M. Porcius Cato's Blog

His principles, integrity, honor and adherence to the rule of Constitutional Law have won my vote already.

I'm not thrilled with Paul's position on the abortion issue, and his support of Bush's Secure Fence Act (which should perhaps more properly be called the Not-So-Secure-But-Very-Expensive Fence Act) is a bit of a disappointment. But all-in-all he strikes me as an honest and capable candidate for the presidency. I'd probably vote for him, too.

 

-- Nephele

I agree with his political position on abortion, in that the federal government can neither ban nor legalize abortion, therefore it is up to the states to decide. Though he's a pro-life Christian, I don't feel threatened because he doesn't make exceptions for his religious views. As a President he would actually be limiting his own powers back into accord with the Constitution. I do tend to disagree with his immigration policy, but I really don't have an answer. I guess most importantly, I believe that he's being completely honest and forthright with his intentions, which I can't say about any 'top tier' candidates. That means more to me than differences in opinion on certain policies, especially with the pervasive deception of recent administrations.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I disagree that the matter of abortion is purely a "social policy" to be determined by the states, much like the matter of same-gender marriage. The question of "when life begins" is a religious question -- but the question of the individual's sovereignty over his or her own body is a question of basic rights.

 

Our Constitution has been amended in the past to correct oversights regarding the individual's sovereignty over his or her own body, as in the case of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. But there will never be an amendment -- proposed or accepted -- regarding a woman's sovereignty over her own body as in the matter of abortion, as long as religion holds sway over this nation.

 

-- Nephele

He's an honorable fellow but I think next year I will be writing in Bill Moyers out of principle.

I disagree that the matter of abortion is purely a "social policy" to be determined by the states, much like the matter of same-gender marriage. The question of "when life begins" is a religious question -- but the question of the individual's sovereignty over his or her own body is a question of basic rights.

 

Our Constitution has been amended in the past to correct oversights regarding the individual's sovereignty over his or her own body, as in the case of the 13th Amendment outlawing slavery. But there will never be an amendment -- proposed or accepted -- regarding a woman's sovereignty over her own body as in the matter of abortion, as long as religion holds sway over this nation.

 

-- Nephele

Heheh, now we're getting into the issue of exactly when an unborn child is considered a sovereign individual. Though the point is, the Consitution does provide a means for change, and it should be used instead of picking and choosing which established law does and does not apply to our government. I mean as of right now, why do we even have a Constitution? It's optional, taking a back seat to pragmatism. The Founders had incredible foresight which is being paid lip service and at the same time being ignored.

I agree that the Founders had incredible foresight. I also think that, in the intervening years between the drafting of our Constitution and today, our nation has enacted far too many laws which should not be the purview of government.

 

What one chooses to put into one's own body or remove from one's own body should not be subject to governmental decree -- whether it be on the Federal, State, or Local level. To say that such is a matter for the State to decide rather than the Federal government is merely passing the authoritarian buck. It's not a matter for any government to decide or dictate. Period.

 

The problem is not so much that the Constitution is being ignored, but rather that our freedoms are being buried under an excess of legislation.

 

-- Nephele

What one chooses to put into one's own body or remove from one's own body should not be subject to governmental decree -- whether it be on the Federal, State, or Local level. To say that such is a matter for the State to decide rather than the Federal government is merely passing the authoritarian buck. It's not a matter for any government to decide or dictate. Period.

That view hinges on the nature of abortion as you see it. You may see a fetus as just a part of its mother's body, whose existence is completely subject to the will of the mother; others may think that simply being fetal does nothing to negate the rights of that individual.

 

The problem is not so much that the Constitution is being ignored, but rather that our freedoms are being buried under an excess of legislation.

I consider these to be the same problem.

 

Perhaps we should carry this on in PM?

I'm not thrilled with Paul's position on the abortion issue, and his support of Bush's Secure Fence Act (which should perhaps more properly be called the Not-So-Secure-But-Very-Expensive Fence Act) is a bit of a disappointment. But all-in-all he strikes me as an honest and capable candidate for the presidency. I'd probably vote for him, too.

 

I agree with both concerns. Individual rights (including the right to terminate one's pregnancy) deserves federal protection against encroachments by state legislatures. Immigration is the lifeblood of any nation, whose economies depend on the talents of its citizens more than on any other factor. Taken together, these two issues are certainly more important than a hypothetical adjustment of taxes by 2 or 3%. The costs of an unwanted child would dwarf the costs of even the most punitive tax code, and the economic effects of over-regulating immigration are also far more important than taxes.

 

That said, Ron Paul has a deep appreciation for the American ideal of limited government and the use of military power for defensive purposes only. No one else on the political scene fits this description.

 

Thanks for your comments Moonlapse and Nephele.

Does any of this mean that we can't or shouldn't return to a Constitutional Republic and pursue the resolution of these matters by the means wisely prescribed in the original laws? There is a means of change, even Thomas Jefferson said,

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the same coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Issues can be federalized through the correct procedure. Yet, one exception means more exceptions means complete usurpation, which we are very close to. Look at the radical shift of power to the executive branch in past years. People are so desensitized to violations of law by the government that they support its use for the promotion of their own ideals.

I will be able to vote for the first time this next election, as I will be turning 18 that year. I am pretty excited. So far, the only candidate I've really gotten to know is Barack Obama, mainly because he is appealing to the younger generation through the internet and other means. I like him because he seems charismatic and a bright young leader, capable of bringing some life into the stagnant. However, a guy who respects and upholds the constitution catches my eye. I may have to look into him more also.

 

I'm not going to vote for someone because they belong to a particular party, but because they will do what I want them to do.

So far, the only candidate I've really gotten to know is Barack Obama, mainly because he is appealing to the younger generation through the internet and other means. I like him because he seems charismatic and a bright young leader, capable of bringing some life into the stagnant.

...

I'm not going to vote for someone because they belong to a particular party, but because they will do what I want them to do.

Charismatic bright young leader is a good PR strategy. My own rule of thumb is that the candidates most peddled by the mainstream media will essentially just maintain the status quo (1945-2007). Vote on your principles.

You might want to look at Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel.