Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 30, 2007
John Stemberger :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Upcoming Presidential Election Should Be All About The Supreme Court for Social Conservatives
by John Stemberger
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Big Trouble

We are in big trouble. Whether you consider the historical cycle of presidential elections; the results of the 2006 election; the mood of the country; or the unfavorable ratings of the President, the odds are that conservatives will have our heads handed to us on a silver platter in 2008. Unless our movement gets its act together quickly and gets on the same page, one thing is for sure-- we are in big trouble.

No Perfect Candidate

Many conservatives are frustrated by the field of candidates running for president--and understandably so. There is no perfect candidate in 2008. There is no Ronald Reagan. Even the best of conservative candidates (announced and unannounced) have political warts. We have hawks with liberal views on social issues, recent conservative converts with questionable policy histories, and social conservatives with histories of personal moral failure and others just not able to mount a viable campaign or raise money. Whether the problems are policy, personal or political in nature, all the 2008 choices have considerable weaknesses. Folks, welcome to the fallen world in which we live. As Francis Schaeffer used to say, "Things are not as they ought to be..." Actually, there was one perfect candidate-but we crucified Him 2000 years ago.

Principled Pragmatism

As principled citizens how should we now respond? Whine and complain? Protest and not vote? Let a liberal win and hope to come back in four years? None of these options are the highest or most principled expressions of our citizenship. As social conservatives, we should always wrestle with how to reconcile the tension between principle and pragmatism. If we support only what appear to be front runner candidates, we will sell our souls to be political insiders. If we support only the purist long shot candidates, we risk foolishly forfeiting any realistic opportunity to affect public policy through political change.

All The Marbles Are For the United States Supreme Court

Most of all of the great culture war issues of our day can be directly traced to bad decisions by the United States Supreme Court. Consider this: duly elected legislative branches of government are not ultimately responsible for abortion on demand, legalizing same sex marriage, protecting pornography as free speech, removing faith symbols from the public square, and undermining private property rights. Instead, these moral and social ills are the responsibility of unelected, unaccountable members of the federal judiciary who refuse to recognize their limited and restrained role as jurists and insist upon acting as social change agents.

Changing of the Guard

Between age and ailing health, most legal observers believe we are all but certain to see two, maybe three, US Supreme Court justices resign between 2009 and 2012. Since most of these justices are liberals, the 5-4 majority our opponents have enjoyed could be either dismantled or reaffirmed for the next couple of decades. In the final analysis, the 2008 election presents us with the most significant window of opportunity to change the direction of the court (and hence the culture war) that will occur over the next 15-25 years.

The Bottom Line

There are really only two equally important questions conservatives should ask about the upcoming presidential election: 1) Which candidate is most likely to pick the best judges AND 2) Which candidate is most likely to win both the primary and general elections. Every other issue is just window dressing. If we all stick together, work hard to reach a consensus and use these questions to think about the election, we might have a chance to elect a conservative who could produce historical pro-life and pro-family victories in battles many of us have been fighting all of our lives. But, if we all act independently and support our favorite sounding, best looking, or even "most conservative" candidate, well, then--did I mention? We are in big trouble.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

John Stemberger is an attorney in Orlando, Florida who serves as the President and General Counsel of the Florida Family Policy Council. The mission of the FFPC is to strengthen Florida's families through public policy research, issues research, and grassroots advocacy. The FFPC is associated with Dr. James Dobson and Focus on the Family.

Be the first to read John Stemberger's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I agree 100%
Since no politician will offer a constitutional amendment to undo the social engineering of the Supreme Socialists, then our only option is conservative judges. We have 500+ in Congress and we can't get even one of them to offer a constitutional amendment to undo the Kelo decision, abortion or McCain-Feingold. They like their power right where it is...in the Supreme Court. I would be OK whichever way the American people voted on those issue, but at least it would be Americans, and not political elites, who finally decided.

Until something like that happens, conservative judges are our only hope of maintaining the integrity of the Constutition.

Stemberger
Are you psychic? Because these sentiments are almost a direct reading of my mind.

Ideally my candidate is Duncan Hunter or Mike Huckabee, but I think our best shot is Fred Thompson. People point to him lobbying for abortionists before, yet he also guided Roberts through his nomination process, had a consistent pro-life voting record in the senate, and his recent comments have been good. Here's to hoping we're not being hoodwinked. For a running mate, I'd like to see him with Mitt Romney.

