That is all very idealistic of you.
Well maybe he can't do anything. (Neither can my mechanic.) And if that's the case, what's the big to-do we make about a candidate's pro-life/anti-life stance?
I thought I named three things the President could do!?!
But it seems preposterous to me that the executive branch of the federal government is powerless to stop the slaughter of the nation's young.
That separation of powers thing does seem inconvenient at times doesn't it?
The Court can go jump in a lake for all they have to say about baby-butchery.
That kind of makes appointments to The Court important doesn't it?
So when the vaunted "Supreme Court" gives free reign to barbaric bloodlust, what would you have the President do? Give lipservice about being "pro-life"? Or actually act on the matter?
I gave my opinions of what the POTUS could do. Your comments beg the question "what would you have him do?" Usurp the Constitution and overrule Congress and SCOTUS with an EO?
Before I consider a candidate's judgment concerning abortion worth listening to, I'd rather he tell me what he plans to do about the problem. Cuz if he ain't gonna do nothin', I'll go chat with my mechanic instead.
I believe both of this year's candidates have stated what they would do. (Whether you believe either of them or not is another subject.) 0bama says he will appt liberal justices and McCain says he will appt conservatives. 0bama says he will sign FOCA. I'm pretty sure McCain has said he would not. (If not directly then indirectly by his blanket statement of Pro-Life support and his voting record to back that.) So there are statements from both of them. You may not be satisfied with them but you can't claim they haven't said what they will do.
If you're looking for a candidate who will promise to overthrow the Constitution you will probably be waiting a while.
The Constitution has already been overthrown, my FRiend. Now maybe that's a mere technicality in the grand scheme of things - like the recent bail-out bill having originated in the Senate rather than the House, which is blatantly illegal.
But what is not a mere technicality is the impact of that illegal Roe ruling some thirty-odd years ago. It's one thing for people to have their money stolen over the dead body of the Constitution. It's something else for them to lose their lives.
The Court is not the only arbiter of the Constitution. Each branch has a duty to defend that Constitution. Unfortunately we've got nothing but buck-passers in positions of responsibility. (Cf. McCain-Feingold BCRA.)
The separation of powers to which you refer was abrogated by Roe when (A) the federal government and (B) the Court assumed more power than was granted to them by the Constitution. Since that time, the legislative and executive branches have deferred to the "Supreme" Court's legislation as superior to the Constitution, the Declaration, and the Creator's Natural Law. How backward is that?
Now you tell us the President has to go hat-in-hand to the Court in order to save the lives of those whom the Constitution, the Declaration and Creator's Law were designed to protect? Hogwash!
Why not defer to the U.N. while we're at it? Why not ask China for instruction on human rights? Why not ask Mexico to design an immigration policy for us? Why not seek Iran's advice on our national security policy?
No, some things are not up for debate. This was Lincoln's position vis a vis slavery, and it ought to be the position of every serious pro-lifer vis a vis the murder of babies.
In short, no, my FRiend, I'm not "looking for a candidate who will promise to overthrow the Constitution". I'm looking for one who will man up and execute the protections of that Constitution.