But it won’t surprise you that this Yankee hasn’t dwelt on these details–I’d be happy to see you make the case for what was done being A) wrong, and B) somehow invalidating the 14th.

An originalist (let us say, who happens to also be a social conservative) thinks outright Natural Law Jurisprudence is wrong in general, and specifically wrong to hold that the 14th Amendment supports a Constitutional Right to Life extending back to conception, since the amendment uses the word “born” to define citizens, and thus seems to imply that “born” also defines the “”any persons” who receive the “life” protection. So there is strong reason to think the original understanding of “person” there was a “born person,” and no slam-dunk reason to think the understanding was implicitly, “whatever good embryology says about where human life begins.”

George’s argument replies, in effect, “You’re forgetting the clause of the 14th that empowers Congress to enforce the 14th. So the real originalist understanding of the amendment knows that the amendment itself explicitly carves out a place where non-judicial interpretation of itself may take place, regardless even of whether you buy into the (errant) Court-as-final-interpreter doctrine. Such interpretation of how to enforce the amendment (which cannot but interpret what it is) ought not to be bound by originalist + legislative-deference special scruple that comes into play where there is no originalist slam-dunk either way. That only makes sense for judges. How can the legislature defer to itself? Rather, Congress can rightly say “We” said “person” back in the day without being clear, and now, “we” clear things up, just as the amendment in question said we could.”

But isn’t this too brilliant? What is most decisive in Roe is the underpinning right of privacy invented out of thin air in Griswold. Showing those decisions are wrong to say such a right exists does not get you to the right to prenatal life, as you still need to interpret “person” in the light of “born.” George knows that. But why is he then implying that the unusual “Congress shall have the power to enforce” clause of the 14th somehow makes the decision between Arkes-esque Natural Law Jurisprudence and Originalism to decide this interpretative problem somehow easier or more obvious? Conservatives serious about both originalism and the authority of Congress to interpret the Constitution (in the Lincoln-described manner of accepting the SC’s say as final only on the particular case) must logically seek to elect representatives committed to interpret the Constitution by originalism, and then to hold them to this, right?

Or am I misrepresenting George’s argument?

The 60 second spot, which will air as part of a six-figure ad buy in New Hampshire and Iowa, is entitled simply “Trust”.

The video highlights how Paul was one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign.

“The establishment called him extreme and unelectable, they said he was the wrong man for the job.” the ad begins.

“After Reagan, Sen. Al Gore ran for president pledging to raise taxes and increase spending,” the ad states. “Rick Perry helped lead Al Gore’s campaign to undo the Reagan revolution.”

“Now America must decide who to trust, Al Gore’s Texas cheerleader or the one who stood with Reagan – Ron Paul.” the spot concludes.http://www.infowars.com/paul-slams-perry-as-al-gores-texas-cheerleader/