I agree that we are at a critical juncture, and whoever wins the next election will likely determine the rulings of the court for the next 20 years.

I fear that if we are not capable of affecting change now, we will never be able to regain a foothold and social conservatism as we know it will vanish from the face of America.

To Borghe
Amen, amen, amen. The argument that our new Supreme Court is going to stick with the Constitution went out the window when the Justices presented that emetic argument that the abortion ruling was made in order to spare women future regret. I have the Constitution at hand as I write and do not find such a reference in it.

Conservatives want their own version of "judicial activism" enacted by the Judiciary.

YES! YES! YES!
THE COURT! THE COURT! THE COURT!
With a Conservative court the majority rules!
No more of this 'tyranny of the one' bullshi*.

NOTHING is more important than keeping a conservative POTUS! Those old libs are bound to leave the court one'a these days. THERE MUST BE A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT! and Congress and Senate!

lilly
your right- i have a constitution too and i see no reference anywhere about abortion being an inalienable right

Priorities
We are a 50-50 country - the country is rudderless, dead in the water (but drifting with a leftward current) on some rather basic issues:

* economics - more govt or less govt
* education - public or private
* law - constitutional or 'legislate from the bench'?
* national security - when is it OK to use our xlnt military?
* American self-interest - e.g. illegal immigration

Social conservatives have to decide if the above issues are more important than 'social' issues.

I'm a secular conservative - so, it is easy for me to say this - but I would suggest that there is more at stake here than social issues.

I would also say that the electoral math also favors PRIORITIZING the above issues rather than the social issues (which may help rally the base) but which do not have much traction with centrists.

While this may sound like a "hold your nose and pull the lever" suggestion, can anyone disagree with the priorities listed above?

Candidates
I, too, believe that Duncan Hunter is the best man for the job (based on past performance and current statements.) Our biggest problem is that no one seems to believe that he can be elected. He can be if we work for him.

Borghe
Or Democrat/socialist puppets. Give me more like Scalia and Thomas. They seem to be able to interpret english. You can disagree only if you can defend the Kelo or McCain-Feingold decisions that were made by the liberal judges. You want more of that?

Abortion....
fredo1659 writes: "your right- i have a constitution too and i see no reference anywhere about abortion being an inalienable right "


Just because something is not in the constitution, does not mean it is not a right.... Abortion is protected under the first amendment.

The banning of gay marriage is not in the constitution, so I suppose that means gay marriage is allowed???

So
Actually, the federal government should have nothing to do with abortion under the ninth amendment.

The right of privacy and the ownership of your own body are rights that are not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but they are reasonable rights you could expect regardless.

Now, since abortion involves potentially two persons, a rational argument could be made that there exists a conflict of rights and we should rule on the side of the stronger right: life.

But this is academic. No one follows the constitution they swear to uphold and I doubt if any ever will.

Dear John,
So your prescription is to elect another elite politician? The problem is not simply the SCOTUS. Even if a President Clinton put in 3 liberal judges to replace 3 other liberal judges, we would not change the situation.

The problem we face is that the two parties have accrued too much power, and they have done so very cleverly by convincing us that we have no other choice, nowhere else to go. With that attitude prevailing, one which you apparently support, they are quite free to further their internationalist, one world government agenda. They feel invulnerable, and electing another elite, no matter which party, will only confirm to them that they alone are capable and wise and experienced. None of that is true however, and we should not fail in reclaiming our birthright from these same congressmen and Presidents!

In this rare election opportunity, we need to strike out on a totally new path and as the true owners of this nation, take away from the elites this hold on power. We can be most effective in doing that by denying them that which they desire the most, the Presidency! That will not only send an unmistakeable message, but it will also begin the process of restoration to the principles given us by the Founding Fathers. We will begin to re-establish the idea that America truly is the world's best hope and reject the internationalist agenda that sees America as an obstacle to the one world government scheme of these elites.

Check out my website, JOEOLIVAFORPRESIDENT.ORG, and see the possibilities, the hope we can have for our nation's future and that of our children. If we fail to take this opportunity in hand and begin the reclamation process, we will see more of the same old same old, because doing the same thing over and over never has and never will produce a different result, guaranteed! Is anyone ready to get moving on this or are we destined to repeat the same sad story once again? Thanks, Joe

The Supreme Court is not intended...
... by the constitution to be a law making body. The people and their elected representatives are meant to make the laws. In fact, the states are allowed much leeway in lawmaking under the constitution.

The LIBERALS are the ones who want Judges and Courts to make law. CONSERVATIVES want the People to make law.

We are tired of having liberal law rammed down our throats by the courts when the votes are not there to support the laws.

If a right is not in the constitution (or the amendments), than it is not a Constitutional Right. Rather it is subject to laws made BY THE PEOPLE!

No reason
There is no reason to believe that Rudy will nominate better judges than Romney or Thompson. Of the 3, based on how they have lived their lives, I suspect Romney may work a lot harder to get good social conservative judges as he cares about the type of world his grandchildren grow up in.

Further, "strict constructionalist" can cover a lot of ideological territory. Ron Paul can be considered a "strict constructionalist". I really do not want a Ron Paul clone on the court.

"Federalist" also provides a lot of cover. It basically means that you let the states deal with all of the hard decisions.

If you really want to restrict abortion you do not want Roe overturned. You want Roe modified so that it's national policy restricts and reduces the number of abortions.

Roe can be used to reduce the overall number of abortions. Over turning Roe increases the number of abortions as big states (CA and NY etc) will have total abortion on demand and some small states (UT, LA and ND) may add a few restrictions.

Hunter
If Hunter starts raising 5 mill a month people will take him about as seriously. If he starts raising 3 mill a month people will take him about as seriously as McCain.

If he raises the money he can run ads and that will improve his numbers.

You can thank McCain/Feingold for creating a situation where those like Hunter can not raise the funds that they need.

MF has created a catch 22. If you are nationally known you can raise money. If you are not nationally known, you do not have the money to spend so that you can become nationally known, so you can raise the money you need to run ads and raise more money.

lily,
Are you out of your mind or just dim-witted?

ct
definately dim-witted

Judicial Activism
To the liberal posters on this board, our elected representatives deciding social and moral issues is judicial activism. Liberals always set up this straw man that overturning Roe vs. Wade would immediately make abortion illegal. Most states would still allow abortion, but it would be regulated as a medical procedure. To all you liberals who do not want elected representative regulating the abortion industry like any other industry providing medical serviced, STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM MY MEDICAL CARE!

Borghee Babee:Weren't you just referring

to "my fellow country men" [meaning 'mine' not yours!] on a different thread just a short while ago?

Right, that's what I thought!

So, why are you sticking your nose into our election issues when it has nothing to do with you?

Ummm?

Our elections are OUR DOMESTIC Issues, and have nothing to do with you... BUTT OUT!







fredo1659: Ooops! Moionfire really his

his/her liberal panties in a bunch!

Of course, abortion is killing another living human being. I think it's also referred to a murder!



anne
really
and i reread the 1st amendment and didnt see anything in it about abortion
Moionfire is misguided

Abortion & the Constitution
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Note the passage offset for emphasis. This is why pro-baby-killers like Lilly, Borghe, etc. will NEVER refer to the child in the womb as a baby; it MUST be a "fetus", because the term diminishes the child's humanity.

But then I was placed for adoption at birth, so I may not be objective.

Heritage
Would someone please inform me of the extent to which Mohammed's love of prepubescent children resulted in anal trauma.

Ron Paul could choose good ones
What another woman wants to do about it when she finds she's pregnant should be HER decision! I'm past the age of being concerned about abortion either way. (There ain't gonna be any babies in me!) About 'gay marriage'... Who else besides another GAY would even WANT to marry one? Why would any self-respecting heterosexual concern themselves what the homosexuals do? We need to elect somebody with sound economic sense instead of fools that will run this country's economy in the hole with their extravagant spending! Found a worthwhile candidate in Ron Paul. I very much like his stand on social issues & lowering taxes so am happy to have FINALLY found a candidate I would be proud to vote for! http://www.ronpaul2008.com

I was just thinking…

Now that we know Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts has epilepsy, when can we expect Rush Limbaugh to mimic his seizures in front of his audience for laughs? Maybe even call him a faker? Just wondering.

Bogus Argument
This whole column is based on several bogus premises. First of all, there is no need for a Constitutional amendment to overturn Roe, or put prayer back into school. All it would take is a resolution passed by both Houses of Congress mandating that abortion and/or school prayer is out of the purview of the federal courts, and have the president sign it. That is all. Guess who could have done this at any time since 2000? Yes, the Republicans. Did they do so? Of course not. Consequently, there is no need of packing the Supreme Court. But, since Jorge Arbusto is no conservative, and neither were any of the Republican "leadership" in the House and Senate, nothing was done. Now, we have the Democrats in control of the Congress, and since Arbusto has destroyed the chances of any Republican being elected president for at least a decade, you can kiss all of these social issues good bye. Wake up, people.

