Posted on 05/05/2014 8:31:47 AM PDT by PoloSec
Republicans are close to gaining more state legislative majorities this year, which will likely affect social issues and energy laws, The Wall Street Journal reported.
"Most of the key issues are taking place at the state level, and you'll continue to see a clear course of action on the Republican side," Bill McCollum, chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee and a former Florida congressman and attorney general, told the Journal.
The GOP only needs to gain a handful of seats to take control of five state senates, the Journal reported, and four more state legislative chambers are also being targeted. Republicans already control legislatures in 26 states and hold the governor's office in 29 states as this year's elections near.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Now if we could put senators back under the direct control of the states.
Breaking news: Little Jimmy Smertz has had a wonderful idea and is CLOSE to making gold from lead.
Don’t you love “close to” articles?
Same here in Tennessee with a GOP controlled House, Senate, and governorship. Yet, they only reluctantly overturn long standing Rat laws.
Conservatives winning states should increase the possibility of new amendments to the Constitution. While I would support term limits for federal lawmakers, the states really need constitutional authority to fire bad-apple politicians before their terms are over, politicians who ignore the federal goverment’s constitutionally limited powers.
The states also need the constitutional authority to get rid of activist justices.
She sure despised Ronald Reagan.
ansel... I’m unfamiliar with her feelings about Reagan.
Can you imagine how bright our political future would be if our state legislatures still elected US Senators?
She wrote of his run for the Republican candidacy for the 1976 election in The Ayn Rand Letter (”The Last Survey, Part 1” Nov-Dec 1975):
I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worse sense of the word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor... This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.
Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication. There is no room for an error of knowledge in this issue and no venal excuse: the anti-abortion stand is horrifying because it is non-venal—because no one has anything to gain from it and, therefore, its motive is pure ill toward mankind.
I’m tired of the corrupt politicians in DC. I’ve come to the conclusion that our efforts should be with the States. Work through the States and put the power back with the States. FORGET WASHINGTON, for Pete’s sake!!
and yea, the Gerrymander shall slay the Democrat beast.
yeah. Once you get past her abhorrence of socialism and communism, she veers off into areas I disagree with her - God, for instance.
On socialism and communism, she’s great.
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.