Herman Cain said he would take action to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion — though in fact, the president does not have any role in amending the Constitution at all.
In an interview posted over the weekend on the Christian Broadcasting Network:
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.
In fact, the president does not play any role in the amending process under the Constitution. As laid out in Article V, amendments are proposed by either a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, or by a constitutional convention petitioned for by two-thirds of the states, before being sent to the states for ratification by a three-fourths majority.
Indeed, this fact does call into question why so many reporters ask presidential candidates why they would support a constitutional amendment on anything — and why so many candidates give an answer.
(A historical footnote: In the lead-up to the Civil War, President James Buchanan in 1861 signed a proposed amendment that Congress had passed in an attempt to placate the South, which would have forever enshrined slavery in the Constitution. The signature had no legal significance.
Four years later, President Abraham Lincoln signed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery, as a symbolic counter to Buchanan’s previous action.)
