One of the best reasons to choose a progressive candidate over a right wing candidate for President is that right wingers have a profound misunderstanding of the Constitution of the United States Constitution. It’s the sworn duty of the President to uphold and defend the Constitution, so the right wing’s inability to understand the concepts of the Constitution makes their politicians profoundly unsuited for the presidency.
Take Ron Paul as an example. Yes, Ron Paul. Take away Congressman Paul’s opposition to the Iraq War, and he’s exposed as just another right wing kook.
Ron Paul plays fast and loose with the facts when it comes to the Constitution. Consider the claims Paul makes in the following passage from his web site, for example, as he seeks to justify his attempt to undo Americans’ reproductive rights:
“The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.
In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.”
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty? Really? Actually, no, not really.
The heart of the American ideals of liberty is the Constitution of the United States of America. Though some American legal rights, such as habeas corpus and the presumption of innocence, were established in English common law before American Constitution was written, it’s the Constitution that defines what liberty in America is. Other documents, such as the Declaration of Independence or Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, are merely political speeches with no legal authority. The Articles of Confederation were overruled. If you want to understand the American tradition of liberty, you look at the Constitution.
The concept of the right of an unborn child to life is found absolutely nowhere in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Even if you search the Library of Congress Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789, for any reference to “child”, all you’ll find is a reference to Francis Childs, a printer at the time. Search for the words “unborn”, “birth”, “mother” or “family”, and you’ll come up with nothing at all. These words aren’t in the Constitution either – not even in any of the amendments.
When Ron Paul says that the right of a fetus, embryo, zygote, or even fertilized egg cell to life is at the heart of American ideals of liberty, he’s just plain wrong. The rights of the unborn are not even on the periphery of the Constitution.
Neither is the idea of the “federal court tyranny” at all relevant to the Constitution. When Ron Paul complains about “federal court tyranny” coming from federal court judges overruling state laws, he is suggesting that the Constitution of the United States of America is a source of tyranny. After all, Article III, section 2 of the Constitution states:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers, and Consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States, between a State and citizen of another State, between citizens of different States, between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects.”
The Constitution was written so that there would be a balance of power, not just within the federal government, but between the federal government and state governments. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution protects against tyranny on the part of state governments, ensuring that the courts have the power to protect liberty throughout the entire nation. Ron Paul is seeking to take away that protection.
As Ron Paul’s sloppy considerations of American liberty in his discussion of the supposed legal rights of zygotes shows, he just doesn’t understand the Constitution. Whether you believe that abortion is a good idea or not, Ron Paul’s ignorance of the foundation of American liberty ought to be cause for concern.
“The Articles of Confederation were overruled.”
That is like saying the Wiemar Constitution or the Czarist regime was over ruled by the National Socialists or the Bolsheviks, it’s true I suppose, but yet doesn’t quite capture the moment.
You have conflated Ron Paul’s rhetoric regarding the American ideals of liberty, and what you state is his “understanding of the Constitution” by suggesting (absurdly) that the Constitution equals American ideals of liberty.
As Progressives have historically wreaked so much havoc, death and destruction on American culture, I really can’t make sense of your argument.
And as every school child knows the right to abortion is guaranteed by the Constitution Article ..hmm, isn’t in that one but I know its in…oh boy its not there either. Well, anyway in a federal system we can’t allow states to make these decisions. After all, its more important to make sure that the mother isn’t inconvenienced than it is to protect the life of the child.
So, you admit that it’s true that the Articles of Confederation were overruled by the Constitution. What exactly are you complaining about, then?
The Constitution is the foundation of American ideals of liberty. What’s so absurd about saying that?
Bob, one of the points of this article is that Ron Paul says it’s tyranny to have federal judges rule on state laws, when in fact, that’s exactly what the Constitution calls for. Ron Paul is therefore saying that the Constitution is a source of tyranny.
The other point of the article is that protection of the life of fertilized cells and zygotes is not in at the heart of American liberty, as Ron Paul says it is. You can’t argue otherwise, and so you’re trying to change the subject.
How can Ron Paul serve as President when he doesn’t even understand the Constitution?
Paul’s position on abortion can be summarized most succinctly as “No right to an abortion exists in the Constitution, so abortion rights should be left to the individual states to decide. I would personally oppose abortion rights in my state.”
Although I’m pro-choice, I too don’t think Roe v. Wade was rightly decided. It should be struck down, and the issue of abortion should be returned to the states. I would personally support abortion rights in my state, and given the deep blue of my state I’m confident abortion would remain legal here.
The federal courts have the right to protect enumerated rights throughout the nation, but abortion just isn’t one of those rights. I wish it was, and I would support a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing reproductive choice of all kinds. But it’s just not there, and stare decisis can’t put it there.
By the way, I would take issue with this statement:
“If you want to understand the American tradition of liberty, you look at the Constitution.”
Considering the fact that the original Constitution contained the 3/5th’s compromise, it is not the be all and end all of the American tradition of liberty. It is the definitive document regarding our mechanism of government, but not of our liberty. The mere fact that the Bill of Rights, the 13th-15 Amendments, etc. had to be added to it should make that pretty plain. Our democracy exists to serve our liberty and not the other way around, and there will be times that the present Constitution is inadequate to the task of protecting our liberties. The subject we’re talking about is actually a good example of that, since if the Constitution was amended to include a specific right to reproductive freedom, abortion rights would no longer be at risk.
Actually, your example proves Truman’s point. If you want to understand the American tradition of liberty, you DEFINITELY look at the Constitution. The 3/5th’s compromise, and the need for the later adding of the 13th-15th Amendments, demonstrate that American commitment to certain forms of liberty has changed over time. There’s the whole women voting thingamabob, too, which was an expansion of liberty achieved through an amendment of the Constitution. The American tradition of liberty is not pristine, and neither is the Constitution. The Constitution IS the commitment regarding liberties made by the American supermajority.
Clearly there is no enumerated mention of a federal right to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. What there is, is this statement from the preamble:
“…and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”
which to my eye, means the entire constitution exists, in part, to secure liberty for us, and our descendants. Now it seems like life is a pretty fundamental requirement of liberty, but that’s just my opinion.
One thing is certain. Roe V. Wade was a terribly flawed legal judgment that was not based in law. It was nothing more than a democratic vote by 9 individuals on a policy matter. There is nothing in the Constitution that supports the decision of Roe V. Wade, the majority judges just decided that their opinion on the abortion matter was more valid than anyone else’s opinion. The entire matter is more properly left up to the individual states.
In my opinion, it’s the progressives that don’t understand the Constitution. The Constitution has precious little to do with “rights”. It has much more to do with the powers delegated to the Federal government by the states. The Federal government is one of limited powers, as is made unmistakenly clear by the 9th and 10th Amendments, which the progressives ignore. The idea is that the rights of the people will be protected as long as the central government has limited and defined powers.
The Federal government has not been expressly delegated any power with respect to abortion. That’s why it has to be left to the state to decide. Both the liberals and the conservatives are wrong on this issue. The Federal government does not have the power to overrule the states and force abortion to be legal, nor does it have the power to overrule the states and make abortion illegal. So, Roe V. Wade must be overturned, but then replaced with nothing at the Federal level. This is Ron Paul’s position, and it is the only one that is consistent with the founders’ conception of the Constitution.
The problem with relying on the Feds to guarantee crap is what goes along with it. CF Patriot Act.
It is a hell of a lot easier to change a state law than a federal one. It is also easier to change a local ordinance than a state law. Distribute everything to local levels = paradise.
Of course everyone will scream about how “this is inefficient” blah blah… but inefficient for whom? Those who want to herd everyone in line, hand them a rifle and a ham sandwich and slap ‘em on the back with a “go kill me some sandniggers, boy”? Yes, I sure would love it to be more inefficient for THOSE people. And, to be sure, there’s nobody on the “progressive” side saying anything of this sort. Why? Cause the progressives want war, and centralized power. Plain and simple.
Ron Paul in 08!
You’re so right, MarkG. I mean, hell’s bells, the Bill of Rights is complete bullshit, isn’t it? And the authors of the Constitution were just bullshitting when they talked about how they wanted to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity.” They were crossing their fingers when they wrote that.
Well Jim, your post is excellent evidence of the type of Constitutional ignorance I’m talking about.
The mechanism by which the founders wanted to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” was a limited central government whose purpose was to protect and defend liberty. The founders were, in fact, very concerned about the rights of the people.
The last thing they wanted was a central government that had no limit to its powers, as this would become the biggest threat to liberty in society. Sad to say, but the powers of the Federal government have in fact become unlimited thanks to the loose progressive interpretations of the Constitution.
The 9th and 10th Amendments are a matched pair, you should read them sometime. The rights of man in a free society are infinite. The founders knew they wouldn’t be able to list them all, so they focused instead on the finite set of powers that the central government would have. They expressed this notion in the 9th Amendment, which says (paraphrasing) “just because we listed some rights here doesn’t mean there aren’t more rights of the people”. That’s why it’s laughable when a conservative says something like, “I don’t see that right in the Constitution” on his way to writing a law to abridge it. Thus, the Federal government cannot abridge the right of a woman to have an abortion.
But, the 10th Amendment says (paraphrasing) “the powers of the Federal government listed here are all there are, every other power is reserved to the states or people.” Thus, the Federal government has not been empowered to regulate abortion, and it must be left to the states. This is why there is no general Federal law against murder. People just expect that to be taken care of by the states. We need to be consistent and apply the same logic to abortion.
The frightening conservative view of “family values” is exposed by Bob’s post #2 when he says sarcatically, “After all, its more important to make sure that the mother isn’t inconvenienced than it is to protect the life of the child.” Suddenly a cell not large enough to see without a microscope is being referred to as a “child”, and mothers are nothing more than appliances to service that cell. Whatever happened to relationships, to love, to caring in a family? What happened to the importance of wanting children, to the quality of the mother’s life, to the right of a child to to be wanted? All of that has boiled down to creating a legal obligation for mothers to be “inconvienced”. What a cold family that must be.
The ‘states rights’ argument was long used to deny blacks the right to vote. Looks like they have trotted that one out again to try to force their religion on everybody else.
The Constitution, isn’t about “rights’. It is about limiting the Federal involvement in government by the States.
The Constitution doesn’t make any rule abour abortion. I wish it did – I am pro-choice. But I think that if we want to take the true moral legal high ground, we need to amend the Constitution, not pretend that it means something that it doesn’t specifically say.
So, then, Andrea, if the Constitution isn’t about rights, then how come the Bill of Rights is part of it?
You’re right. It was so ignorant of me to type “Bill of Rights,” MarkG. That was so ignorant. See, all the bits that talk about liberties and rights are just misinterpreted smudges. Really, the framers wrote about libertines and blights.
Cute lack of parallel of “states or the people” in your penultimate sentence. You left out “the people.” Hmmmm. I bet it was just a typo. Or maybe just the result of another smudge. Yep.
Jim, I see that you are unable or unwilling to have a discussion without resorting to smug vitriol. I am disappointed that is the case. I do agree that I shouldn’t have used the word “ignorant”, so I’m sorry about that. I just meant “lack of knowledge”, but you would probably be offended by that, too.
To the extent that you actually made a point in either of your replies to me, I will address your mention of leaving off “or the people” in my sentence about regulating abortion. The reason I left it off is because it wasn’t pertinent to the discussion of Federal/State division of power. When the founders said “or the people” in the 10th Amendment, they meant the total absence of government regulation even at the state level. So, powers not delegated to the Federal government didn’t HAVE to be implemented by the states, they could be left to the people, which means no government action at all.
Mark G,
How does any of what you’re saying give any grounds of support for Ron Paul’s claim that “The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty”? It seems quite clear that there’s no solid grounds for that idea, and rather, that one has to go through some real ideological twists and turns in order to justify the claim.
When you try to argue that the Constitution isn’t about rights, MarkG, then no, I’m not going to take you seriously. Sorry, dearie, but if you want me to take you seriously, you’ll have to merit it. Your assertion that “The Constitution has precious little to do with ‘rights’” is downright mockable. Do you think I haven’t read the Constitution? Rights and liberties are all OVER the place in that document! To suggest otherwise is so patently absurd as to merit a sound mocking.
Unless it was all smudges. What do you think was the original text behind the constitutional smudgings, if not “libertines” and “blights”? Perhaps “silly fleas” and “flights?”
Truman, that sentence by Ron Paul has precious little to do with liberty. It’s all about the division of power between the state and federal government. Really now!
Saying the federal government cannot prohibit abortion because there is no federal law prohibiting murder is a bit of a stretch, isn’t it? The anti-abortion crowd is not anti-war or anti-capital punishment, or in the least bit excited about any policy that harms anyone once they have been born. They are, however, anti-contraception. This isn’t about states rights, it’s about sex.
Truman,
Believe it or not, I agree with you about RP’s statement that you quote. I think that his statement is political hyperbole meant to get some conservatives to listen to him. I admit that I am a fan of RP, but I have to keep in mind that even he sometimes plays politics.
However, I am willing to forgive him that because his actual policy ideas in this area are definitely in line with the Constitution as (I believe) the founders intended. That is, he wants Roe V. Wade overturned, but is not willing to have the Federal government outlaw abortion for the whole nation. He wants this question devolved to the states. Whatever my own opinion on abortion is, that is the right answer from a rule-of-law point of view.
By what standard are you suggesting the Constitution is the foundation of American ideals on liberty if it came about via a coup d’etat against the established law of the land? That is as stupid and ignorant as saying the Bolsheviks represented the will and polical desire of the Russian people because they were able to kill the Czar and Nicholas.
Dr. Paul represents a coalition of cultural forces that are coming to ahead and shaping around his run. His critics on the grounds of their perceived revelations regarding ideological purity reveal themselves to be charlatans if not minds rotted by Marxists.
We are minds, minds! Minds rotted by Marxists! I knew when that guy with the scruffy beard and the Chairman Mao novelty watch came around pouring old mayonnaise in our ears while we dozed that it would come to no good.
C, the Constitution is foundational for American liberty because it is in effect as the Supreme Law of the Land and, um, gee, sets parameters of liberty under the law. No big surprise there, pal.
If you are really suggesting (as you seem to be with your Bolshevik and Nazi analogies) that you do not recognize the legitimacy of the United States government, then it’s odd to say the least that you are advocating that we all vote for a particular candidate in the upcoming presidential election.
Another Ron Paul supporter who doesn’t recognize the authority of the Constitution… We’re seeing more and more of that in the Cult of Ron Paul.
Fruktata, the Bill Of rights is a list of things that no American government, federal or local, can do. It is absolutely consistent with limiting the powers of government.
Again, if we want to take the true moral legal high ground, we need to amend the Constitution, not pretend that it means something that it doesn’t specifically say.
Anybody that thinks Ron Paul is speaking election hyperbole only needs to read anything he’s written in the past 30 years. He hasn’t wavered on anything yet.
Wrong, Anonymous. The Bill of Rights details how government must act. Government needs to act to preserve the freedom of speech. Government needs to form in such a way that maintains a separation from religious affairs. Government needs to find a way to hold trials that are fair.
Ron Paul’s mistake is thinking that liberty happens when government just steps out of the way… except when it comes to abortion. Then, Ron Paul wants government to start intruding into people’s lives.
Indeed, Ron Paul needs to stop pretending that the Constitution has anything at all to say about family life or unborn children.
Fruktata, the Bill Of rights is a list of things that no American government, federal or local, can do. It is absolutely consistent with limiting the powers of government.
Again, if we want to take the true moral legal high ground, we need to amend the Constitution, not pretend that it means something that it doesn’t specifically say.
Anybody that thinks Ron Paul is speaking election hyperbole only needs to read anything he’s written in the past 30 years. He hasn’t wavered on anything yet.
Patricia, read the bill of rights.
1. No government can restrict speech.
2. No government can restrict the right to own a gun.
3. No government can make you house it’s soldiers.
4. No government can unreasonably search you, not seize your stuff.
5.No government can circumvent some basic legal rights during trials.
6. No government shall be able to deprive you of a jury trial and must abide by few other legal “technicalities.”
7. Even civil trials.
8.No government can demand excessive bail,
9. Started out as : That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. I think that actually reads better.
10.The Federal Government can’t do anything except what the Constitution says it can.
Andrea, this is a matter of phrasing. Let’s take a look at how the one of the amendments is actually phrased:
Amendment 6: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”
You said that Amendment 6 declared that no government shall deprive anyone of a fair trial. That’s not exactly how the amendment reads, Andrea. It talks about rights granted, and how trials shall be conducted.
Amendment 7 says, among other things, that, “the right of trial by jury shall be preserved”. That’s not just saying what government will NOT do. It’s saying what government MUST DO.
The first Amendment says a hell of a lot more than just than that people have the right to free speech.
Oh, and Andrea, you’ve also re-interpreted Amendment 9 in your paraphrasing of it. That’s not a very honest thing to do.
Have you actually read the Bill of Rights? If you have, then you’re being purposefully dishonest in order to promote a political agenda based upon a mistaken interpretation of the Constitution.
Well, I happen to be quite a fan of Ron Paul, mainly because of his firm support for decentralist government. I’m a little dubious about his statement here, but you all seem to have done a very good job of analysing his position.
I myself would believe that Ron Paul is playing a little politics here, I admire his stand on states rights (HR 300), I dislike his stand on abortion for practical reasons, and I am very dubious about HR 1094. Then again I never had too many illusions about Ron Paul – he may well be very worried about the rising tyranny of the state, but he also holds political views I am opposed to. Thats democracy for you.
However I recommend to all of you (and to Ron Paul) that you consider applying a little universality to this matter. Really, whether you allow abortion or not in the USA is somewhat besides the point. While I agree (morally) with ending a system that “has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn,” this pales in compariosn with the atrocities the american people have allowed their government to commit against the peoples of other countries. In Cuba alone, a UN report estimated around 10 million of the “unborn” have been killed due to the embargo (excluding the 5 million direct deaths.) This is one small country. These analyses have never been applied american (or american sponsored) intervention and economic warfare in: Nicaragua (and the destruction of their national infrastructure to the point where one analyst suggested the country may never recover), Colombia, Guatemala, Vietnam, Palestine, Iraq, Iran and many many more.
I understand that abortion is a sensitive issue, but it is largely irrelevant as a domestic policy when the USA has been and is dedicated to violent intervention (often covertly) which results in the deaths of far more children. If the federal government and the CIA are allowed to murder children around the world, I see no reason why a mother can’t kill her own unborn child. If you all want to get involved in political debate, I beg you, please debate the full issue.
If you are debating the death of the unborn, do not forget that the US government has been, and is involved in projects that result in the deaths of far more unborn foetuses than abortion ever will. And by debating domestic policies on abortion more than foreign policy issues, you are passively sanctioning the governments activities in these areas.
(Mainly sourced from Noam Chomsky: Hegemony or Survival)