Santorum on State's Rights

[teamnelson]

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/santorum-“states-do-not-have-right-do%C2%A0wrong”

I’m a very strong supporter of the 10th amendment . . . but the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.
Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, states do not have the right to do wrong. And so there are folks, here who said states can do this and I won’t get involved in that.
I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don’t have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together. America is an ideal. It’s not just a constitution, it is an ideal. It’s a set of morals and principles that were established in that declaration, and states don’t have the right, just like they didn’t have the right to do slavery.

For reference, the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Doublebass73]

Wow, yet another "genuine conservative" who only follows the Constitution when it suits their agenda.

[BUGEYE]

but on the other hand, the constitution is meant for ALL people and RP will turn his back on an entire generation (people like jerry brown will decide whether babies live or die) of yet to be born Americans.

[Doublebass73]

but on the other hand, the constitution is meant for ALL people and RP will turn his back on an entire generation (people like jerry brown will decide whether babies live or die) of yet to be born Americans.

You're quite a conservative to advocate not following the Constitution to suit your agenda.

[BUGEYE]

what good is the constitution if we have a prez who will not try to enforce it.
the liberal states will ignore the personal freedoms which is our God given rights.
the 2nd amendment has these words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" how many city, county, state and federal laws are on the books infringing those rights? 100s? thousands?
many parts of the constitution are meant for the states to handle. but PERSONAL freedoms are not part of them.  RP would be a cop-out prez.  he might go after the Fed, but he'll leave it to people like jerry brown to interpret the 2nd amendment and decide the abortion questions.

[magooch]

It just might be that there were certain things that were not contemplated by this country's founders; queers and their ridiculous penchant to pervert everything in sight being a good example.  Even Obwana once expressed his support for the defense of real marriage.  States like the one I live in have proven that they are not responsible enough to defend the basics of civil standards of deportment and common decency. 

[teamnelson]

but on the other hand, the constitution is meant for ALL people and RP will turn his back on an entire generation (people like jerry brown will decide whether babies live or die) of yet to be born Americans.

Your problem is with the constitution then, not with RP. He just wants our country to remain constitutional, as would make sense for any conservative. The term abortion does not appear within its pages, therefore it in fact is legally under our Constitution a matter for the people and the state to determine for themselves. But that's only if you want to live under a Constitution ... I do, I took an oath to support and defend it. My profession exists under the 1st Amendment, I regularly exercise the 2nd amendment ... and so on. Without the constitution specifcially addressing those issues, we'd be in a world of hurt.
 
The fact is, the founders didn't need to look into the crystal ball to see what all issues would come along. The document wasn't written to grant rights, it was written to protect/limit/restrain government from getting too far involved in those things that belong to the people and to the states. Doesn't matter the issue, the fed should be restrained.
 
bugeye, while I agree with you on the ungodliness of abortion, what you are advocating is presently unconstitutional. However, you are free to begin a political drive to make an amendment to the constitution against abortion. Personally, I think it would be stronger to amend the constitution to identify persons protected by it as including the unborn, and then abortion is a nonstarter, and murdering an expectant mother is double homicide nationwide, not just in certain states. I'd vote for that.

[BUGEYE]

TN, it's true that abortion is not mentioned, but these words are "THE RIGHT TO LIFE".
if you want to ignore them, it's a free country.
I however, will not knowningly forfeit my soul by voting for someone who would ignore a generation of the unborn.
Santorum would fight for their rights.  doing the right thing before God trumps every other issue for me.

[teamnelson]

TN, it's true that abortion is not mentioned, but these words are "THE RIGHT TO LIFE".
if you want to ignore them, it's a free country.
I however, will not knowningly forfeit my soul by voting for someone who would ignore a generation of the unborn.
Santorum would fight for their rights.  doing the right thing before God trumps every other issue for me.

Did you not read my suggestion? Make a constitutional amendment to ensure that the unborn are specifically stated in the constitution, and their right to life will be nationally protected.
 
That is the only legal way for Santorum or anyone else to defend the unborn. Every other way is illegal. You keep evoking God, many have before, the bible is full of such examples. We need to be careful that when we do so, we are in fact in keeping with His whole counsel. I for one believe that the Godly men who drafted the Constitution were inspired to do so, and that is is sufficient to the task if we abide by it. The assumption they made was that we would always understand the unborn to be citizens, the only thing lacking in the document is such an amendment. Ron Paul is the strongest advocate of allowing the constitution to do its job, and has in fact advocated such an amendment.
 
How exactly Santorum do what he proposes? The President has no power under the Constitution to make abortion illegal. He can't use executive privilege to overturn Roe v. Wade; only SCOTUS can do that in a review. He can't use it to declare Obamacare illegal; congress has to do that. Unless he does it as outlined above, he will be ignoring the rule of law in our country. We call those tyrants. I would gladly support any of Santorum's efforts to oppose abortion ... as long as they were within the limits of the constitution. But from his statement above, he has no regard for our nation's laws, or the rule of law.
 
Do you know who the son of lawlessness is in the Bible? I cannot stand before God and say I voted for lawlessness in the name of defending the innocent. I will have to find a way to defend the innocent within the law, God demands it.

[BUGEYE]

TN, it's true that abortion is not mentioned, but these words are "THE RIGHT TO LIFE".
if you want to ignore them, it's a free country.
I however, will not knowningly forfeit my soul by voting for someone who would ignore a generation of the unborn.
Santorum would fight for their rights.  doing the right thing before God trumps every other issue for me.

Did you not read my suggestion? Make a constitutional amendment to ensure that the unborn are specifically stated in the constitution, and their right to life will be nationally protected.
 
That is the only legal way for Santorum or anyone else to defend the unborn. Every other way is illegal. You keep evoking God, many have before, the bible is full of such examples. We need to be careful that when we do so, we are in fact in keeping with His whole counsel. I for one believe that the Godly men who drafted the Constitution were inspired to do so, and that is is sufficient to the task if we abide by it. The assumption they made was that we would always understand the unborn to be citizens, the only thing lacking in the document is such an amendment. Ron Paul is the strongest advocate of allowing the constitution to do its job, and has in fact advocated such an amendment.
 
How exactly Santorum do what he proposes? The President has no power under the Constitution to make abortion illegal. He can't use executive privilege to overturn Roe v. Wade; only SCOTUS can do that in a review. He can't use it to declare Obamacare illegal; congress has to do that. Unless he does it as outlined above, he will be ignoring the rule of law in our country. We call those tyrants. I would gladly support any of Santorum's efforts to oppose abortion ... as long as they were within the limits of the constitution. But from his statement above, he has no regard for our nation's laws, or the rule of law.
 
Do you know who the son of lawlessness is in the Bible? I cannot stand before God and say I voted for lawlessness in the name of defending the innocent. I will have to find a way to defend the innocent within the law, God demands it.

one soldier by himself wins few battles, but he can sure lead the charge.
can you stand before God and say that you did everything possible to protect these most precious?
I can.   I keep my e-mail hot writing to not only my reps and senators, but others as well. of course most of the replies are form letters which are meaningless.
Jesus said, whatever you do to the least of these, you do to me.
a lawyer could argue in court that it only applies to newborns and older.  Jer. 1:5 says otherwise.
John leapt in his mothers womb when he heard the good news of Jesus coming birth.
if you sit back and willingly allow babies to be murdered, you are as guilty as the mother and the doctor who commited the murder.
Santorum would lead the charge, RP would do nothing.
as for your suggestion.  I suggest it in nearly every e-mail.  it's ignored so that tells me that if the law was passed, the courts would block it from ever getting to the states for ratification.

[teamnelson]

Any standing before God I'll be involved in will be under the imputed righteousness of Christ's blood, and not my own.
My resume in opposition to abortion is irrelevant here.
 
What is it that Santorum will do for the unborn, specifically? What is his strategy? How will he go about this? Stating that you are pro-life and are "going to do something about it" if elected is hollow.
 
I'll take someone with a plan over a promise any day of the week. PLAN OVER A PROMISE. If you follow a man with a promise and no plan, you are allowing your tickled ears to lead your heart into deception.

[BUGEYE]

Any standing before God I'll be involved in will be under the imputed righteousness of Christ's blood, and not my own.
My resume in opposition to abortion is irrelevant here.
 
What is it that Santorum will do for the unborn, specifically? What is his strategy? How will he go about this? Stating that you are pro-life and are "going to do something about it" if elected is hollow.
 
I'll take someone with a plan over a promise any day of the week. PLAN OVER A PROMISE. If you follow a man with a promise and no plan, you are allowing your tickled ears to lead your heart into deception.

first a scenario, lets say a delegation from the California RTL goes to see prez Paul, he'll say, it's none of my business, go talk to jerry brown.  same group goes to prez Santorum, sure , you folks have my ear, lets come up with a battle plan.
my wife and I became active in RTL about the time we adopted our daughter. we realized that this precious baby could easily have been aborted.  we belong to the GRTL. we participate with our money and our time.  being disabled, I sometimes want to stay home but then I think of the babies being scalded to death with saline or simply pulled apart and I take my sign and head out.
my sign was made by my daughter when she was 16.  she and a group of friends decided to have a peaceful protest, so they made the usual RTL signs. hers says "adoption, not abortion"
they picked a shady spot on the sidewalk in front of the methodist church. and after about 30 minutes of drivers honking and giving thumbs up, a woman came out of the church office and ran them off?  so anyone can say I'm so-and-so religion and I don't believe in abortion.
so why don't we outlaw abortion?..... it's because people will throw away a baby to get an extra dollar in their pockets.  RP says, I'm against it. bull!!!  I am only one voice, but Santorum can be millions of voices.  what are his exact plans?  he hasn't taken me into his confidence.
but he is a real family man who won't sell his soul to buy a vote.

[teamnelson]

In your scenario, what are the powers available to a potential Pres Santorum for him to be able to take actual action on the issue of abortion? Apart from being a verbal champion of the Right To Life, what are the tangible powers available to him as President that would effect change?
 
He doesn't have any ... that's my point. What I spelled out below is the only legal strategy to effect actual change at the national level on the issue of the right to life. The RCC knows it, the RTL and GRTL know it, and everyone like me and you who have been active in the pro-life movement in this country knows it.
 
"A real family man [committed to the sanctity of life] who won't sell his soul for a vote" describes more candidates than just Santorum. All the same, if that man is also willing to trample on the constitution to further his agenda, he's no better than Obama.

[BUGEYE]

TN, the prez has a microphone, he has influence in congress, but if were to just give up as some would do because another prez might put a few more dollars in my pocket. my soul would be toast.

I'll say it again. stopping the senseless slaughter of innocent babies trumps every other issue.
God says, narrow is the way.
so will putting abortion on the back burner to make another dollar go against Christs teaching.
I think so.
but he gives us free rein to choose which path to take.  narrow or wide.

[teamnelson]

Bugeye, there are 2 candidates who've remained committed to the pro-life agenda, Santorum and RP. I know you're skeptical of RPs approach. I'm skeptical of Santorum's approach - it sounds to me like he just wants to be a tyrant and make it so. Honestly, only time will reveal which one of them is true to his word.
 
You do know that governors of states don't determine the law. If the issue was sent to the states, it would be a matter of the state legislatures to figure out, and the state courts to hear - the governor is just a voice and a veto, that can be overturned. If we were abiding by the 10th, Prop 8 in California would never have been overturned by a federal district judge - he'd have no jurisdiction on that matter. Instead we have a liberal fed telling the state that they cannot discriminate against gay marriage. That's a perfect timely example of the danger of using a strong fed to force a social agenda. That's a sword I'd like to see taken out of the arsenal because I can't guarantee the character of the next Pres.

[Doublebass73]

TN,

Ron Paul and Santorum are both rated 0% by the enemy NARAL. Bugeye simply hates Ron Paul so he'll ignore any facts you give him that proves Ron Paul is on our side. The same way he ignores Ron Paul's A+ rating from the GOA.

Proof of this is the fact that you posted that Rick Santorum either doesn't understand the 10th Amendment or doesn't care what it says and what does Bugeye do? He ignores this fact and attacks Ron Paul immediately without even mentioning Santorum.

[BUGEYE]

TN,

Ron Paul and Santorum are both rated 0% by the enemy NARAL. Bugeye simply hates Ron Paul so he'll ignore any facts you give him that proves Ron Paul is on our side. The same way he ignores Ron Paul's A+ rating from the GOA.

Proof of this is the fact that you posted that Rick Santorum either doesn't understand the 10th Amendment or doesn't care what it says and what does Bugeye do? He ignores this fact and attacks Ron Paul immediately without even mentioning Santorum.

pro abortion people were taking young girls from conservative states to states where they could get abortions on demand and this was without parental consent.
a law was passed in congress to require parental consent before transporting a "minor" across state lines.  RP voted no.  he's apparently not concerned with unborn babies or with parental authority.  would you allow a stranger to take your daughter for an abortion without your permission?  be honest and think about it.

[Cuts Crooked]

TN,

Ron Paul and Santorum are both rated 0% by the enemy NARAL. Bugeye simply hates Ron Paul so he'll ignore any facts you give him that proves Ron Paul is on our side. The same way he ignores Ron Paul's A+ rating from the GOA.

Proof of this is the fact that you posted that Rick Santorum either doesn't understand the 10th Amendment or doesn't care what it says and what does Bugeye do? He ignores this fact and attacks Ron Paul immediately without even mentioning Santorum.

pro abortion people were taking young girls from conservative states to states where they could get abortions on demand and this was without parental consent.
a law was passed in congress to require parental consent before transporting a "minor" across state lines.  RP voted no.  he's apparently not concerned with unborn babies or with parental authority.  would you allow a stranger to take your daughter for an abortion without your permission?  be honest and think about it.

Nice job of oversimplifying the issue at hand and ignoring the very real fact that the constitution did not give the fed the right to decide such things.........you may want it too, it may seem good an proper on the surface, but it still should not be the feds perview and with good reasons, and RP voted with the constitution in mind....but hey! Don't let that stop you from oversimplifying.....it's a great liberal tactic!

[Doublebass73]

Cuts broke it down nicely, if we ignore the Constitution to suit our agenda then we shouldn't complain when liberals ignore it to suit their anti 2nd Amendment agenda.

I would never want my daughter to get an abortion without my knowing. I'm not willing to violate the Constitution either.

[BUGEYE]

Cuts broke it down nicely, if we ignore the Constitution to suit our agenda then we shouldn't complain when liberals ignore it to suit their anti 2nd Amendment agenda.

I would never want my daughter to get an abortion without my knowing. I'm not willing to violate the Constitution either.

I hope that never happens with your daughter.  but your answer tells me that you would shrug and say oh'well it's legal.

[Doublebass73]

Cuts broke it down nicely, if we ignore the Constitution to suit our agenda then we shouldn't complain when liberals ignore it to suit their anti 2nd Amendment agenda.

I would never want my daughter to get an abortion without my knowing. I'm not willing to violate the Constitution either.

I hope that never happens with your daughter.  but your answer tells me that you would shrug and say oh'well it's legal.

Yes, the same way that you shrug and say "oh well, it's just the Constitution. It's OK to violate it if it suits my agenda".

[BUGEYE]

Cuts broke it down nicely, if we ignore the Constitution to suit our agenda then we shouldn't complain when liberals ignore it to suit their anti 2nd Amendment agenda.

I would never want my daughter to get an abortion without my knowing. I'm not willing to violate the Constitution either.

I hope that never happens with your daughter.  but your answer tells me that you would shrug and say oh'well it's legal.

Yes, the same way that you shrug and say "oh well, it's just the Constitution. It's OK to violate it if it suits my agenda".

parents apparently have no rights.  that was the issue.  the girls can still be hauled away and have their baby murdered.  I really don't understand your logic when the law restored parental authority.  if you would try to take the abortionists to court, they'd just go across the state line.
so please, explain how restoring a right is unconstitutional.

[Doublebass73]

TeamNelson already eloquently explained this at the top of the thread. Did you not read it or do you not understand what he wrote?

[teamnelson]

This does seem like an odd conversation ... the Constitution as presently written, and codified for over 150 years, limits the powers of the federal government, and really does leave unspecified subjects to the State. That's just the way it is, and that's not a bad thing generally.
 
What's happened is we are no longer the moral people that we were when the Constitution was written, and we've bought into a lie that the unborn are not protected under the Constitution. If you look at the history of Law in the US, that question didn't even come up until the influence of Evolutionary Theory on bio-ethics and law.
 
Where we are now is a perfectly good Constitution that keep the Federal Government from being a tyrant, that's a good thing. If that weren't in place, a tyrant could step in and force abortions. I've read some pretty scary stuff in federal law that is written to make it sound as if all of our children don't legally belong to us. If you consolidate power to the federal government, and a liberal is in the chair of power, they could require abortions under nationalized healthcare, as they do in Israel, Russia and China.
 
The only fix is really to specify the unborn as citizens protected under the Constitution, and then the states are bound. In the meantime, while waiting for an amendment to go through process, recognize that if the 10th were implemented as intended, crossing state lines to have an abortion would not be the simple trick some imagine. Pro-life states are empowered to broker relationships with anti-life bordering states that would address this issue, the legal basis for that is already in the Constitution if we'd just dust it off and use it.
 
I think a conservative estimate of the numbers projects a 50% drop in abortion in the US within the first year alone, probably higher, when states are allowed to pass their own legislation and roe v. wade is rendered irrelevant. That's millions of lives my friend. And the number will continue to drop as pro-lifers in liberal states are encouraged by the success of their neighboring states, and the conservative majority can vote without fear of a liberal federal judge overturning their decision.
 
I know its not the brass ring, it's not 100% in a day. There is not way short of tyranny for that to happen, and even then it will continue illegally just like drugs. I'd consider it a huge victory for life to reduce the problem to half of what it is now.

[Cuts Crooked]

parents apparently have no rights.  that was the issue.  the girls can still be hauled away and have their baby murdered.  I really don't understand your logic when the law restored parental authority.  if you would try to take the abortionists to court, they'd just go across the state line.
so please, explain how restoring a right is unconstitutional.

Reality Check: If you've done your job as a parent this wouldn't be an issue at all. It's called being responsible.

[BUGEYE]

parents apparently have no rights.  that was the issue.  the girls can still be hauled away and have their baby murdered.  I really don't understand your logic when the law restored parental authority.  if you would try to take the abortionists to court, they'd just go across the state line.
so please, explain how restoring a right is unconstitutional.

Reality Check: If you've done your job as a parent this wouldn't be an issue at all. It's called being responsible.

even the greatest parents in the world do not have complete control of their kids.
except you of course

TeamNelson, you had a well thought out post as usual.  even though we disagree at times, I respect your responses.

[Cuts Crooked]

even the greatest parents in the world do not have complete control of their kids.
except you of course

TeamNelson, you had a well thought out post as usual.  even though we disagree at times, I respect your responses.

Well...if you've messed up that badly, there really is no helping you....or your offspring.

Funny you should mention it though, four sons, never in any trouble with the law, never have had to go looking for them at night, my grandchildren are all the product of a happy marrige ....admittedly one got a traffic ticket once but that was after he reached his majority. Care to take another personal shot? ( I thought that was against the rules, but I note they are not always applied equally here)

[BUGEYE]

even the greatest parents in the world do not have complete control of their kids.
except you of course

TeamNelson, you had a well thought out post as usual.  even though we disagree at times, I respect your responses.

Well...if you've messed up that badly, there really is no helping you....or your offspring.

Funny you should mention it though, four sons, never in any trouble with the law, never have had to go looking for them at night, my grandchildren are all the product of a happy marrige ....admittedly one got a traffic ticket once but that was after he reached his majority. Care to take another personal shot? ( I thought that was against the rules, but I note they are not always applied equally here)

your the one who pretended to be a perfect parent and I pointed out that there is no such thing.
not a personal shot, reality.

[Cuts Crooked]

Didn't "pretend" anything, just a statement of fact. You don't know where your kids are and what they are doing, you are being deficient as a parent. YOU seem to think that is a claim to being perfect....not me.

[BUGEYE]

Didn't "pretend" anything, just a statement of fact. You don't know where your kids are and what they are doing, you are being deficient as a parent. YOU seem to think that is a claim to being perfect....not me.

there's parents who always know where their kids are and what they are doing.  but sooner or later another relative will turn them in to the police and the kid will be released from the closet.
kids are smarter than people give them credit for. and they know how to work it.