I think it is the only way that the results would be considered legitimate by a solid majority. There would always be a minority who was angry about the result; that’s the way it goes.

In other words, I think this issue is too important to be left to our servants in Washington.

How many abortions a year would it take for a serious attempt at a course correction?

A course correction for whom? For those that believe it EVIL, or those that believe it simply a personal choice? And for there to be a correction, one would think that there must be a Correct way to start with. Do you know the correct way, sans an interperted personal system of metaphysics?

Medical Marijuana – Several States have voted to legalized marijuana for individuals that are prescribed the drug by their doctors. The federal government still raids and jails individuals for their use of a drug, legally prescribed in their State. They’ve arrested and tried individuals for growing marijuana that their local government had contracted to have grown.

Right to Life/Death etc – Terri Schaivo… enough said.

Federal Income Tax – Depending on how you choose to interpret some of our founding documents, a federal income tax may actually be unconstitutional.

Gay Marriage – If the life or death of an unborn child is something best left to States… then it seems silly to think that a civil contract, where no life is at stake, would exist at a higher level… yet, some who complain about Roe v. Wade, endorse a Federal Amendment to the Constitution regarding this.

My point is not that we should be pro-gay pot smoking people who don’t want life support and don’t pay taxes… rather, my point is that Roe v Wade is one of MANY issues wherein the Federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds (prayer in school too, as an afterthought). Why then, is Roe v. Wade the loudly proclaimed, widely endorsed “Constitutionalist” position?

The answer, from my perspective at least, seems to be that the groups who loudly, proudly and constantly yell about Roe v Wade, often appear to have more of an issue with Abortion, than with the Constitution. (noted by the pictures of fetuses etc. as opposed to pictures of our founding documents)

I’m not gonna blame this on Christian conservatives, some of the staunchest supporters of Medical marijuana are Christians that realize how useful it can be in helping terminally or painfully ill individuals (Some Christians actually act like Christ!!!). There are notable Christian voices dissenting from the federal income tax and from federal involvement in life vs. death decisions for clinically dead individuals. Heck, there are Christians that support stem cell research (while pointing out that government dollars were not intended for Medical research).

In the end… I find that strict interpreters of the constitution have a whole lot of issues that they are concerned about, while anti-abortion individuals occasionally borrow their arguments to give their position the air of honesty. Politicians that talk about the Constitution and then only discuss Roe v Wade, seem (to me) as panderers. I don’t think they really care about the Constitution or abortion, they simply realize that often they can get several sheep by making bleating noises about Roe. Consider how much hasn’t changed since the election of GWB (while his party held majorities in Congress and the Senate). He made noises about Gay Marriage and abortion and all of the other issues… but he never actually tried to do anything about them. They were simply rhetoric used to con Americans (just like all the other politicians).

But, I could be wrong.

(1) I doubt that the two-party system is to blame for candidates playing to their base. In a multi-party system driven by proportional representation (PR), there will be more partisanship, not less. Nor is there any need to “run to the center” in the general election under PR since membership in the legislative body is largely guaranteed. In the sort of system I favor – single member districts with Condorcet or Approval voting – if there were a primary system as there is today, you’d still see candidates playing to their base in the primary. The main difference would be that the center in the general election would not be defined unidimensionally. Candidates would still probably try to find it, though.

(2) I’m pro-choice, but I’ve long thought that Roe arrived at the correct decision by largely incorrect reasoning. Everything really hangs on the “privileges or immunities” clause of Sec 1 of the 14th Amendment (effectively nullified in the Slaughter House Cases back in 1873) coupled with the definition of citizenship as “persons born or naturalized…”. I’ve never seen a true originalist analysis of abortion so it is certainly possible I could be argued out of my constitutional position. If I’m right about the 14th, it is an instance where a close reading of the text produces an unanticipated outcome from the standpoint of the Framers of the 14th. That’s not an argument against originalism, mind you. Just an argument that opponents need to amend the Constitution.

Wow, I’ll tell Russell Kirk, if he’s still alive!

“It’s why I tend to not vote Republican, except for….Shwarzenegger…”

Wow, again. There’s a political philosophy to conjure with!

And the BCRA (aka McCain/Finegold) shows how much regard he has for the First Amendment.

Roe V Wade – The Unconstitutional Decision