Posted on 12/10/2012 5:02:20 AM PST by Kaslin
This is part two of a column on the state of Republicanism and how they should move forward.
In 1973, the Supreme Court issued one of their worst rulings ever in Roe v. Wade. Largely made from “whole cloth,” the ruling has started a 40-year fight over abortion that unnecessarily has divided this country. If Republican principles were in place on this issue, then there would be a heated discussion; but the core of the fight would be defused and the issue would be handled at the state level where it properly belongs and where other issues should be handled.
Without being a constitutional scholar, it is difficult to cite each case which has enlarged the power of federal government since Marbury v. Madison. We can say authoritatively that too many things are handled by the federal government, now so large it is ineffective in enforcing the (too) many laws it has promulgated. The feds have stuck their nose into places they don’t belong and they collect too much revenue, which they then disburse to states with far too many strings attached. The interpretation of what is interstate commerce has been gravely abused and needs to be trimmed back so people at the state and local level can make decisions tailored more closely to the needs of their residents.
In last week’s column, we defined that people are voting with their feet and moving to states that are more aligned with their concepts of government and taxation. The Republican Party has stated its strong support of federalism. Governors of Red states have often asked the federal government to keep their noses out of the Governors’ state’s business. Then why can’t we live with that on certain social issues? If a state wants to adopt certain public policies and the people of the state can live with that, then the other states should stand aside. Here are a couple of examples that would help the image of the Republican Party.
Gay Marriage – Republicans may not be able to endorse the concept, but if the people of Maine Washington and Maryland wish to allow gays to marry that is their choice. Such an issue should be determined only after a vote of the people at a major election time (no voting when 12% of voter’s show up). Some egotistical judge should keep his or her hands off of this issue. They know no better than the rest of us as to whether this should be legal. But if Maine wants gay marriage, that is their choice by our Constitution.
What Republicans need to do is openly embrace gays even if not endorsing gay marriage. If there is an election in a state, any opposition to adoption of gay marriage should be based on support of traditional marriage with no hint of anti-gay rhetoric. Gays are not going away, so if you cannot learn to accept them, you need to go live on an island somewhere.
Don’t believe we are naïve. Extreme gay groups argue that if you are against gay marriage, you are anti-gay. We all know that is baloney. Gay groups say there are innumerable laws that are affected by not being able to marry, but they have not gotten that message out very well and that is probably baloney also. If you speak with gays they seem to always cite the same three or four disadvantages of not being able to marry; all of which are resolvable by revised statutes.
Gay interest groups never tell the gays getting married that if the federal government recognizes their marriage, their tax bill will grow substantially since most gay couples are two-earner families. Wait until they start paying the substantial federal marriage penalty and they may wish they did not want to be married. And remember not all gays support gay marriage. It is a burning issue for some, but not all.
Left-leaning groups will attempt to nationalize this issue and circumvent state’s rights. This is not the human rights issue of today. It is just a disagreement albeit an important one. The groups that supported gay marriage and went to the ballot box in Maine, Washington and Maryland did the right thing. The people have voted. If you live in those states and don’t like it – move. If you want to get married – move to those states.
The bottom line is it was the right way to do it and let’s see how it works out.
Legalization of Marijuana – This issue has been bubbling since President Nixon’s Commission on Drugs suggested in 1970 he support decriminalization of marijuana so drug enforcement could be focused on other dangerous illegal drugs.
In over forty years, the war on drugs has been a major failure in part because few people take marijuana usage seriously. They have lived through generations of use and seen very little harm amongst the people they personally know.
Eighteen states now allow some form of marijuana use for medical purposes. All of us know that marijuana has positive medical effects. Yet, most of these laws are shams to cover for legalized marijuana usage. The only people who think the world has fallen apart are the DEA.
If states want to legalize marijuana then let them do it. Colorado seems to have the broadest laws and the state has not sunk into the earth’s core. Other states should look at what they are doing and Republicans should stick to the view that it is a state’s rights issue. The feds should keep their hands off.
These are just two social issues that need to be defined at the state level. Republicans should be on the forefront arguing that each state has the right to make their own decision just like they have argued for 40 years to have abortion decided at the state level. Then people can continue to vote with their feet as was designed by the Constitution.
Our money is on the fact that more and more people will end up in Red states.
This is the kind of thinking that killed the Republican Party.
so I have two questions for you? A: did you read the article (your comment indicates that you did not) and B: do you think only homosexuals are going to vote in favor of the homosexual agenda? Unless you think that, then the % of the population is totally irrelevant.
If someone wants to support states rights and they want to support a concept of federalism that really respects the 10th Amendment, that is fine. I like that. But if the article is 80% "why Republicans are wrong on gay marriage", then I will make snarky comments.
If you don't like it, you can move to a state than bans comments from people like me. ;)
His first citation of Roe v. Wade snagged my attention as something the Republicans should actually take advantage.
Granted, the Supreme Court at the time created a “right to privacy” out of whole cloth, as their basis for supporting a *federal* law.
“(The) right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”
This is critical, because in the time since the SCOTUS imagined this, the “right to privacy” seems to have been *reduced* to *only* concerning abortion.
So instead, the Republicans (or really, the conservatives) have a grand opportunity to *expand* on the “right of privacy” *at the expense* of the federal government.
That is, the federal government routinely and regularly expands on its own power by diminishing our individual “right of privacy”. We should ask the SCOTUS to strip the federal government of these power grabs, by asserting our “right to privacy”.
In past the states have been so oppressed by these federal power grabs against them, that they have been in something of a quiet revolt to get their power back. So it is high time that the people do the same and get *their* power back.
The US has 16 major intelligence agencies, and over 100 federal police agencies. And while there is little objection to these being directed against our foreign adversaries, there is only a fraction of a need for them to be directed at domestic criminals.
And yet perhaps the bulk of what they do is now directed at *us*, the people, instead of our enemies.
This is not right or true, and should be stopped, not just because it violates our “right of privacy”, and all our other civil rights as well, but that it is otherwise wholly unconstitutional, defeats the entire purpose of the social contract, and has now devolved to only supporting evil.
As an epilogue, I will add that over the years, they states have whittled down Roe v. Wade until it is just a shadow of its former self. But that was a function of what the states can and should do.
But conservatives should embrace the logic of court and appreciate and enlarge upon our “right of privacy”, as being central to our other rights. For if we cannot live without the threat of continual and ubiquitous surveillance, our every move, our every spoken and written word examines and recorded, the rest of our rights evaporate.
Thank you.
Yes, homos are 2% of the population,
but the people who attach themselves to the “homosexual rights” cause in order to shake their fist in the face of God
are the ones that we are fighting.
I would agree the article is unfocused, but your comments are still shallow and meaningless, therefore their snarkiness is just snarkiness, and they do not advance the conversation intellectually. Snark, with an intellectual point, is powerful. Otherwise, it’s just snark.
You know, like your stupid comment about banning commenters like you. I don’t want to do that, I rather enjoy using superior snark to expose the intellectual bankruptcy of such commenters.
Bialosky is an idiot. Always has been. The title of the piece attracted my attention but when I saw his byline I passed it over. Then I came back and read it. Wish I hadn’t wasted my time.
I’ll start by saying that I didn’t read the whole thing. That being said, the government, whether in the hands of the Pubs or Rats, is an adversary that will naturally seek to accrue power unto itself and therefore, must be controlled by the people. The founders knew this and established, what they thought, was a way to limit it.
You are right, but I would add that a moral issue remains a moral issue even if 99% of the population is on the wrong side.
The problem is that the liberals won’t be happy letting these matters be decided on a state level for very long. They won’t stop until we have gay marriage in every state, so once they can’t win any more referendums, they’ll get the courts to force it on the rest.
The problem is, homosexuals have more money than God, and they give it in huge gobs to gay PAC's to throw at unsuspecting family-friendly down-ballot GOP candidates, trying to head them off before they even get name recognition, so determined are gays to sign society up to rebuke the Author of the Universe and Ontos-On for what He told Abraham in Genesis 19 and 20.
If we were leftists, we'd call this straight-bashing and go hire a lawyer to persecute these guys until they expired. But we aren't.
Then why is David Spade rich?
This week, it's a "let's see if they fall for the federalism gambit" approach. Never mind that Evan Wolfson and the 600 homosexual lawywers who've been working on this cause for 30 years have abundantly telegraphed their intention to impose their amorality on 100% of the People by a decree of the Supreme Court similar to that of Brown vs. Board and Roe vs. Wade. This has always been their Plan A: A federal-level, rights-based, total victory by decree.
Not a bad plan, there, Vern, seeing that nobody has respected States Rights since 1865 except for Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.
Why are strawberries red?
Any other totally irrelevant questions?
No state has the right to declare that some people are fair game for murder by private citizens. Any state that does so by means of its own legislature should be expelled from the Union. (California in 1967; New York in 1970.)
The Fourteenth Amendment embodies this principle of justice: It prohibits any state's depriving any person of life, liberty, or property "without due process of law." "Due process of law" does NOT refer to the process of legislation; it refers to criminal justice proceedings.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court declared that if Congress were to find that the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment embraced pre-born people, then "appellant's case collapses." I.e., Jane Roe would lose.
For forty years, this opportunity to nullify Roe has dangled in plain view in front of the Congress. For a considerable number of those years, the Republicans have been in the majority. What have they done with this opportunity? Nothing. Neither have they availed themselves of their power to remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Instead, Republicans and the pro-life movement have wasted decades on the impossible (and totally unnecessary) effort to pass some sort of "human life amendment." To this day, the passage of such an amendment is the stated goal of the March for Life.
As the U.S. enters its death throes, the time for petitioning the central government to undo its judicial and legislative crimes is over. With the end of the Republic, we shall be free of Roe, Doe, Casey, et al.
The left never sleeps, they continue to promote the same agenda and will use whatever languages they need to do it with, in the end, the left keeps going to the same place, promoting the same ends.
Several perhaps random thoughts come to my mind.
1. As you noted, fags have a high proportion, for the numbers, of very wealthy, and they love to donate to fag agenda issues and candidates.
2. Many of them, even if not wealthy, are rabidly driven to push the agenda. As a revolution.
3. The fag agenda is a special pet of all the leftists.
4. Leftists heavily larded with fags control the “entertainment industry” and the media AND all educational institutions except some private schools and colleges. So the next generation/s are becoming heavliy indoctrinated to the point of hypnotism/Pavlov’s dogs about it.
5. A subset of the leftists pushing the fag agenda is the destruction of the US military.
6. Another major subset is the neutering of all religious institutions (the ones that have not succumbed to sodomy is holy already).
7. Another major subset is the desctruction of all citizens’ rights of free speech, association, and religious expression.
What to do, what to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.