Excerpt from News with Views:
The only presidential candidate who has a commitment to saving the lives of unborn babies and who understands the constitutional authority of Congress to end abortion-on-demand is Texas Congressman Ron Paul (with the exception of Alan Keyes, who recently announced his candidacy). You read it right. At this point, John McCain is all talk; Mitt Romney is all talk; Fred Thompson is all talk. And even Mike Huckabee is all talk. …
When it comes to ending abortion-on-demand and overturning Roe v. Wade, the only thing Mike Huckabee (and the rest of the Republican presidential candidates, save Ron Paul and Alan Keyes) will say is that they will appoint the right judges, as if they have no power as President to do anything else. (Good grief! Even Rudy Giuliani says as much.) …
Ron Paul seems to be the only presidential candidate who understands that under Article. III. Section. 2., the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.
Accordingly, Ron Paul has introduced and reintroduced the Sanctity of Life Act (including in the current Congress). If passed, this Bill would recognize the personhood of all unborn babies by declaring that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” The Bill also recognizes the authority of each State to protect the lives of unborn children. In addition, this Bill would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court, thereby nullifying the Roe v. Wade decision. The Bill would also deny funding for abortion providers. In plain language, the Bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end abortion-on-demand.
Is it not more than interesting that “pro-life” President George W. Bush, along with the “pro-life” Republican Party leadership of both houses of Congress, refused–and continues to refuse–to support Ron Paul’s Sanctity of Life Act? In addition, not a single “pro-life” presidential candidate outside of Ron Paul has even bothered to mention the Sanctity of Life Act, much less aggressively call for its implementation with a promise that, if elected President, he would sign it into law. Not Huckabee; not McCain; not Thompson; not Romney; none of them! …
Every four years, Republicans trot out a conservative façade during an election season for the purpose of obtaining the votes of susceptible Christians. And every four years, conservative Christians–like starving catfish–take the bait: hook, line, and sinker.
“Save us from the monster,” seems to be the cry of well-meaning–but easily manipulated–conservatives. The “monster” is whoever the Democrats nominate, of course. But, ladies and gentlemen, the Republican Party has done absolutely nothing to change the course of the country. Nothing! In fact, it has only gotten worse with Republicans in charge.
Ron Paul is the only candidate running against the status quo. He is the only candidate who takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. He is the only candidate who, if elected, would actually turn the country around. A Ron Paul victory would launch a new American revolution: a revolution of freedom and independence such as we have not seen since 1776. Furthermore, among the major Republican presidential contenders, Ron Paul is the only candidate whose pro-life commitment extends beyond rhetoric.
Jay
“the Constitution gives to the Congress of the United States the power to hold rogue courts in check and to overturn outlandish rulings such as Roe v. Wade.”
I hate to burst your bubble, but the Judicial Branch is the only Branch vested with the power to hear and resolve CASES and controversies in law or equity. The impeachment power of Congress in no way can overturn a Supreme Court precedent. If Paul was a lawyer, he’d know that. But he’s a medical doctor and doesn’t quite understand all that first-year Constitutional law stuff. At this point, only constitutional amendments or the Supreme Court reversing itself will change Roe v. Wade and related cases. So the other candidates are right to focus their energies on prospective judicial nominations.
tobefree
Here is Ron Paul’s statement at the Values Voter Presidential Debate from http://www.valuesvoterdebate.com/downloads/transcript.pdf
“If elected, what will you do to make our laws consistent with our science and
restore legal protection and full rights of personhood to every American
waiting to be born?
[…]
[Ron] Paul: as an OB doctor for 30 years and having delivered 4000 babies, I canassure you life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn, no matter what I do, so there is a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there is an injury or killing there is legal entity. There is no doubt about it. I am surprised that I don’t have more co-sponsors for the “Sanctity of Life Act” that I have we have which would solve all these problems and would have eliminated a lot of abortions by now if we’d have passed it, and we wouldn’t need any Amendment. It removes the jurisdiction from the Federal Courts. That the states were allowed to pass this immediately it would go into effect. Instead of waiting years and years and years for an Amendment this would happen immediately by a majority vote in the Congress and a President’s signature. There is much easier ways to accomplish this by following what our Constitution directs us to do instead of looking for massive new laws. Let’s just use what we have and pass this legislation.”
Here is a history of and links to both bills: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act
Jay
While I agree that it is important to promote a society that values human life both born and unborn, I am at a loss to understand how Paul’s proposal would work. The Supreme Court (SCt) retains original jurisdiction in all matters where a state is a party. That cannot be changed, except by constitutional amendment I suppose. So shifting this issue to the states is problematic there.
Furthermore, Article III is subject to interpretation of all later amendments including the 14th Amendment. Of course, the SCt currently recognizes a due process right of privacy which includes abortion. So, without further research on the matter, I cannot comprehend how this bill would remove jurisdiction over a what is currently a fundamental right. That would be akin to Paul saying that free exercise of religion could be removed from the federal courts’ jurisdiction. No, I don’t think so… Paul is an interesting fellow. He’s sincere. But again, (and I’m not an expert) I’m not sure he comprehends some of the complexities of U.S. Constitutional Law.