How to solve the abortion issue

Regardless of what side of the issue the Federal government comes out on, half the country is going to be outraged.  The simplest solution here is to not take sides at all, and if the U.S. Constitution were followed, this is how the argument would be resolved.

Of course, this solution will neither be popular among conservatives nor liberals. Conservatives want to use the Federal government to make abortions illegal. Liberals want to use the Federal government to make abortions legal.  Roe versus Wade, in effect, was a success by liberals.

However, both the conservative and liberal positions are abuses of Federal power, and both unconstitutional.  So, in this regard, so too was the 1972 Roe -v- Wade ruling in favor of abortion.

Article II Section 8 of the Constitution gives 30 powers to the U.S. Congress, and these are in essence named the enumerable powers of government.  Some of the things delegated to Congress include standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

The Constitution says nothing about murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence.  The Constitution only gives the government a right to make laws regarding counterfeiting, piracy, treason, and slavery.  It does not have a right to rule on abortion either.  Therefore, on this ground alone, the Rowe-v-Wade ruling is illegal.

If, for example, the government were to make infanticide legal, it would not be maintaining a republican form of government, which is required by the Constitution. If the Federal government were to rule on abortion, ideally it should err on the side of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, natural rights of the infant that are protected by the Constitution.

Regardless, anything not delegated to Congress is delegated, by the 10th amendment, to the states, or to the people, to decide. Therefore, the legal means of resolving the abortion issue is to let the states decide the manner.

In essence, if the law is followed, it would go back to the way it was prior to 1972, where some states had laws banning abortion, and some states had laws supporting abortion.  Those who continued to disagree with state law deserved the right to educate and fight for change.

Removing the power of the Federal government can be done with a massive educational movement, a majority in favor of such a movement in Congress, and a signature of the President. This, it would seem, would be much simpler than waiting for the Supreme Court to to repeal Rowe-v-Wade.

Although, the simplest means would be to regard the laws already on the books.

How to get real campaign finance reform

People are known to spend money in order to gain political influence, and this starts with donating money to candidates prior to elections, and then sending lobbyists to state and national capitols.  There is nothing wrong with this, as it is completely constitutional, or legal.  

In recent years, however, this has gotten out of hand.  It's gotten to the point where corporations are spending millions of dollars for lobbyists who champion for causes that will benefit their corporations.  There are individuals with a lot of money who gain power and influence through their campaign donations.  

Yet there are those among us who champion that this is not fair, and that we ought to stop it.  There are those who don't think it's fair for people with a lot of money, and large corporations, to be purchasing government at the expense of the common folk and our personal liberties.  

So their solution is campaign finance reform.  Yet most of these have been shot down by lower courts because they are, in effect, unconstitutional.  The most recent attempt was the McCain-Finance Act, or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, of 2002, that limited the amount of financial influence a person could have. In January of 2010 the Supreme Court ruled this law to be unconstitutional.  

The reason that these laws have been shot down by the courts is that, according to Article II Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, finance reform is not one of the enumerated powers given to the Federal government by the Constitution.  In other words, the Federal government has no authority to rule on it.  

Likewise, the first amendment guarantees the right of free speech, and campaign finance is a form of free speech.  Therefore, the Federal government has no right to control it b law . It does, however, have a right to control it by limiting the scope and influence of government.  

Think about it: if the size and scope of our government was not so huge, individuals and corporations would not have a desire to influence it.  So true campaign finance reform would come not from more laws that are unconstitutional, but reducing the size and scope, and therefore the influence, of government.

Further reading:

1. Harry Reid wants amendment to give Congress the power to regulate spending levels in federal campaigns.