To thumper
Our present Supreme Court defended its recent abortion decision by saying it was necessary in order to prevent women from experiencing future regret. If you can find that in the Constitution, drop me a line and tell me where to look. "Judicial activism" is OK with conservatives as long as it's a conservative Judiciary being active.

lilly
lilly- im still reading the constitution over and over and over and i still cant find where it says an abortion is a constitutional right
if you can find that in the constitution, drop me a line and tell me where to look.

All sizzle, no steak
Though the columnist outlines very well one of the issues facing us next year, I notice that he takes absolutely no stand whatsoever as to particulars on the candidate, unless he's simply another GOP Enabler who is advocating blindly voting for whatever nominee the GOP presents, regardless of how truly conservative they are or are not.

That's simply unacceptable. It's another variation on one-issue voting. The "he's good on the WOT" may not work, so now it's "constructionist judges" as the new mantra.

I don't buy it.

A candidate's likelihood of truly appointing constructionist judges must be assessed based on their history of appointments, their history of living up to past promises, and an evaluation of their true conservatism based on their record and an examination of their platform.

As an example, under all of these criteria, Giuliani fails the test.

As NYC Mayor, he appointed very leftist municipal judges. He claims the 2nd Amendment is subject to Federalism, which shows a very clear lack of understanding of the Constitution and the meaning of Federalism, as the 2nd Amendment is no more subject to local interpretation than is the 1st Amendment right to free speech, the 4th Amendment requirement for search warrants, or the 5th Amendment protection from self-incrimination. He obviously either has no clue what the Bill of Rights is all about, or simply doesn't care, in which case how can you trust him to appoint "constructionist" judges, particularly given his record as mayor?
?


Sometimes I'm amazed
Abortion is not protected per the first amendment. Read it.

Abortion is not protected per the ninth amendment. It says that the Constitution will not be abused to deny others rights. Ever think that might include the rights of children to live?

Nowhere in the constitution does it say "And we the people hereby grant women the ability to seek aid from a doctor in jamming a curettage into the back of their baby's skull, or use a vaccum tube in order to rip their child's body apart limb from limb." Then again, maybe I just missed that part.

To Cooltruth
Those of us who are past the age of worrying about pregnancy are now at the age of worrying about how our passage to death will be managed. Since the anti-abortion crowd is also the anti-"death with dignity" crowd, we elders should be afraid and very afraid. During the Teri Schiavo circus I summoned my estate attorney and instructed her to re-write my health care power of attorney in the strongest terms permitted by law. When the time comes that my family and my physician decide that it's time to let me go, I don't want some Evangelical Christian nurse's aide intruding her church's agenda on my death.

knight__ofbaawa__
knight__ofbaawa__ writes: Monday, July, 30, 2007 8:59 PM

"DocNoleCat

Outlawing abortion deprives women of their right of self-ownership. But you fetophiles never care about that"

Knight, I think a good definition of "Self" is if all parts of your body that are of the same DNA. A baby is separate entity that is dependent upon the mother, whether inside or outside the womb. If it is OK in your mind to kill the baby inside the womb because it is inconvenient, then just because it changes location from inside to outside the mother's body, it must be OK to kill the newborn if it makes the mother's life inconvenient.

"fetophile" - making up words to go along with your made up rights.

"you think women are there just to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen--seen, but never heard."

Not even close. But many of us believe that a parent, generally the mother, should be the one to rear their child instead of paying someone else to do it for you. Kids need their parents' love much more than money. Neither the best daycare nor the best nanny love for the child can replace the love and attention of the parents. They are paid help and the kids know it. Besides, most daycares and nannies don't love the child anyway. When the going gets tough, they say, "I'm glad this isn't my kid."

for Borghe, Lilly
Lilly writes: "Conservatives want their own version of "judicial activism" enacted by the Judiciary."

That's not true.

Mr. Stemberger is a SOCIAL conservative and he's talking to his fellow social conservatives with this court decision. There are other types of conservatives, but these loud, vocal and activist social conservatives have hijacked conservatism and made it impossible for people of more "live and let live" social views to vote Republican anymore.

