For Southern Republicans, ‘It’s the Constitution, Stupid’

Pajamas Media ^ | 4/11/2010 | Rick Moran

[GregNH]

The Southern Republican Leadership Conference wrapped up on Saturday afternoon after three days of speeches dripping with red-meat criticisms of Democrats and President Obama. This is par for the course for any party gathering, especially one where the party holding the shindig is on the outs.

But there was also something most unusual about the conference: an uncommon amount of talk and discussion of the United States Constitution. Ordinary people from all walks of life, not a constitutional scholar or lawyer among them, are actually trying to come to grips with the fundamental meaning and purpose of our founding document.

Has such a thing happened since the debates over ratification? If the numbers of tea partiers can be believed — and they were omnipresent at this gathering — perhaps millions of citizens are reading the Constitution and trying to place the actions taken by our government within the confines of our founding document’s strictures. And judging by the numerous conversations I had with delegates, bloggers, and just ordinary folk, there is a profound feeling of unease about not just what Obama and the Democrats have done to expand the power of the federal government, but Republicans as well. Contrary to what the left would like to establish as conventional wisdom — that the tea party movement is a wholly partisan operation — the anger people are demonstrating about spending is directed at both parties, almost equally.

[Phlyer]

Gotta have someone electable. Romney is possibly that.

We've fallen for that 'must be electable' mistake too many times. Dole was 'electable.' McCain was 'electable.'

And Reagan was not.

Despite the way he actually performed while in office, George W. Bush was considered very conservative - particularly during his first campaign. And that was the cultural perception even during his second campaign (just try telling a liberal that "W" was not conservative and see how big a laugh you get.)

The only Republicans that can get elected - except the the coat-tail anomaly of Bush I - are considered to be conservative. If the people don't want a conservative, they are going to vote for the Dims anyway.

That doesn't mean they actually have to be conservative (e.g. Bush II). Only that they are considered conservative by the voters.

And Romney is not considered conservative at all. The Republicans have lost their way so badly that they have inverted the 'conventional wisdom.' They nominate a 'moderate' who then has to spend his entire compaign establishing his 'conservative' credentials. And then they lose.

This has come about because a preponderance of the early caucuses and primaries are in the more liberal areas of the country. If the delegate train started in more conservative states, the moderates would not get nominated. A truly 'electable' candidate - as opposed to a nominatible candidate - must be conservative enough that the voters do not perceive him (or her) as Democrat-lite.

A candidate who ran on the anchors of an honest implementation of the Constitution and fiscal responsibility would capture the current mood of the country. However, establishment Republicans have already lost their credibility on that. It will take a true outsider - probably a governor, and certainly someone with a track record of fiscal responsibility.

Though Romney was a governor, he fails the rest of that test completely.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Short of a military dictatorship, I don’t imagine any elected official, conservative or not, with that much chutzpah. Likewise, the process for making laws is designed to prevent new laws from being passed—but this cuts both ways as being tremendously difficult and time consuming to get rid of bad laws as well.

But the individual States are outside of the system. As such, they would not be “removing their own appendix”, but working as a surgeon works on a patient. In addition, the say of a convention is final, and cannot be appealed through the ponderous federal courts.

This has to be such a certainty, that after the 38 States have ratified the new constitution, that the convention remains seated to insure that the changes are carried out, having the power to relieve and replace federal officials and officers who refuse to obey the new law.

Ironically, this is almost required, because of the Writ of Mandamus argument. That is, what if there is a new constitution, and the president refuses to follow it, and congress refuses to impeach him? In this case, the convention could remove him from office with a simple majority vote, and appoint a replacement who agrees to carry out the will of the States.

The bottom line is that this will never be frivolous. America will have to be in a deep crisis before the States will do this.