If he will pledge to take power (and money) away from the Federal government, and give it back to the States (along with the money) that would be a gigantic step in the right direction.
As for leaving abortion as an issue to be ruled on 50 different ways, I see a lot of problems getting that done.
airborne wrote: “As for leaving abortion as an issue to be ruled on 50 different ways, I see a lot of problems getting that done.”
Except that’s exactly how it was handled for nearly 200 years of our nation’s history before Roe v Wade.
I see even more problems with getting a constitutional amendment “done.” Which is why it wouldn’t really hurt Fred to support an amendment. It makes a crucial point and it’s very, very, very, very, very, very unlikely ever to pass. And if it ever came close, it would thereby give the states exactly the privilege he claims he wants to give them: they could then decide whether to ratify it.
No one’s asking him to put all his eggs in the amendment basket. He could support this and also support overturning R v W and giving the states authority to decide—he could support all three of them.
But that would be an extreme position, now, wouldn’t it. And Fred’s laid back and nuanced. Romney’s looking better all the time.
If the Frederalist would support repeal of the 17th Amendment, then his devotion to federalism would effectively be backed by a pledge to take action to ensure federalism and secure the 10th amendment. Right now, the Frederalist, should he become Prez, would only be able to support federalism through vetoes and supreme court nominations.