Monday, April 02, 2007


Writing in the Spring 2007 Claremont Review of Books, Charles R. Kesler proposes a novel concept – Republican candidates should define themselves (and mean it) as supporters of the Constitution of the United States, a document which lately seems to be honored verbally, more than in practice. Whatever positions these candidates choose to espouse should be examined in strict constructionist terms.

The Democrats will, for the most part, base their campaign on their usual “pandering” to those they consider to be “the little people”, people they arrogantly assume are somehow their inferiors and who, therefore, must be “taken care of” rather than assuming responsibility for their own lives. Hence the neverending quest by the Dems to install a “nanny” state mentality. It has already started some 20 months before the next presidential election, if indeed it ever stops.

The Republican Party has historically had difficulty competing against the Democratic Party’s mindset and tactics, although, sad to say, they are doing way better at it in recent years. Word to the wise, the Democrats have been at this a long time – you ridiculous RINOs will never ever equal or outdo their antics.

National defense – including the defense of our borders – is the overriding priority charged to the Federal government by our Constitution. Such things as “entitlements” (Social Security, Medicare) should NOT be the function of the Federal government, although it’s certainly difficult to see how they can be curtailed effectively in the near term. When I was growing up, we were taught that the job of the Federal government was to do ONLY those things that the states could not accomplish on their own. Unfortunately, too many Americans were not educated in the role of the Federal government in our lives, or they were taught incorrect data. Thank you NEA.

Our Constitution dictates that the three branches of government be co-equal and functionally separate. Thus the President is the Commander in Chief (not Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi). The Judicial Branch is charged with enforcing the laws (not writing them) and Congress is charged with making the laws (not micromanaging our military operations).

Should the Republican Party candidates rediscover the Party’s historical point of view and their own spines and run based entirely on the principles of the United States Constitution as their basic platform, they might discover that an amazing number of Americans are thoroughly sick of abortion on demand, out-of-control Federal judges making law instead of enforcing it. They might discover an American heartland that has absolute respect for the rule of law, the security of our borders and the sanctity of the United States Constitution.

I particularly like one of Charles Kesler’s final questions: “Will future citizens revere the Constitution as they should? Will immigrants regard it, and the language in which it’s written, as focal points of civic unity?”

On purely pragmatic grounds, I can envision Republican candidates running on strictly Constitutional bases, and the Democrats attempting (and mostly failing) to counter that by what? Calling for unconstitutional behavior?

That would indeed be interesting.

UPDATE: RINOs and U.S. House members, Virginia Republican Frank Wolf, Pennsylvania Republican Joe Pitts and Alabama Republican Robert Aderholt, also said they had raised with Syrian officials the issue of stopping the alleged flow of foreign fighters from Syria to Iraq. They apparently didn't get the memo: THE PRESIDENT oversees foreign policy - not the Congress. When, oh when, is this crap going to stop!?

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The constitution should be interpreted neither strictly nor sloppily, but reasonably.