that he will bring "freedom to America"

and yet, he wants to take away a basic right of choice for all human women!

And yoki is right, I don't think POTUS can overturn a Supreme Court decision very easily...thank the Constitution he claims to defend.

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.

The federal government takes away too many rights of the states, weather its forcing states to allow and pay for abortions or denying states the right to medical marijuana that have passed a vote. If you want to be told how to live then vote for the plastic candidate. If you want choice in how you live then vote Ron Paul.

[Psycho4Bud]

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.

The federal government takes away too many rights of the states, weather its forcing states to allow and pay for abortions or denying states the right to medical marijuana that have passed a vote. If you want to be told how to live then vote for the plastic candidate. If you want choice in how you live then vote Ron Paul.

* Embryonic stem cell programs not constitutionally authorized. (May 2007)
* Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
* Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
* Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
* Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save motherâ??s life. (Oct 2003)
* Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
* Voted YES on funding for health providers who donâ??t provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
* Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
* Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
* Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
* Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
* No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)
* Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Ron Paul on Life, Abortion and Stem Cells

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8[/YOUTUBE]

His position on this is VERY clear.

As for Roe...........

AP) The former plaintiff known as "Jane Roe" in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion sought to have the case overturned in a motion filed Tuesday that asks the courts to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women.

Norma McCorvey, who joined the anti-abortion fight nearly 10 years ago and says she regrets her role in Roe v. Wade, said the Supreme Court's decision is no longer valid because scientific and anecdotal evidence that has come to light in the last 30 years has shown the negative effects of abortion.

"We're getting our babies back," a jubilant McCorvey said at a news conference while flanked by about 60 women, some who sobbed and held signs that read "I regret my abortion."
'Roe' Wants Abortion Case Reversed, Plaintiff In Landmark Case Now An Anti-Abortion Advocate - CBS News

Seems she changed her mind.......no wonder she supports Ron Pauls position.

Have a good one!:s4:

[epxroot]

Right on Yok, most of his supporters don't understand how our government works, probably because they are still finishing their 8th Grade social studies! And it is hysterical that all of the sudden what, 9/11 conspiracy people are where?

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.
We have a serious spending problem and I have not seen anyone except for Ron Paul really try an address this issue. Back in the 1930's 12% of the National income was consumed by our Government and 88% still belonged to the private sector. Now let's fast forward to 2007 where now we have the Government consuming 44% of our National income and leave the private sector with only 56%. This is a huge problem and needs to be dealt with TODAY! The more we shrink the private sector the weaker our economy becomes. About every economist in the world will tell you that family income, saving, living standard AND freedom growth depend on the capacity of the private sector.

[dragonrider]

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:

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.

[epxroot]

It's things like this that make people think his supporters don't know how government works:

Interesting...:wtf:

[Zimzum]

His position on this is VERY clear.

Again, Ron is a strict consitutionalist and all those votes you listed, if you look into them, you will see that his stance is in line with the constitution.

Full artical here. Its about stem cell research but it also applies to his abortion stance and why he sees that a federal ban or mandate is bad.

Our founding fathers devised a system of governance that limited federal activity very narrowly. In doing so, they intended to keep issues such as embryonic stem cell research entirely out of Washingtonâ??s hands. They believed issues such as this should be tackled by free people acting freely in their churches and medical associations, and in the marketplace that would determine effective means of research. When government policies on this issue were to be developed, our founders would have left them primarily to state legislators to decide in accord with community standards.

Their approach was also the only one consistent with a concern for the rights and freedom of all individuals, and for limiting negative impacts upon taxpayers. When Washington subsidizes something, it does so at the direct expense of the taxpayer. Likewise, when Washington bans something, it generally requires a federal agency and a team of federal agents â?? often heavily-armed federal agents â?? to enforce the ban. These agencies become the means by which the citizenry is harassed by government intrusions. Yet it is the mere existence of these agencies, and the attendant costs associated with operating them, that leads directly to the abuse of the taxpayersâ?? pocketbooks.

If Congress attempts to override the Presidentâ??s veto, I will support the President. As a physician, I am well aware that certain stem cells have significant medical potential and do not raise the moral dilemmas presented by embryonic stem cell research. My objection is focused on the issue of federal funding. Unfortunately, in the Washington environment of â??either subsidize it, or else ban it,â?� it is unlikely there will be much focus given to the issue of federal funding. Instead, virulent charges will fly regarding who is willing to sacrifice the lives and health of others to make a political point.

Only when Washington comes to understand that our founders expressly intended for our federal government to be limited in scope, will policy questions such as this be rightly understood. But that understanding will not come until the people demand their elected officials act in accordance with these principles.

It's things like this that make people think his supporters don't know how government works:



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.

Yes appointing a supreme court judge would probably be his best bet. However he could introduce legislation into congress that would at least end any federal funding to support it. And as president he could try and educate people as to why the government should not be in control of ones personal life. Through regulations the government controls us via taxes, laws, and enforcement. I'm pro choice but theres many pro lifers out there and they too should be able to live and fight for what they believe in as well.

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?

Some will try, I agree. But if people would be less apathetic towords politics and pay attention to it like they pay attention to "American Idol" and "Dancing with the Stars", laws banning abortion (or anything) would face better public scrutiny. States that do ban abortion would lose out on allot of tax revenue as people would move to states that better suit the ideals they support. Then in turn that said state may change its mind to keep people from flocking to its neighbor. ( who here on Cannabis .com wouldn't move to a state that fully legalized marijuana in place of a state that would issue the death penalty for it?)

[angry nomad]

So, you guys who are so against Ron Paul, who are you going to vote for anyway?

[dragonrider]

So, you guys who are so against Ron Paul, who are you going to vote for anyway?

There is a thread on this: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/...ion-today.html

As we speak, "They're all shit" is beating Obama 6 to 5. McCain has 1 vote. Your buddy Ron Paul is not on that ballot, but I see you cast a "write in" vote for him. McLeodGanja has cast a "write in" for Hilda Ogden, but since he is Scottish and she is English, I think we might be haivng a bit of voter fraud here.

[angry nomad]

There is a thread on this: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/...ion-today.html

As we speak, "They're all shit" is beating Obama 6 to 5. McCain has 1 vote. Your buddy Ron Paul is not on that ballot, but I see you cast a "write in" vote for him. McLeodGanja has cast a "write in" for Hilda Ogden, but since he is Scottish and she is English, I think we might be haivng a bit of voter fraud here.

Maybe a lot of "they're all shit" votes are for Ron Paul just like how some of the phone polls "other" gets a lot of votes because Ron Paul is not an option in their phone polls.

[8182KSKUSH]

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..

I stand corrected, obviously you said something there that I haven't taken into consideration. I made an assumption. Here it is, I did not realize until you just pointed it out, that all of his supporters are just the people that canvas for him as you said you know "all the people you work with", and I assuming you are talking about "canvasing" and other Wrong Rupaul related campaign activities that you do. And you claim they have a firm understanding of how government works and "really" know what Wrong wants to do and how he'll do it. It makes sense though that all his supporters ARE JUST the people that canvas for him. But that's not right either because you also have to account for ALL of his supporters that are between the ages of 13 and 17 too! Right?:wtf: