Here’s what Republican presidential candiate Ron Paul said at the Values Voter Debate last night (my own personal transcription, since I can’t seem to find an already prepared transcript):
As an OB doctor of 30 years and having delivered 4,000 babies I can assure you that life begins at conception. I am legally responsible for the unborn no matter what I do. So there’s a legal life there. The unborn has inheritance rights, and if there’s an injury or a killing, there’s a legal entity. There’s no doubt about it. I am surprised that I don’t have more cosponsors for the Sanctity of Life Act that I have, which would solve all these problems and would have eliminated a lot of abortions by now if we’d have passed it
That’s right. Life begins at conception. Not just a life — “there’s a legal life there.” Beginning “at conception.” “If there’s an injury or a killing, there’s a legal entity. There’s no doubt about it.”
These are strong words, and they weren’t casually or mistakenly uttered. Ron Paul means this. The text of H.R. 1094, the bill Ron Paul wrote personally and which enshrines his legal views about this, reiterate what he said in the Values Voter Debate:
H. R. 1094: To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.
SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.
(a) Finding- The Congress finds that present day scientific evidence indicates a significant likelihood that actual human life exists from conception.
(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress–
(1) the Congress declares that–
(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation
`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any case arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, or any part thereof, or arising out of any act interpreting, applying, enforcing, or effecting any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, on the grounds that such statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, practice, act, or part thereof–
`(1) protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or
`(2) prohibits, limits, or regulates–
`(A) the performance of abortions; or
`(B) the provision of public expense of funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for the performance of abortions.’
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 81 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1260. Appellate jurisdiction; limitation.’.
SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON DISTRICT COURT JURISDICTION.
(a) In General- Chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new section:
`Sec. 1370. Limitation on jurisdiction
`Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the district courts shall not have jurisdiction of any case or question which the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to review under section 1260 of this title.’.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 85 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
`1370. Limitation on jurisdiction.’.
This bill dictates that:
1. Life legally begins at conception without any condition, even that of “defect or condition of dependency”
2. The states can pass any law that preserves fertilized eggs
3. Neither the Supreme Court nor the Federal District courts can challenge the legality of the bill.
Provision #3 is simply unconstitutional, rendering unto the Congress the ability to simultaneously pass, interpret, and rule on the constitutionality of a law. If Ron Paul is capable of such autocratic tendencies toward chucking away checks and balances, conveniently in his own favor as a legislator, as a lowly member of the House of Representatives, imagine what kind of counterconstitutional stunt he might pull upon gaining the presidency. Of course the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of any bill Rep. Ron Paul passes. Ron Paul can’t change that by holding his breath and turning blue, and he can’t change that by just saying so in a poorly written law.
Provisions #1 and #2 lead to absurdly draconian results. Testimony before President Bush’s own Presidential Council on BioEthics (PCBE) estimates that:
Chromosome abnormalities are the commonest cause of death in humans. They kill at the very minimum two-thirds of potential humans, more likely 80 to 90 percent and they mostly do so through these lethal aneuploidies.
Ron Paul’s legislation, if passed, will create a circumstance in which suddenly 80 to 90 percent of full legal human lives will be lost to chromosome abnormalities after fertilization. Thanks to Ron Paul, these 80 to 90 percent of fully legal human lives that are destined to die will now be placed under the protection and regulation of the state. Thanks to Ron Paul, it doesn’t matter that there’s a lethal birth “defect or condition of dependency” — big government now has its hands in your (or your wife’s, or your girlfriend’s, or your mother’s, or your sister’s, or your daughter’s) gonads — to protect fully legal human life, with the powers granted by Ron Paul, the states will have legal authority to intervene in any woman’s ovaries of reproductive age. And to intervene up their vaginas, too, considering all the healthy-formed zygotes that fail to implant in the uterine wall. These are fully legal human lives that can be “protected” by any means a state wishes to impose, in a manner that can’t be reviewed or rejected by the Supreme Court or federal district courts.
This is Ron Paul’s utopia, and “Libertarian” it ain’t.
Is it the America you want to live in?
(Sources: Values Voter Debate of September 17 2007; Testimony of John M. Opitz, M.D., Professor of Pediatrics, Human Genetics, and Obstetrics/Gynecology before the President’s Council on Bioethics, January 16, 2003; Text of H.R. 1094 in the 110th Congress)
#3 isn’t any more unconstitutional than federal courts deciding this in the first place. This is a state issue, “(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.” This bill rightfully takes jurisdiction away from federal courts and gives it to the states, abortion is still legal even if this passes depending on state law and definition of when life begins. Checks and balances are actually restored in this case, not destroyed.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as the Constitution expressly declares. A law that declares its provisions cannot be evaluated for its consistency with the Constitution flouts constitutional review. This is a move for the legislatively insecure.
The Constitution does not deal with murder or abortion, these are state and local issues. So it is unconstitutional for the federal courts to decide on this. Like you say, checks and balances.
There is really no basis to challenge this constitutionally, so there is no need for a constitutional review. All this bill does is create a legal definition of life. The constitution does not have any definition of life anywhere in its text. It also does have any explicit right of the people to have abortions either, but by the Declaration of Independence, it is explicitly stated that people have a fundamental right to life.
In Roe V. Wade, the majority decision stated that they were unable to determine any constitutional precendent to establish when was the actual beginning of life, this legislation merely clarifies the issue. Since life begins at conception, then a woman cannot have the made up right to choose, because that right would inherently violate the rights of the unborn to live.
This does not give the Federal Government jurisdiction to regulate abortion or stem cell research, but leaves it to the states for regulation. Different States will then have the right to choose for themselves about abortion would be regulated, and it would be taken out of the national debate, as it should be.
If this nation is ever going to come together, then we are going to have to learn to compromise, and federalism is an exellent method of compromise. We waste so much time arguing of things like abortion and queer marriage, when the entire issue can and should be solved at the State level. That way if people don’t like the laws they are living under they can directly petition their own State Governments or move to a State whose laws are more to thier liking.
Obviouisly, most people do not support the supposed “right” to an abortion anyhow, otherwise people like you wouldn’t be so worried about Roe being overturned.
Johnnyb, the Declaration of Independence is not a document with legal force in this country. It’s a pamphlet. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. And here’s what the Constitution says about the Supreme Court:
Ron Paul is writing a Law of the United 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. The judicial Power shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Ron Paul cannot take that judicial Power to review the Laws of the United States away — not even (especially even) when he writes the law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Article VI:
Ron Paul is acting counter-constitutionally.
#3 (The bill’s Section 3)
Article 3 of the US Constitution, however, has been interpreted to give CONGRESS the power to deliniate the jurisdiction and authority of the Supreme Court. Judicial review of law was and is NOT part of the U.S. Constitution, it was a gambit by Marshall which ended up expanding the Supreme Court’s original power. I learned the following years ago in school and it’s verified by wikipedia:
“Article Three is not self-executing with respect to the subject-matter over which federal courts can have jurisdiction. The Congress decides, from among the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what jurisdiction the federal courts will actually have.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution
If the law above were to be passed, it would most likely NOT be unconstitutional. It would be taking jurisdiction in the deliniated cases away from the Supreme Court. Is it underhanded, unconventional, and slightly crafty? Sure. Unconstitutional? Probably not.
Well, I learned in school that the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality. My kooky bet is that Marbury v. Madison is still a precedent, and that were Ron Paul’s law passed, the Supreme Court would swiftly declare it unconstitutional.
But if you need a law professor for validation (I’m guessing not, since you’ve taken to citing Wikipedia), here’s a nice big old white male authority professor for you. The new UC-Irvine Dean of Law, the old Duke University Professor of Law, and yeah, he literally wrote the text on Constitutional Law, too: Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies. He wrote something in the The Daily Journal of April 12, 2005 that you should read. I’ll excerpt it broadly tomorrow in a separate post.
The Wikipedia article Joseph cites does not support his contention. In fact, it says the courts can exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress.
It looks like with this bill, Ron Paul has completely abandoned the pretext of supporting states rights. The bill, introduced at the federal level, would establish a legal federal definition of life, and mandate that the states protect its definition of life. The only option the states have under this proposed bill is how to enforce it. I suppose the states wouldn’t have to follow an unfunded mandate. I’d be curious to see how a Libertarian would fund this type of mandate though, given Ron Paul’s opposition to funding a medal for Rosa Parks.
