Quote:
Originally Posted by davidd
If you understood his campaign (and the Constitution) you would understand his stance on abortion. He is a believer in States Rights.
So when he says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade he wants to make it an issue that the states decide. Like his stance on the War on Drugs, his stance on Income Tax, etc.
He wants to neuter the Federal Government.... they way it should be.
If you want to smoke weed and have an abortion... you move to a state that allows it. If you want no social programs, no taxes, and no abortion (or whatever mixture you desire - do not get tripped up on the options)... you would move to a state that meets your desires.
In the current system of a strong Federal Government we have a contstant "over hang" of a strong central government that is often at odds with what the people want. I will use California as an example... California voters voted for Medical Marijuana. This is contrary to the Federal Drug Laws. Who should have the final say? California or the Washington D.C.? The answer is clear.
So the same thing would happen with abortion. If people in Iowa vote to make abortion illegal... so be it. This entire abortion debate would be eliminated from presidential elections overnight. It would not be an issue that the Federal Government could get involved in.
The goal of the Ron Paul campaign is to smash the power of Washington D.C. Some do not want this to happen... There are people who depend upon upon Washington D.C. to control their lives... there are a large amount of people (myself included) that are tired (very tired) of the stranglehold that Washington D.C. has on this country.
-dd
|
What do you have against the federal government, though?
Sure, federal governments often screw things up, but is there any reason the states would do much better? Hell, if it wasn't for the federal government - the Supreme Court specifically - some states would probably still have racial segregation.
Let's imagine Ron Paul having his way for a moment. What if Massachusetts decided to outlaw abortion, alcohol, sex toys and firearms, while Rhode Island decided to legalize all those things? The Massachusetts laws would be completely ineffective - everyone would just get their guns, booze, vibrators and abortions in the next state.