I have received a number of e-mails recently chastising me for being inconsistent in supporting Ron Paul given his views of abortion (States should decide), Gay Marriage (States should decide) and Homosexuals in the military. This will be a brief attempt to explain my reasoning on this issue.
First of all, those who have followed my articles will know that right from the very beginning of the Paul phenomena I have said that he is not a perfect candidate and that he is clearly and overwhelmingly wrong on the abortion issue. The Constitution in the Fifth Amendment clearly gives the Federal Government the legal responsibility to insure that none of its citizens are ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’ Abortion clearly is a deprivation of life without due process of law and the Federal Government has the Constitutional Responsibility to protect life. Congressman’s Paul’s Libertarian tendencies work against him at this point and make him severely wrong in advocating a policy so clearly contrary to both the Constitution and Scripture.
So given this conviction why do I support Paul? The reason is because Ron Paul desires to return this Country to Constitutional Government and under Constitutional Government a State that desires to secede from these United States can do so and I can think of no better reason to secede from the Republic then a refusal to be associated with sacrificial child murder in its rankest form. Under the Paul plan if some States desire to allow in utero murder then apparently they can but also if any State is convinced they can not be yoked with that kind of murderous tyranny then Constitutionally they are free to leave. If we are going to be Jeffersonian here then let us have it all the way. (See the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions.)
As to Congressman Paul’s insistence that the States should decide on homosexual marriage I am in agreement with him for the reason that I do not think it is the State’s business to be in the ‘licensing of marriage’ business. This is a function that should be happening within the sphere of the Church and not the State. The State has been given the Sword as a ministry of justice, not the Surplice that it may approve, or conduct by proxy, marriages. This country existed for quite some time without the State being in the marriage business and I see no reason why we should have to get the States permission to marry.
Finally, on Homosexuals in the military issue, I once again believe that Paul is in a clear error that violates Scripture and the earlier standard that followed Scripture set by one General George Washington. In an instance where a sodomite was caught in the Washington’s army, Washington wrote,
At a General Court Martial whereof Colo. Tupper was President (10th March 1778), Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment [was] tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false accounts, [he was] found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th. Article 18th. Section of the Articles of War and [we] do sentence him to be dismiss’d [from] the service with infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief approves the sentence and with abhorrence and detestation of such infamous crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of camp tomorrow morning by all the drummers and fifers in the Army never to return; The drummers and fifers [are] to attend on the Grand Parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.
The fact that any candidate can seriously suggest that having buggery in the Military shows how far we have slipped from basic morality. This position of Congressman Paul once again reveals that his Libertarianism is getting the better of him. Still, Paul deigns to return us to Constitutional government, where at least theoretically, a State could secede due to such unconscionable policy from its Federal Government and so I support his candidacy with all the passion I can muster, going so far as to suggest that Christians who do not support his candidacy are not thinking Biblically.
I support Congressman Paul for President. I do not support him when his Libertarianism turns into a license that would harm the collective culture due to how it can help breed an immoral cancer that infects the soul of a nation.
9 thoughts on “The Charge Of Inconsistency”
An in-utero baby is not a “citizen” until born.
Although life begins at conception, citizenship
begins at birth. An illegal can be pregnant
for 8 months and then go out of the country and the
the baby is not a US citizen when born.
Ron Paul is right. Leave it to the states…
This is reasoning calculated only to avoid the affirmation that the State has the responsibility to protect life. Abortion is Constitutionally wrong. Abortion is morally wrong. No State has the right to overturn responsibility clearly delegated to the Federal Government.
Ron Paul is wrong and I can’t help but wonder if only a anarchist Libertarian would be saying that States should have the right to sanction murder.
Is there evidence that the original intent of the 5th Amendment was to absolutely outlaw abortion in all states? It’s certainly never been understood that way.
Americans love to innovate. That’s why we have Wilson and FV. Not to mention Adventism, MorMANism, etc. Ah,ahh- I said not to mention it 😉
I think “semper reformata” is often used as an excuse for mere rebellion and contrary belligerence.
May God help and sanctify us all. Amen.
The 5th Amendment didn’t originally apply to the states, nor did any of the other amendments which constitute the Bill of Rights. The 5th Amendment now applies to the states through the legal doctrine known as incorporation. This comes from 14th Amendment jurisprudence. Even today not all of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. The example most often cited is the 2nd Amendment.
Obviously the doctrine of incorporation is questionable jurisprudence and only came to be embraced in the 20th century after it was rejected in the 19th century in the Slaughterhouse cases as I recall.
My point about the 5th amendment though is that through the 5th amendment the States DID delegate protection of life to the Federal Government. I am arguing therefore that the Constitution allows the US Government, because of the 5th amendment to set standard policy for all 50 States on prohibiting abortion.
Now Robert asks whether or not the 5th amendment’s original intent was to prohibit abortion. Obviously not. But it was the original intent of the 5th amendment that, ‘No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’
If in-utero babies are persons then they have the protection of the 5th amendment, regardless of whether or not original intent envisioned this being applied to a medical procedure that would be called abortion in the 21st century.
One of the things that has to be reversed in order to get back to Constitutional Government is the Doctrine of Incorporation.
Thanks for visiting,
From Dr. Paul’s website (www.ronpaul2008.com):
“In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman.
In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094.
I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.
I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.”
Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn.
As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.”
Now all Dr. Paul needs to hit for the cycle is to introduce legislation that will prohibit the States from taking life as well as a codicil that prohibits SCOTUS from touching that legislation.
As long as he keeps saying that it should be up to the States he is not pro life.
Indeed,it is true, it’s always true. Comments ain’t even necessary.
Hm… generally I agree with you, but I wonder what our readers would tell.