Does Ron Paul say what he takes as an authority for his declaration that life begins at conception? It’s just “I’m a white male doctor and I say so?” Surely not all doctors agree on this.
I’m pretty sure if you look at sperm under a microscope you can see them swimming. They are alive. Who is going to protect all the cute little defenseless spermies?
Let’s not forget that once the federal government passes a law declaring that “life begins at conception” then abortions will be counted as murder whether the states decide to say otherwise or not because, ultimately, federal law overrules state and local laws.
As for Ron Paul, well, he can kiss my ass.
What he’s basically wanting to say (borrowing from an old analogy I made years ago) is that an acorn is on the same level as an oak tree.
That’s exactly right, Damen, and what’s more, the states won’t be able to do a damn thing about masturbation. How could a state declare that masturbation is murder if the federal government had already determined that conception is the legal definition of when life begins. Who would then be able to lead us in the crusade against the evils of non-pregnancy-generating, anti-life masturbation?
So he’s sending the abortion back to the States. That’s exactly what he has been saying he was going to do all along. Duh.
Look, I’m pro-rights. But because we have this habit of trying to read and interpret the COnsitution to mean things we want it to say instead of amending it to make it say what we want it to say, this is going to happen.
The Dems and the Republicans like this fight. Until we the people take the issue and settle it with an Amendment, this assault won’t stop.
ANd by the way, there’s no Federal Law against murder. It’s handled by the States.
“The Wikipedia article Joseph cites does not support his contention. In fact, it says the courts can exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress.”
“Article Three is not self-executing with respect to the subject-matter over which federal courts can have jurisdiction. The Congress decides, from among the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what jurisdiction the federal courts will actually have.â€
That’s an EXACT QUOTE from the article. Yes, you’re right, the Supreme Court has judicial review (which anyone should know). But Congress can determine JURISDICTION. It is not SELF EXECUTING. I.E. If Congress legislates that something is not within the SC’s jurisdiction, they can’t review it. Now, they still might, but the court has typically avoided such situations because the court has no enforcement power on its own. Also, unless I’m missing some case law (which I may be…i’m not an expert on the surpreme court and Jim may have some that i’ve missed), the Supreme Court SIZE is regulated by Congress, also. Congress could vote to expand the court to 15 members, or as people retire, make it smaller. As much as you may wish the Surpeme Court had a lot of power, all the power they have is interpretation, not enforcement on self-construction. All their funding also comes from Congress.
Not true. You can look it up in Wikipedia, or just consider the federal murder trials for, say, the Oklahoma City bombing.
Joseph,
Yes, these are checks and balances as Jim likes to use at his convenience. I see this as the supreme court overstepping it’s bounds and deciding a state issue. But I think the real concern is whether or not this law would ban abortion nationwide, which is not true at all. You would need a constitutional amendment for that, and we all know that won’t happen. State issue, case closed. Well at least Jim understands that in order for the Constitution to mean anything it must be law with an amendment process, and not some rag that can be loosely interpreted out of existence.
I’m not sure how Joseph is interpreting the encyclopedia article, the quotation he keeps pasting being after a discussion of how Congress can increase the number of federal courts or abolish federal courts, with the exception of the Supreme Court, and before a discussion of Marbury v. Madison, which did establish the constitutionality of the courts’ function of judicial review over Congress. He’s quoting the garbled words of some unknown author as if it were law; an encyclopedia article is not law.
No, Alexa, Ron Paul is not trying to send the abortion issue to the states. He is trying to mandate it on a federal level by introducing federal legislation, flushing his much-touted principle of States Rights down the toilet.
I’m really kind of surprised that so little of the voting public has any idea about basic government operations. When a law is passed on the federal level then it becomes a law governing everybody.
And when a bill is passed declaring something a crime and that bill is not able to be reviewed by the Supreme Court then that bill is unconstitutional by default.
The result of Ron Paul’s law WOULD be to give the states the power, even if it’s a Federal Law. Currently, due to Roe v. Wade, it’s a Federal restriction on states passing laws.
