Examine the premise behind that idea: that a Supreme Court ruling becomes law and may be enforced as though it were an actual statute approved by Congress.

The Supreme Court has no authority to legislate. The doctrine of stare decisis does not nullify the Constitution. That legal doctrine, which is useful to a sitting judge who needs an excuse to make an attorney stop trying to replow legal ground is not law. It is a subterfuge by which judges have managed to legislate from their benches.

The decision of a court on a lawsuit is binding only on parties to the suit. To assume otherwise is to overturn the US Constitution itself, which grants the power to legislate solely to the legislative branch.

Roe v Wade is not statutory law and must not be treated as though it were. Until the Constitution is amended, the states still have the authority to legislate on abortion, independent of the federal courts and of Congress.

If the president is to enforce the ruling in Roe v Wade, he may only enforce it upon parties to the suit itself. Pretending otherwise has been the means by which we have been duped into believing that court rulings become settled law, binding upon all people within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Lest we forget, It took only 44 years to go from Goldwater to McCain.

If it matters, I have been registered Independent my entire adult life and I'm over seventy years old. So I don't have a dog in the battle of parties. I am interested strictly in issues.

Some people are willing to surrender much of their freedom to a strong central government. They are tempted to do so usually in return for some kind of security -- or the promise of that security--- usually in the form of material goods. It is the kind of security a child has under the control of parents.

Others resist the tendency of government to take away their liberties, knowing that the power of government can be oppressive and that once government has powers over citizens, it almost never relinquishes them. Moreover, people in government can't be said to be more capable of running citizens' affairs than the citizens themselves. They are subject to all the vices of ordinary people. Jefferson said something like, if people can't manage their business where will they find angels to do it for them.

But worse than that, politicians enjoy exercising power over other people. That's true of virtually every politician. So a politician should be given as little power as possible. Jefferson again: the government that governs best governs least. We might give a great deal of power to a government led by a highly virtuous person, but what is to be done when a less than virtuous person assumes that enormous power?

Thomas DiLorenzo's book, Hamilton's Curse, is a good look at two of the founding fathers: Hamilton who wanted a powerful central government and Jefferson who understood the dangers inherent in that kind of government. Unfortunately, American history is the story of the unrelenting loss of individual liberty to a central government. The Constitution is now only a shadow of the original document. Although the Tenth Amendment forbids it, Congress now passes laws on any subject it wishes. And the Supreme Court, instead of upholding the Constitution, plays a big part in its destruction. Presidents Bush and Obama openly ridicule the idea that the Constitution matters. Yet they like every President and member of Congress in our history took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.