Ron Paul's position on overturning Roe v Wade is correct when viewed in Constitutional terms. But, it is not necessarily a state issue. It could be an individual issue. Roe v Wade was decided based on the 4th amendment right to be secure in one's person against unreasonable search and siezure. They looked at it as a right to privacy. This seems to be incorrect when you look at the langauge of the 4th amendment. They were very liberal in their interpretation. The interpretation made it a federal issue.
I think the 9th or 10th amendments are more valid in favor of this not being a federal issue. The 9th states that rights of the people not be denied or disparaged. The 10th states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the states shall be retained by the people. I think the 10th fits best. If a state allows abortion, anyone in that state may have one. If a state wants to deny it, all they have to do is write a law that says abortion is murder and thus it would be illegal and a woman may use self-defense as an argument to have one if her life is in jeopardy. In any case, the federal government should not be involved because it is either outlawed by a state or it is effectively legal.
Like it or not, Ron Paul is right. And I wouldn't worry about this wedge issue anyway, because G W Bush with a GOP Congress/Senate and stacked Supreme Court couldn't get it changed, there's no way Ron Paul or anyone else would. Let's move on to the issues of Big Brother where is is by far the best candidate on either side because he wants to take nothing from anyone, but instead restore the rights of the people that both parties have usurped for 100 years.
Ron Paul's position on overturning Roe v Wade is correct when viewed in Constitutional terms. But, it is not necessarily a state issue. It could be an individual issue. Roe v Wade was decided based on the 4th amendment right to be secure in one's person against unreasonable search and siezure. They looked at it as a right to privacy. This seems to be incorrect when you look at the langauge of the 4th amendment. They were very liberal in their interpretation. The interpretation made it a federal issue.
I think the 9th or 10th amendments are more valid in favor of this not being a federal issue. The 9th states that rights of the people not be denied or disparaged. The 10th states that powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the states shall be retained by the people. I think the 10th fits best. If a state allows abortion, anyone in that state may have one. If a state wants to deny it, all they have to do is write a law that says abortion is murder and thus it would be illegal and a woman may use self-defense as an argument to have one if her life is in jeopardy. In any case, the federal government should not be involved because it is either outlawed by a state or it is effectively legal.
Like it or not, Ron Paul is right. And I wouldn't worry about this wedge issue anyway, because G W Bush with a GOP Congress/Senate and stacked Supreme Court couldn't get it changed, there's no way Ron Paul or anyone else would. Let's move on to the issues of Big Brother where is is by far the best candidate on either side because he wants to take nothing from anyone, but instead restore the rights of the people that both parties have usurped for 100 years.