Wikipedia articles aren’t law, but neither is the assertion that “The wikipedia article Joseph cites does not support his contention. In fact, it says the courts can exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress”. The analysis in the article is peer-reviewed and true and supports EXACTLY what I’m saying. CONGRESS determines Federal Court Jurisdiction. Jim just wrote a very good article affirming that fact. Therefore, Ron Paul’s law wouldn’t be and is not *legally* unconstitutional, for the simple reason that for something to be *legally* unconstitutional the Supreme Court needs the ability to rule it so.
But yeah, it is trampling the checks and balances inherent in our system, as it developed, which is wrong.
And you’d be surprised how few people in the country would be able to understand or follow a discussion on how our government works. It’s rather sad.
How would Ron Paul’s proposed legislation “give states the power” if the choice is between no choice and no choice. If states can not choose to keep abortion legal and safe, how is that a choice? Is this some sort of Newspeak?
Other than the clause that clearly prevents the Supreme Court from doing anything, the actual actions legislated by the bill are, quoted from Jim’s article above:
“(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and
(B) the term `person’ shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and
(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.
”
Okay, so at the point of conception, a person exists. And Congress agrees that each state has the power to protect unborn children/lives in the state. And the court can’t interpret or say otherwise.
If each state has the authority (and i’m going to use the synonym power) to protect unborn lives, that doesn’t mean that they will. States could choose to pass no law, which in effect wouldn’t change anything. The Federal government’s definition of person is NOT binding on state law, the only binding thing from the act is that states have the power to pass laws restricting abortions and the federal court system has no jurisdiction to interpret such laws. In practice, some states would pass no laws restricting abortion (thus keeping it legal) while others would pass stringent ones, virtually banning it.
Just like back when they passed the federal law for a 55 mph speed limit.
States could choose to pass no law, which didn’t change anything, or they could pass a law restricting the speed limit. Some states passed no law restricting the speed limit, thus keeping it at 65mph or 75 mph while others passed 45 mph speed limits.
No, wait, that’s not what happened at all. When the federal government passed a 55 mph speed limit, do you remember what happened? The speed limit was changed to 55 mph in the whole country. Imagine that.
Gosh, do you suppose that a federal law is one that is applied to the whole country? Maybe that’s why they don’t call them “federal suggestions”.
I’m not sure that’s the best analogy, Iroquois, because later on a federal law was passed which allowed states to set their own speed limits, and then they did.
But it was done with a federal law. Once Congress passed the law, states did not have any more say in the matter. And when some states threatened to challenge the constitutionality of the law (they weren’t trying to take things outside of the constitution in those days), the federal government just threatened to withhold federal highway funds. Once the gas shortage eased, the speed limit law wasn’t seen as crucial to the nation anymore.
If Congress were to pass the Ron Paul federal anti-abortion law, states would have NO say in legalizing abortion.
Let me point out that under the current system, abortion is not left to “states rights” but to “individual rights”. No one who doesn’t want an abortion is forced to have one.
But Jim, according to your statement it was only until after a federal law was passed allowing states to set their own speed limits that that happened.
Right. That’s true, Damen. It’s also true as Iroquois states that in the Constitution individual rights are placed above states’ rights (see, again, that handy Supremacy Clause). The Constitutional system is NOT one in which states can do whatever they please, and then some nasty lefties came along and perverted it. The Constitutional system is one in which power is carefully distributed in a way so that it’s difficult to concentrate power and difficult to exercise power without a consensus across levels and branches of government. The individual liberties which are articulated in the Constitution are protected by that diffusion of government power. It’s lately been the enterprise of Republicans — with the help of the very Republican Ron Paul — to undo that diffusion of power as much as possible. That’s an incredibly dangerous enterprise.
States could have chosen to raise the speed limit and ignore the Fed (and they probably would have won a court case), but they would have lost highway funds, as Jim said.
States could also currently choose to lower the drinking age as much as they want. However, that also would result in the loss of federal highway funds.
