[EternalVigilance]

Last time I checked, the President of the United States raises his right hand and swears to defend the Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[CitizenUSA]

EV wrote: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

All children should be conceived in love and cherished from the moment of conception, but zygotes are not “persons.” Are you prepared to treat abortion (at any stage for any reason) as murder? If so, what realistic chance do you ever have of achieving that aim?

Just because something is morally wrong doesn’t mean the federal government should be involved in stopping it.

[Hunton Peck]

I agree with your interpretation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court never has, and that interpretation would come as a shock to most congresscritters, and probably to most Americans. So the question becomes, just what, specifically, do you propose the next president do to enforce our interpretation of those provisions, given that it flies in the face of precedent going back to the John Marshall court (which held that the Supreme Court gets the ultimate say on constitutional interpretation)?