My politics have always been conservative. I voted for Reagan twice; I really do believe in less government and less judicial activism. But I'm an economic conservative, not a social conservative. I got my conservative ideas from von Hayek and Milton Friedman, not from the New Testament. I'm pro-choice (up to a point), I support at least civil unions for gays and lesbians and I think the Federal paranoia about medical marijuana is silly. But unlike Bush, I would have razed Fallujah to the ground before I would have given it back to the enemy. And I think anybody who wants to turn their private health care over to the same Federal Government that botched two major wars and two space shuttles should have their head examined.

And yes, the GOP is gradually chasing us out of their party. Giuliani represents a chance for a NON-social conservative to get the GOP nomination, which is why I'm supporting him.

for fredo1659
fredo1659 writes: "lilly- im still reading the constitution over and over and over and i still cant find where it says an abortion is a constitutional right"

Sigh.
In Roe v. Wade, the Supremes cited a woman's constitutional right to privacy as the basis for her right to an abortion.

And the constitutional right to privacy was first established in the previous case Griswold v. Connecticut (1964), by the liberal Warren Court.

Griswold v. Connecticut was a controversial ruling because the Supremes found an implicit constitutional right to privacy inside the First Amendment by virtue of some of the implications of some of the words, even though no such thing is stated explicitly.

That's the "case law" that's involved here.

So it's no longer possible for the Congress to ban abortion, because the way these Supreme Court rulings are written, it becomes a CONSTITUTIONAL right, tracing back to the First Amendment.

Steve
You mean the *fourth* amendment, the interpretation of which is bogus.

"Knight" of nonsense-word
KoB typed, "Outlawing abortion deprives women of their right of self-ownership."

The "fetus" is genetically distinct from the mother at the moment of conception. If you deny that the child in womb is another "self," you must reject DNA evidence in any court case. Do you?

"But you fetophiles never care about that:"

I think I understand what you mean with the made-up word in that sentence. Anyway, even if I'm wrong, I've admitted that I was placed for adoption at birth. Had RvW happened just a few years earlier, you're having a 1-sided discussion.

"you think women are there just to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen--seen, but never heard."

Those who object to "emotively-charged insults" (not to mention outright lies) shouldn't sling them, hypocrite.

"Now then: if you want to dispense with the emotively-charged insults, we can. But if you don't want to, I can continue to hit you with your own hypocrisy."

What part of "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" do you not understand? Did you get your education at the same place you got your "knighthood?"

We Have Good Candidates
Huckabee and Hunter are good conservative candidates. The MSM does not give them much coverage because they are conservatives. The msm wants liberal social candidates for both parties and a true social conservative will not get the coverage in the MSM without buying it. The conservative talk radio hosts are just as bad. They do not give any coverage to the best candidates. They follow the MSM and talk mostly about the top three that have been annointed by the MSM. The MSM know that conservatives will not turn out in great enough numbers to elect one of these clowns. So, we let the MSM choose our candidate for us. What the heck should we expect? The perfect ticket would be Gingrich/Hunter. Gingrich would kill ANY dem. candidate in the televised debates, and would be an attack dog. He is brillant and a conservative. He has name recognition. Conservatives would turn out in numbers to vote for him. He is the perfect conservative candidate. So he has some skeltons in his closet re. marriage. Who among the top candidates doesn't?

The Conservative Division
Conservatives are divided into two groups: those that want to control their own lives, and those that want to control the lives of others. That is disunion.

Union is achieved by examining each issue, and determining the effect of the solution promoted. If the solution gives the individual more power over his/her own life, it is uniting. If the solution allows less latitude for individual decision-making, it is divisive.

Then choose, either a united conservative movement, or a fractured conservatism with little political clout.

Good candidates & Important issues
There are many issues we must face and discuss prior to the coming election. I agree that the appointments to the Supreme Court are of the utmost importance to our country. Our government has taken on many responsibilities for things not within its power to consider under powers granted to it by the Constitution.

Now, don't make any assumptions about me regarding where the following link to Davey Crockett's speech takes you, it just happened to be the first of 98,800 hits on my search:
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm

> Huckabee and Hunter are good conservative
> candidates. The MSM does not give them
> much coverage because they are conservatives.

In my mind, if the MSM doesn't want them then they are a good choice.

More on important (to me) issues later,
Rickey Braddam

*******************************

Meanwhile, I'm more concerned about other possible skeletons in other closets after reading this response to Schlafly's article:

treadmilljoe writes: Monday, July, 30, 2007 10:16 PM
When we sleep, Congress opens the Gates
Does anyone ever think how easy it is to bribe a congressman if you are a sovereign power? A sovereign power can set up a bank account in its own country or in Switzerland. In neither case can a bribe be proven. These bank accounts are beyond subpoena. The politician can enjoy his illegal fortune outside of the U.S. A net worth alarm will never go off. Over time the funds can be leaked back into his estate.

