Comments on: Ron Paul chooses Death!

By: conservativerock5

conservativerock5 — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 02:25:08 +0000

One of the reasons I don’t hate Paul is because he is so pro-life. That is an area in which he has it right. He wrote a book in 1983 called Abortion and Liberty, and has converted many would-have-been college liberals into pro-lifers. He reintroduces the solution to abortion every year, the sanctity of life act.

On this issue he voted down the constitutional line, so bash him on that if ya’ll wish. But misrepresentation never helps anyone.

By: trimulchio

trimulchio — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:07:04 +0000

federal criminal laws that can apply given diversity of citizenship or inter-state crime. This is rather common. Federal criminal law casts a fairly long shadow, as seen with deciminalization of “medical” marajuana in CA.

By: trimulchio

trimulchio — Mon, 04 Jun 2012 01:02:44 +0000

not to substitute my judgements for those of professionals.

By: lapert

lapert — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 17:58:19 +0000

All the act did was specify the definition of terms in federal statutes – it doesn’t have any impact on state law, so doesn’t violate any separation of power issue.

By: lapert

lapert — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 17:26:21 +0000

That you are the one demonstrating stupidity here. Tell me, could the federal government have forced Florida to prosecute Zimmerman for murder? Or is the state allowed to set the laws that determine when, if at all, it prosecutes people for murder? If the answer to that isn’t obvious to you, you have a lot of learning to do in the real world.

Your argument isn’t absurd, it is plain ignorant.It is not the job of the federal government to force the states to prosecute any action. At most they can pass a federal law and prosecute themselves but murder has always been the clear purview of state government – not federal government. And no amount of emotional pleading on your behalf changes that – you simply are ignorant of our legal structure and that leads you to make arguments whose outcomes would be bad for our country.

Now move back to emotional ignorant land where your feelings become the role of the federal government (huh, just like a liberal) – leave the real world where we recognize that certain areas are fully left to the states to the rational people.

By: acat

acat — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:21:55 +0000

I am not a lawyer, and I’m smart enough to stay out of their bailiwick.

Mew

By: SoFiMil

SoFiMil — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 03:22:00 +0000

By: PowerToThePeople

PowerToThePeople — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 02:47:27 +0000

what part of imagination land you play in, but stop with the stupidity. The argument you set forth is not only absurd, it causes one to assume yo believe everyone to be stupid if you think that a state would be allowed to not prosecute murder by the fed government. It baffles the mind that any person of any sane caliber would attempt to make that argument with a straight face. It is like a moron trying to say nothing keeps a state from allowing slavery or indentured servants.

Now move on back to imagination land where you make sense. Maybe that will keep you away for another month and save us from reading your BS.

By: keepcoolwithcoolidge

keepcoolwithcoolidge — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 22:53:04 +0000

Its nice to see that you revere human life so much that you would take joy in the death of another. How Christian of you.

By: lapert

lapert — Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:44:54 +0000

Sorry, you have no idea what out there is. That you revel in your ignorance and lack of understanding here says plenty. No matter how much you wish it were so, nothing in the federal constitution compels the states to have a general law about murder, let alone any specific law defining precisely what killing qualifies as such.

Such a shame that you can’t see that. You would make a good liberal though.