Replies

Complete statement via facebook:

http://www.facebook.com/teambachmann#!/notes/michele-bachmann/bachmann-signs-pro-life-pledge-urges-romney-to-do-the-same/218775661487772

Washington, DC - On the heels of Congresswoman Michele Bachmann signing the Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge, Bachmann for President Spokeswoman Alice Stewart issued the following statement in response to Governor Romney's failure to sign the Pledge and defend life:

"Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was proud to sign the SBA List Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge. Protection of the unborn has never been a political issue for her. It is, quite simply, a core conviction from which she has not wavered.

"It is distressing that Governor Romney refuses to sign the SBA Pledge, even while claiming to be pro-life. The excuses for not signing clearly continue the doubts about his leadership and commitment to ending the practice of abortion – particularly for a candidate who ran as pro-choice for the Senate and Governorship of Massachusetts. Any Presidential candidate seeking our party's nomination should sign the SBA Pledge and vow to protect life from conception to natural death. Governor Romney should reconsider his decision not to sign the Pledge just as he reconsidered his position on the life issue during the last campaign.

"Congresswoman Bachmann will nominate federal judges who are deeply committed to the Constitution and who will not legislate from the bench. She will also work to defund Planned Parenthood, end taxpayer funding of abortions, and repeal Obamacare and its open door for spending taxpayer dollars for abortion services."

That's a very interesting statement. I note that even Bachmann doesn't mention the fourth item of that pledge. That's the part Herman Cain had a problem with, and I also see a serious problem with it, especially in light of the first item, appointing judges who will follow the original intent of the Constitution.

Perhaps someone on this thread can provide an answer to a question I've been asking since this pledge came to the forefront of "news."

The first item in the pledge is "to nominate to the U.S. federal bench judges who are committed to restraint and applying the original meaning of the Constitution, not legislating from the bench;" and the fourth item is to "advance and sign into law a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children who are capable of feeling pain from abortion."

Let's assume a president Bachmann (or any president for that matter) signing this pledge and following through on all the items. So we have federal courts with judges who respect the original intent of the Constitution and are "strict constructionists." Among other things, this means that the "General Welfare clause" will convey no power or authority for the Congress to act, as Madison outlined in Federalist #41. And for grins, let's also assume that "Interstate commerce" authority is interpreted to mean only transactions where someone in one state is actually purchasing goods or services from someone in another state, or purchasing transportation for goods or passengers traveling from one state to another. All thiings are as they should always have been. The United States of America is on it's way back to being a great country again.

Now, the "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act" is challenged in the courts. Exactly which power enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, interpreted with the original intent of the founders, allows the Congress to pass such an act and the President to sign it into law? Wouldn't the judges the SBA list pledge is wanting in place find the law they are proposing to be unconstitutional?