Hmmm...I could have sworn that Article VI requires every officer of government, in every branch, at every level of governance, to support the Constitution of the United States.
Oh yeah, it does!
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..." -- Article VI, the United States Constitution
The idea that an officer of government has no responsibility to interpret the meaning of his own oath, and to act accordingly, is preposterous.
The judicial supremacist fallacy that you and others are pushing here, and that Sarah Palin supports as well, is the death of representative republican self-government. There are no checks and balances in such a system.
Sorry, living under a judicial oligarchy wasn't part of the deal.
I don't push that and I call on you to publicly repudiate the accusation.
It was the ROE decision that exemplifies such thinking and the Roe decision is most likely to be overturned on 10th Amendment grounds, if ever.
Even assuming you had working majorities in both houses of Congress AND a POTUS willing to sign, until Roe is overturned a Federal Law precluding abortion would be held void.
It's ALSO just a likely you would have as many constitutional conservatives in opposition to such a law as you would liberals...as they highly value the 10th Amendment.
The law does not currently define the unborn as a person at the Federal level. If Congress and the POTUS were to pass such a law...it MIGHT hold since the Constitution does not address the matter at all.
I just don't believe they ever will.