About Me

Name: JunkerGeorge
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

State's Rights Redux

On January 20, 2009 John McCain or Barack Obama will take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Wouldn't it be nice if someone would ask each candidate if they stand by the long forgotten 10th amendment?
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited it by the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people."
 
There can be no doubt wht this means. The powers of the federal government are delegated in the Constitution, period. What the Constitution does not specifically list as a power of the federal government belongs to the States and the people. Only someone with a Harvard law degree can turn this into something else.
 
The Constitution specifically lays out the powers of the U.S. government, and then, in the Bill of Rights, we are assured in the 10th amendment that the federal government can do no more. This is connected to the basic premise of our republic--that government is created by the consent of the governed to protct rights given to them, not by man, but by God Himself. The Constitution, therefore, is a document of the people consenting to be governed by a set of rules to protect their God-given rights. It is not, as Obama and oother liberals believe, a "living, breathing document" that changes at the whims of each generation to mold it and shape it as it sees fit. The Constitution gives a method to change if needed. This is what we call the amendment process. This allows the governed to consent to changes to the document. Liberals prefer to hide under the guise of "judicial activism".
 
What did our founders think? Better yet, what did the one person who was most responsible for our Constitution think? Read the words of James Madison:
 
"The powers delegated by the...Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiations, and foreign commerce...The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all objcts  which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, adn property of the people and internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the states." (Madison, Federalist #45).
 
Everything that Obama plans to do involves increasing the role of our already over bloated federal government. My guess is that 95% of all the federal government is involved cannot stand up to the requirements clearly listed in the 10th amendment. The same can be said for MCain as well, unfortunately. Both candidates see a strong role for the federal government. The difference is that Obama is traveling at top speed toward socialism and McCain is merely going the speed limit. Both, however, are traveling in the same direction.
 
How can a government so involved in our personal lives and other extra constitutional roles truly function well at its main role which is to protect its citizens from enemies abroad and within?
 
The destruction of rights and freedoms don't always come at the hands of angry dictators. It can also come with a smile.
 
JunkerGeorge
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Voice Crying in the Wilderness

The race for the Republican nomination is off to a very depressing start. One of the front-runners is John McCain, a 70-year-old man with a bad temper and a history of 2 malignant melanomas.  He's on the wrong side of one of the most important issues of our day--immigration. Also in the hunt is America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani is a 68-year-old man with a recent history of prostate cancer. His personal life has not been picture perfect to say the least. His first marriage of 14 years ended when the couple found out they were 2nd cousins. His second marriage terminated with the good mayor admitting an adulterous affair with a woman who is now his 3rd wife. During the separation, he stayed at his gay friend's apartment. He's a social liberal who is pro-abortion, supports civil unions between same sex partners, & is a strong proponent of federal gun control laws.  Then there is Mitt Romney who has flipped-flopped on abortion, made contributions to liberal democrats in the early 90's, supports the inclusion of homosexuals in the boy scouts, supported Pres. Clinton's 'don't ask, don't tell' policy with regards to homosexuals in the military with the goal of gays being able, in Romney's words, "to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military". Romney's more recent turn to the right on social issues seems suspiciously disingenuous. Could it be that he realizes that only a social conservative can capture the nomination?

What's a conservative to do?  We hear a lot about Ronald Reagan recently. There's a longing for a true statesman to rise up and unite the party based on its conservative principles. But let's be honest. There is no Ronald Reagan in the mix. This isn't 1980. I see a closer parallel to 1964. There's a real struggle for the heart of the party. Are we going to move to the middle and abandon the Reagan revolution or will we once again be unashamed in our defense of limited government and conservative roots? What the Republican party needs in 2008 is a Barry Goldwater. He may not be "the guy", but he will be a voice crying in the wilderness who's willing to speak truth and not talking points. Goldwater wasn't electable in '64, but he was the right guy for the nomination. He paved the way for Ronald Reagan. Without Goldwater in '64, there would have been no Reagan in '80. What we need is someone to step up and take the Goldwater-torch and perform some ideological CPR on the Grand Ol' Party.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »