Article tools:

 Print    Send

Share:

In this section:

Obama's Stimulus Package Is Working: Keynesian Economics is Alive

Marciano Guerrero

03/11/2009

The Rape of Europe - "No Means No!"

David Ben-Ariel

15/09/2009

Israel, the Jews, and American Foreign Policy

Robert Bonomo

06/09/2009

Time for a gold rouble?

John Laughland

26/09/2008

The Creation of the Second Great Depression

Ron Paul

26/09/2008

Palin Completes Zionist Ticket

Michael Piper

17/09/2008

Ron Paul is a hot topic these days for daily internet users. He calls himself a “constitutionalist” – in other words – his political policies adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution. Foremost in these policies is that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion.

Using this as a backdrop, Ron Paul asserts that he’s a pro life presidential candidate. From this perspective, it’s important to understand what a Ron Paul presidency might mean to Roe v. Wade. Reading The Partial Birth Abortion Ban (Reference One) – strong language about Roe v. Wade offers insight:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Although the real problem lies within the hearts and minds of the people,the legal problems of protecting life stem from the ill-advised Roe v. Wade ruling, a ruling that constitutionally should never have occurred.”

Ron Paul is basically saying that Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional – that Roe v. Wade is not legal, and should have never happened. Additional insight into Ron Paul’s views of Roe v. Wade and abortion can be seen in Federalizing Social Policy (Reference Two):

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, but not because the Supreme Court presumed to legalize abortion rather than ban it. Roe was wrongly decided because abortion simply is not a constitutional issue. There is not a word in the text of that document, nor in any of its amendments, that conceivably addresses abortion. There is no serious argument based on the text of the Constitution itself that a federal "right to abortion" exists. The federalization of abortion law is based not on constitutional principles, but rather on a social and political construct created out of thin air by the Roe court.”

Here, Ron Paul again asserts that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided because it’s not a “constitutional issue”. This leads us to an important question – who does have jurisdiction over abortion? Who should decide if abortion is wrong or right? Who determines if pro life, or pro choice voters are supported? Additional examination of the same document reveals more insight:

Ron Paul Speaking:

“Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Therefore the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue. So while Roe v. Wade is invalid, a federal law banning abortion across all 50 states would be equally invalid.”

With little doubt, Ron Paul is asserting that the 50 states would individually determine the issue of abortion. Thus, one would assume that Ron Paul would not take a solid pro life (anti-abortion) stance – nor would he take a pro choice (pro abortion) stance either.

What does this mean for Roe v. Wade under a Ron Paul presidency? United States Presidents have only indirect power of such issues which are reflected in the United States Supreme Court Justices he appoints. In a Ron Paul presidency, it could be assumed he would appoint “constitutionalists” such as himself – building further support for overturning Roe v. Wade within the High Court.

E Lawrence Welch

References:

Reference One
The Partial Birth Abortion Ban,
By Ron Paul,
Link - The Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Reference Two
Federalizing Social Policy,
By Ron Paul,
Link - Federalizing Social Policy

Other Views on Ron Paul:

• "Ron Paul - Personal Beliefs vs Political Beliefs", David Heiert, 09/14/2007
• "Ron Paul - 3 Political Positions Voters Must Understand", Edward Welch, 09.12.2007
• "Ron Paul - A Gun Rights Voter's Dream Come True?", Edward Welch, 09.12.2007
• "Debate Analysis- We're in Trouble", Otto King, 09.12.2007
• "Making the Maverick Mainstream - The Saga of Ron Paul", Nathan Tabor, 09.11.2007
• "Who Cares About Our Interventionist Foreign Policy?", Eshwarya Patel, 09.11.2007
• "Reality Check - What A Ron Paul Presidency Might Look Like", David Heiert, 09.08.2007
• "Asterisk Free Libertarianism (The Solution Ron Paul Missed)", J. J. Jackson, 08.27.2007
• "Ron Paul Needs Million Man March", Andrew Leski, 08.21.2007
• "Critical Mass of Power and Money", Mark D. Solomon, 08.16.2007
• "2008 Presidential Election", Roger Bovee, 08.16.2007
• "Is Congressman Ron Paul Really A Champion For The Constitution?", Joel S. Hirschhorn, 08.13.2007
• "The Constitution For Dummies (i.e. Ron Paul Supporters)", J. J. Jackson, 08.13.2007
• "Ron Paul For President", Roger Bovee, 08.13.2007
• "Why Ron Paul Should Be The Next President Of The United States", Roger Bovee, 07.26.2007
• "Ron Paul Fundraising - Military Personnel Want Us Out of Iraq", Eshwarya Patel, 07.24.2007
• "Large Number of Undecideds May Support Ron Paul", Eshwarya Patel, 07.24.2007
• "Ron Paul's Support Moving to the Streets", Eshwarya Patel, 07.10.2007
• "Where Is Candidate Rudy Paul or Ron Giuliani", J. J. Jackson, 05/21/2007
• "Paul Odyssey Update", Otto King, 07.04.2007

Ron Paul Related News:

• "NY Times Bestseller contradicts Dick Cheney’s claims", 08.08.2007
• "Less Well-Known Contenders Struggle in US Presidential Race", Jim Malone, 07.27.2007
• "US Dollar Seen as Weak, Declining Further", Barry Wood, 07.18.2007
• "Republicans Search for Frontrunner in 2008 US Presidential Race", Jim Malone, 07.18.2007

Ron Paul External Links:

• Ron Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign Website
• U.S. House of Representatives Office of Ron Paul
• Local Meetup Groups
• YouTube channel
• MySpace
• Facebook
• Eventful