Just a thought..

[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?)

Zimzum Reviewed by Zimzum on 02-02-2008. Just a thought.. As Edwards has pulled out, (although we all know that it's not always 100% effective,) and after Rudy has gone out. It is freaking funny as hell to see Ron Paul sitting at that debate after he lost in Florida to Rudy by something like 500%, and Rudy lost by even more of course! However Rudy says, "ok that's bad I am done," and there's Ron. Just sittin there. WTF? I am correct right? Rudy got about 500% more votes than Ron and dropped out, while Ron Paul says, "I am going to be on t.v. Rating: 5