The only way for the Feds to outlaw abortion, would be, as you say, through a constitutional amendment. They could throw one out to the states if they wanted to, but no amendment which outlawed all abortion would pass.

People cite polls that show small majorities being "Pro Life". The problem is that that term has variable meanings. In public debate, it means "opposing all abortion", while Pro-Choice means "supporting all abortion". There is no term to describe people who support some abortions but not others, because the activists on both sides have read 1984 and know that the best way to eliminate an idea is to eliminate any words that might enable that idea to be discussed. (How do you talk about freedom if there's no word for freedom?)

Concerning Supreme Court Justices, the obvious answer is that sometimes they do not turn out to rule the way the president who nominated them hoped they would. Both Bush II and Obama seemed to have been careful to get what they wanted with their four justices (leaving out that joke Harriet Miers).

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...

<In a new interview with Men's Journal, Wahlberg says that <world history would have been different> had he not made a fortuitous decision to fly to Toronto a week early and thus avoid boarding one of the planes out of Boston that crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11th.

"If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did," he tells the magazine. "There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, 'OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.'">

He has quickly walked back most of it, but apparently not the idea that he can turn into Superman at will:

From memory headline federal debt

1981 .9 T
1993 4.2 T
2001 5.8 T
2009 10.6 T

Now 15.3 T

<Valiant: Got some numbers for that affirmation?>

And what of the votes? Where is the option toward voting None of the above?

When the choices under the current system is to vote for the lesser of two evils in vain hopes of less damage to the nation..

Here's how..

Liberals question nothing. They believe liberal leaders no matter what. Whatever the liberal leaders say, they believe it. Even if you point this out to them they still won't question their leaders. Instead they'll say it's the conservatives who don't question anything.

There was a phrase "question authority" that was popular in the 1960s. It's ironic that the leftists who kept repeating it, never questioned their own leaders. They believed everything they were told.

The 60s left wing radicals were gullible and sheeplike and still don't question what they were told. These people are now in power. They're incompetent and they still question nothing.

I admire the Libertarians for trying to make "none of the above" an option.

<When the choices under the current system is to vote for the lesser of two evils in vain hopes of less damage to the nation..>

Lots of people face that.

<Do you have a better solution, or can think of improvements that the Average American can work toward?>

The Laffer curve is also too simplistic in that it assumes a single tax rate, a single labor supply. Actual systems of public finance are more complex.

It doesn't remove the inane number of Tax Breaks in current use, the sectaries will still pay more then their boss, and situations like this http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20... still happen