Well, since the USSC has already ruled that under the 4th Amendment (i.e. Justice Blackmun's argument accepted), I don't know what a mere act of Congress (which is unlikely to pass in any event: Democrats aren't stupid, you know) would do to change that. Of course it would improve the standing of Duke Cunningham's buddy, the Duck Hunter, with one issue pro-Lifers who might vote in GOP primaries (if they're not sitting the primaries out 'cause they're mad at the GOP for some other real or imagined "slight" by that time). Other than that, however, I'd have to say that the 4th Amendment (even as interpreted by pro-Abortion, politicized "Jurists") would trump Duck Hunter's political stunt.
You need to read R. V. W a little closer. It was the lack of definition of when life begins that aided and abetted this decision.
Repeat ConLaw 101, you were sleeping the first time. Congress legislates not the bench. The 5th and 14th Amendments are quite clear, the life of "persons" are protected. If Congress defines persons to include the unborn, the distinguished oligarchy in robes would have no choice but to overturn Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton.
Well, since that childish smear was the best answer you can give to my question about whether anyone knows of any other presidential candidate who has participated in or proposed personhood legislation other that DUNCAN HUNTER, I guess your guy hasn’t.
Go, Duncan Hunter!
Keep fighting for innocent babies and for the rights of Americans.
www.gohunter08.com