Although the 14th Amendment was only intended to give blacks full rights of freemen (to form contracts, participate in legal proceedings, etc.) its language is much broader, touching on anything related to "life, liberty or property." When the original intent is ignored (a hallmark of liberal jurisprudence) this wording opens up the door to the complete federalization of all state law.

You said the federal government has the right to write laws on abortions for each state because the 14th Amendment gives the Federal government the authority to write legislation to prevent the deprivation of "life, liberty or property." That's why I say your 14th Amendment theory potentially transfers all lawmaking power to Washington D.C. away from the states where the Constitution left it.

Grade-B American.

John Adams wrote in 1772:

Quote:
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.
Should libertarians have more confidence in their government? Thomas Jefferson, 1799:
Quote:
Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism. Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power.… In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.
James Madison warned the people of Virginia (1799):
Quote:
the nation which reposes on the pillow of political confidence, will sooner or later end its political existence in a deadly lethargy.
Madison added in Federalist No. 55,
Quote:
There is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust. . . .
Trusting government, having "confidence in government," is un-American.

The British historian Lord Acton put it this way:
Quote:
Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the
holder of it.
If you have to give the government power, better to keep it local, close to home, where voters can keep an eye on it and change it more easily if need be.

You may be right, but the last 60 years have proven abundantly that neither does the federal judiciary. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court thinks it knows what "due process" is, and they think they have the power under the 14th Amendment to strike down all laws against abortion if the court doesn't see "due process." Ron Paul's legislation would remove that power from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court would not be able to strike down ANY anti-abortion law in ANY state. And for that, Ron Paul is called a "mass murderer."

No, the problem is that Christians in that state are waiting around for the Rapture instead of being vigilant and active and preventing liberals in the state legislature from passing such laws. That's the American and Constitutional way of looking at a problem: focusing on local responsibility, not looking to Washington D.C. or Brussels Belgium or the Hague to solve local problems.

The problem is not that the federal government "allows" states to pass bad laws, but that the people of those states allow their legislatures to pass bad laws. The answer to this problem is not to transfer responsibility from the local to the federal level, but to make Christians more responsible in each state, and take away from the federal government the power to overturn good laws when "We the People" get off our duffs.

 

 

 

Your question reminds me of the scenario advanced by Martin Niemöller, a victim of the Nazis:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out, because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Keep in mind that when the Constitution was ratified, Virginia and New York were "states" just like Canada and France. These states -- nations, really -- decided to become "united States" for purposes of defense against the British and whoever else.

If the Chinese government decided it was grateful to people like Ron Paul for making capitalism popular and making China the fastest-growing economy in the world, and the Chinese government decided to invade the states that were killing Ron Paul supporters, there can be no doubt that the rescued Ron Paul supporters would describe the Chinese invasion as (a) a violation of state sovereignty, and (b) fortuitous.

Just as "might does not make right," so "personal benefit does not make constitutional."

You describe Ron Paul followers as believing that "states rights trump God's law." Where in God's Law is the Chinese government commanded to invade any of the states that are killing people? Where in God's Law is the federal government commanded to invade states that are killing people?

Politicians who take an oath to "support the Constitution" are taking an oath to honor state sovereignty. Have you read the Tenth Amendment?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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."
Are you familiar with the constitutional doctrine of "enumerated powers?"

The Constitution would not have been ratified if the states had known it means what you say it means. Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment destroys the Constitutional doctrine of federalism and states' rights.

Perhaps this means the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Fortunately, only a few people in America have taken an oath to abide by the Constitution. Why not just get all the others together and organize THEM to stop the killing?

When Ron Paul followers are being killed, and you know about it, why is it that you and Bob Enyart are not rallying Christians together to rescue those who are being killed, rather than waiting for a politician in Washington D.C. to violate his oath of office and act unconstitutionally, overturning state sovereignty and setting malicious legal precedents in the process?

Both sides in this debate agree that the killing must be stopped. It is very unChristian for one side to say "Since you don't believe in stopping the killing MY way, you really SUPPORT the killings, you evil mass murderer you!"

It's one thing to imagine a temporary uprising of "We the People," or a momentary invasion of California by the "benevolent" "pro-life" Chinese government, assuming the Chinese actually save babies from being aborted . . .

. . . it's quite another thing to advocate giving the Chinese government permanent jurisdiction over the states in any matter touching "life, liberty or property" -- because that's EVERYTHING. And that's the 14th Amendment.

And if you believe a government in Beijing that has a forced abortion policy really and sincerely cares about babies murdered in California, and has no other hidden agenda for invading the states, then you'll probably also believe that a "benevolent" federal government in Washington D.C. that prohibits a copy of the Ten Commandments from even being posted on a classroom wall should be given permanent comprehsive jurisdiction over the states in every matter touching on "life, liberty or property."

Kiss the Constitution good-bye.