2 Comments

G L Troisi
September 8th, 2011 | 3:46 pm

Hey Pete.

Although George’s Question was a very difficult one for anybody to answer who feels very strongly about states rights; I thought Dr. Paul’s answer was both pragmatic and consistent with his views of a limited federal government. I see both sides of the argument, and could understand why someone would want the federal government to have the power to restrict the states, especially when it comes to destructive acts such as killing the unborn. But I believe the 9th and 10th amendment were not considered null and void when the 14th amendment was enacted. And I think Dr. Paul was very gracious to George when he recognized how George could come to that conclusion. But considering there has been a heated debate about abortion on the national level for nearly 40 years and millions of millions of babies have died in the process, I think the most feasible option, is to take this discussion away from the federal government, and allow the states to deal with it. I truly believe a vast majority of the states would restrict abortion immensely (Look at what some states are doing now to try to curb easy access and abortion on demand), while some would outlaw completely. I believe if we want to abolish the laws in place for the destruction of unborn and have their rights recognized by the government as a whole, we have to change the hearts and minds of the people locally, statewide and then nationally. And we also have to be pragmatic, and see what little effect we as conservatives, and those that feel our rights our endowed to us by our Creator, have had, when we have tried to change Federal Laws by electing Federal Judges. So I would disagree with you saying the question turned Paul inside out. I think though it does show us what a difficult issue it is, when it comes to changing laws to protect a child in the womb.

Pete Spiliakos
September 8th, 2011 | 6:11 pm

G.L., we don’t actually disagree on abortion and the 14th Amendment. I was more writing about George’s follow up on the 14th Amendment or as I put it in another thread:

If Paul has confined himself to the answer that the Framers of the 14th Amendment had not considered the unborn persons for the purpose of federal protection under that amendment, and that the 14 Amendment left abortion policy to the states (and presumably the Congress under some circumstances), that would have been a quite plausible originalist interpretation – and one a I basically agree with. But when Robert George pressed Paul about what Congress might do under the 14 Amendment if a state legislature removed the penalties for murdering members of some group based on race or ethnicity (in effect creating a license to kill – he could have mentioned bans against testifying in court I guess), Paul responded with the non sequitur that the states differ among themselves in the severity of how they punish murder (death penalty etc.).