but who decides, in the bigger picture?

There is no "bigger picture." At this site, Glenn decides. And he is very, very light-handed about it compared with many blogs.

One site I really liked -- the now virtually defunct Left2Right -- was destroyed by sugraman and Garry Owen equivalents. The academics who ran the blog (who were and are vehement civil libertarians) just did not have time to moderate, and so eventually closed comments, which was the death knell for the blog. It was a great run while it lasted, but eventually the nuts (and ideology was not the primary issue) made it impossible to continue the productive discussion we had had there for almost a year.

Now that was truly funny.

Paul is a strong believer in federalism. He doesn't believe abortion should ever have left the purview of the states. If Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, the vast majority of states would legalize it -- even red ones such as South Dakota. (With some misgivings Paul voted for a federal ban on partial birth abortions, and isn't sure he'd do so again, but explained that since the issue had been federalized that was the only way to address it now.)

By the same token, he wants each individual state to decide what its law on marriage will be.

Absent an amendment to the federal constitution, as a matter of proper constitutional law there is much to be said for his positions.

Finally, there are pro-life libertarians. If one believes the embryo/fetus is vested with a right not to be killed, that is not unlibertarian, even if it is wrong as a matter of metaphysics. Libertarians believe the state properly protects people from being killed. Holding that this right is higher than a woman's right to control her body may be wrong, but it does not conflict with libertarian premises.

Fasle. The minutes from AMA meetings in the second half of the 19th century show them reviling abortionists as "modern day Herods" and as "false brethren." The sweep to criminalize abortion at the state level was largely propelled by the "doctors' crusade" of that era which, in turn, was based on an emerging, scientific understanding that the entity in the womb was animate before "quickening."

In any event, the issue was left to the states until Roe v. Wade, and Ron Paul has struggled with his federal position in light of that reality. I've read that he now thinks his decision to support pro-life federal legislation is incorrect and a submission to the original breach of federalism that, to him, Roe constitutes.

Paul has been an Ob-Gyn and delivered thousands of babies. He sees the being in the womb as another patient in his care. There are worse attitudes to hold.

Keep in mind, an M.D. is NOT a scientist. An M.D. can become a scientist if he/she seeks out the appropriate training, but med school itself is NOT a scientist-creating school. The only scientist M.D.s I've ever known are those that worked in the lab with Ph.D scientists (like myself) to actually LEARN science. Thus, Paul doesn't have scientific "cred" to make any "scientific" pronouncements about fetuses and babies simply by virtue of being an M.D.

Some "actual" scientists are creationists, too. A member of the physics dept at my undergrad institution was, and then there are Duane Gish and Henry Morris.

But there is a term called "medical science" that exists for a reason. There are specialties such as fetology, and many scientific articles are published in that field.

In any event, the move to criminalize abortion in the U.S. was largely led by physicians as the scientific facts about the nature of the entity in the uterus, prior to quickening, were discovered. Paul is in a respectable tradition there.

That all said, it is also true that he is deeply religious. However, he has said he does not care to discuss religion or his religious views very much in any political context.

Citizens of African ancestry in Mississippi aren't permitted to eat at a lunch counter, stay in a downtown hotel, have children legally with with a Caucasian partner, or vote.

I've not heard that RP has called for repeal of the 14th Am. There is some disagreement as to who ought to be covered by that and for what purposes, but no one -- not even Robert Bork -- disagrees that it covers race-based discrimination at the state level.

Yes, and this was all arranged by our small-government folks, right? Without that dreadful Federal interference, too -- amazing how shrinking the polis guarantees justice, isn't it?

The 14th Am is part of the Constitution. If there are other issues that Congress should attend to other than their enumerated ones, amend the document.

Failure to accept the limitations of the document have given us such wretchedness as federal drug prohibition and the DEA, and attendant, severe erosion of the 4th Amendment protections committed in the name of the "war" on substances. The individual is, indeed, quite helpless in the face of that power. If "libertarian fairy-tales" would eliminate that existing nightmare, may the fairy tales prevail.

Ron Paul's arguments about the Constitution and the 10th amendment are exactly in tune with Bork's testimony at his confirmation hearing.

I disagree with Bork rather strongly vis-a-vis the 1st Am and the 4th. But as I recall his views of the 10th -- and that was an awful long time ago -- I find them quite agreeable. If so, and if Paul's views are similar, good on Paul