By Gary P Jackson
A prime example of why Herman Cain is not ready to be president. Cain has been under fire for his series of statements and clarifications concerning his stance on abortion that left many wondering if Cain is really pro-life, or the typical politician claiming to be “personally” pro-life while supporting “choice” on the issue. As Jazz Shaw, who evidently doesn’t understand the Constitution either, pointed out: A frustrated Cain finally said he would sign an amendment banning abortion.
In an interview with CBN’s David Brody, Cain talks about amendments not only banning abortion, but gay marriage as well.
From the interview:
Brody: Are you for some sort of pro-life amendment to the Constitution that in essence would trump Roe v. Wade?
Cain: Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it. That’s all I can do. I will sign it.
Read more here.
This is incredible. Herman Cain is running for president and has no idea what the job is, or how the Constitution works when it comes to constitutional amendments. Fact is, the president has absolutely no role at all to play in the process, other than being a cheerleader for [or possibly against] a certain amendment. There’s nothing for him to sign.
Most of us learned this in grade school, but as a refresher: [emphasis mine]
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal “red-line” copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.
I know many will say Mr Cain just made a mistake and it’s no big deal. But it is a big deal. We’re not talking about electing a city council member, we’re talking about electing someone to the most powerful position in the world. We’re talking about serious issues that will effect the lives of tens of millions of Americans. You’d think one of the parties to the discussion would at least know and understand the process for which his desired goals would be obtained.
I like Herman Cain, the man. I think he’s good at what he’s done, and capable of doing more. That said, his lack of knowledge, lack of planning, and lack of experience continues to trouble me greatly. I’m a Conservative and see these problems crystal clear, what do you think the media and the Obama regime will do to the man if he becomes our nominee?
There’s a reason why we generally elect governors to the presidency. The skills required to successfully govern a state are the same skills needed to govern the nation.
I know why Herman Cain appeals to so many people. For one, none of the governors running for president are acceptable, and Cain enjoys that “outsider” status. What Cain doesn’t have is the basic skill set needed, and an understanding of the position he’s applying for.
Conservatives need to think long and hard before electing Herman Cain.
Personally, I feel both of these issues, abortion and gay rights, are states rights issues, and the federal government has no standing in either, but Roe v Wade made that position moot on abortion. The Court overreached big time and “found” a right that had never before existed.
As for some sort of marriage amendment, if there was to be one, I’d want it to strengthen state’s rights and stop judicial interference. Though some states have voted to allow gay marriage, others have had the courts impose it on them, even though the people were against. Mitt Romney imposed it in Massachusetts by Executive Order. I believe in the right of the people to vote one way or the other. I do not think the courts should be able to override the will of the people, as long as everything is done legally.
I also doubt either issue is going to be solved anytime soon. On abortion, I’d love to see it banned, but for now, our best bet is to continue to educate people of the horrors of abortion, and continue to de-fund the multi-billion dollar slaughter houses run by Planned Parenthood. Public opinion is changing and more people now are pro-life than at any time in recent memory. This is a fight we are winning.