The main way the Federal government gets regulations enacted which are not naturally part of their power is through such incentives/threats. This of course, has nothing to do with abortion or Ron Paul’s bill, beyond the fact that his bill would, in effect, make it so states would have the power to ban abortions if they so voted to do. Of course, the means (adding clauses to undercut checks and balances by ignoring the supreme court) are a very serious threat to the foundation of our country.
“his bill would, in effect, make it so states would have the power to ban abortions if they so voted to do”
No, Joseph still doesn’t get it. Ron Paul’s bill would create a federal law that would make abortion illegal. Just like that. No waiting for states to vote or do anything. Poof. “…the Congress declares that– human life shall be deemed to exist from conception..” and now abortion is the same as murder. Is murder legal anywhere? Not lately. Do most doctors want to have a felony murder charge on their licenses? Would any clinic in any state touch that one with a ten foot pole? What about malpractice insurance? What company wants to insure someone who is flaunting federal law?
Joseph thinks this bill would merely let states vote to curtail individual rights. No. It bans abortions.
Iroquois still doesn’t get it. The federal law quoted above declares that life shall exist from conception. That’s nice. Most state laws also establish definitions for words, as part of the statute itself. i.e. The murder statute of __________ state will define who the statute applies to (both victim and perpetrator).
For anyone following this argument, just read the statute above. In does not declare “abortion shall be illegal”. It declares that states may choose to pass laws that protect unborn life, not that they are REQUIRED to. If the statute itself made abortion illegal, the whole clause wouldn’t be needed, since why would states be given the authority to pass laws protecting unborn life if the Federal statute already did it?
Joseph, to satisfy my curiosity I’d like to ask a question that draws parallels.
How would you feel about a law declaring that states may choose to pass laws that mandate the injection tracking chips in citizens’ necks, outlaw guns, or require registration in a certain church?
This time consuming to-and fro on the merits of anything that Ron Paul suggests are at this time irrelevant to say the least. Ron Paul is one of several applicants for the republican nomination for presidential candidate in the upcoming election. I fear that by giving his faulty doctrine so much attention, it may spur the efforts of the extreme religeous right to get behind him and instruct the so-called Christian republicans to vote for a one plank President. It may have escaped your notice that we have had one of those since 2000. Not one Republican contestant is worth this much effort. Campaign instead to impeach Bush and Cheney and arrest Rove for crimes against the constitution. Let Paul wither by the roadside. Giving him status in this argument is pointless.
Don’t talk about it, it will only encourage them? Is that a fair summation?
I would be disturbed by such laws, and additionally hope they would be found unconstitutional (as I find the end run around the constitution provided by Paul to be illegitimate)
Don’t talk about it and half the time they’ll scream louder.
Okay, for the purpose of this post I’m gonna assume that this bill would, indeed, still allow states to chose to legalize abortion if they want (my own opinions to the contrary). Tell me, once human life is legally established to exist from conception (my own opinions to the contrary [again]), what politician would legalize abortion then? It would, effectively be, political suicide. And it still opens the door for anyone working in an abortion clinic to be charged with murder/manslaughter/conspiracy to commit murder if, on the federal level, these are legal humans who’re being “murdered” (aborted).
Now exactly how is this not a defacto ban on legal abortion?
Damen, right. The equal protection clause of the Constitution of the United States mandates that “no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And Ron Paul’s bill mandates that
Which means that states will not be free — they’ll be constitutionally required to treat abortion as murder or to throw out their murder statutes.
The 14th Amendment states (with the equal protection clause contained):
If Ron Paul gets his way, your handy-dandy fertilized eggs will fall under this provision, and that’s absurd.
Taken to extremes, women who get their period and end up flushing an unemplanted fertilized egg would potentially becomes murderers and subject to those punishments. So…I guess being on the rag would become illegal and you’d need permits for pads and tampons. Only upshot I see to that would be now they’d have to run to the store to get it their own damn selves and stop humiliating their husbands/boyfriends.
Of course I’m only being facetious.
And Jim, don’t forget that the precious, innocent, defenseless little zygotes would become legal humans, which also means that legally pro-choice people would become pro-murder. This bill throws things into such shakey territory that it couldn’t possibly be upheld in a court of appeals. Of course that’s likely why it’s been placed above review.