We don't even stop to think that President Reagan received two million dollars for two weeks of speaking engagements in Japan after he retired. (Japan paid him a much bigger retirement than this Country did). Bush senior may have made $100 million or more from the Saudis while his son is President. Are we so dumb that we don't have disclosure laws on this? George Jr. is and heir to George Sr. The Demos "hate" Bush but going after Sr doesn't occur to them? Are they all paid by the same master?

Does anyone ever consider how easy it would be to black mail politicians like Clinton, or Condit, or Foley? How easy it would be to entrap them? How easy it is to identify their sexual preferences, the bars they frequent and so on? How easy to have the hotel room all lined up and wired for media?

How can we not believe that this happens? Clinton is a near certainty. He would have been easily suckered into stardom. And as a State Attorney General he was the most inviting kind of target for organized crime. Attorney Generals can dismiss cases against drug dealers etc. Once you have the pictures you can sell them. When Clinton became President wouldn't a likely bidder have been China?

We have a Congress that is clearly anti- American. Shouldn't we start to look for sensible explanations?

One thing people don't generally realize is that when a politician is compromised by a sovereign power, he actually becomes more powerful. The sovereign power tends to protect its property. I remember reading that over one hundred people close to Clinton were victims of homicide (most of them were suicides).

At the same time Congressman Condit's mistress seemed to turn against him, she was murdered. In cases like this you can assume the Congressman will have an iron clad alibi. You can assume the Congressman has no idea that the murder is going to occur.

Compromised politicians just start getting unexplainably lucky like Mr. McGoo the cartoon hero.

**********************************

Makes you wonder, doesn't it???

I love you, Insighting Truth
To agree with me is to be uniting. To disagree is to be divisive.

Sounds like a Democrat.

Heck, I may be an atheist, but every now and then I find a Biblical verse or a paraphrased version of it quite appropriate. "I come not to unite, but to divide."

Insighting Truth
Exactly. That means it's time we started making better use of the forums at Townhall and anywhere else to identify and discuss the issues.

Taxes are a big issue and would generate a lot of discussion. For example, there is pending legislation to abolish the IRS and convert to a Federal sales tax. While that seems like a better way to finance the Fed to me, it may not be the best way.

The best way might be to simply have the Fed develop the budget requirements then "bill the states" according to their electoral population as of the last census. The electoral population would be all residents eligible to vote in Federal elections *whether registered to vote or not*. It would be up to the states to determine how to tax their population to pay their "Fed" bill...

Advantages??? Shortcomings???

Rickey Braddam

Just So You Know
Every time you "social conservatives" get behind a candidate based on the likelihood of that candidate nominating judges who concur with your personal views on how our society should function, you do more to undermine the Constitution than all of the liberals combined.

There is nothing "conservative" about wanting the government to decide who can marry who.

TNhillbilly
Shortcomings: Congress would in effect go unchecked. Never ask one level of government to spend money, and another to raise revenues. The resentment would simply be targeted at the lower levels of government while Congress manages to anonymously put in greater and greater demands for our money without identifying who they are. Additionally, budgets are decided in committee. That gives more incentive to a handful of people in Congress to play very fast and loose with your cash.

I suggest going more along the lines of economics, here. If there's significant economies of scale with respect to an activity, centralize it (such as highways). If an activity does not exhibit such features, people are most easily accountable at the local level and it should be handled thusly (such as school systems).

Justpaul
Uh, there's everything conservative about it. There's just nothing *libertarian* to it. As for undermining the constitution, you do know that at the federal level a *constitutional ban* was tried. Had it succeeded, would you have started calling the Constitution unconstitutional? Give me a break.

A question for pro-abortionists
A woman in Ocean City, Maryland, has been arrested for murdering her "pre-born" infants. Yet if the infants had been destroyed by a doctor, her action would have been perfectly legal.

Am I the only one who sees an inconsistency here?

Hey, I think that the woman should
be able to get a morning-after-the wedding-pill from her doctor, so she can collect on that all important life insurance policy, and avoid getting preggers altogether.

Of course, I am just kidding!!!

Political vs. Judicial Conservatism
Many posters at Townhall seem to be confused about the term conservative. One can be politically or judicially conservative. But they are different things.

We want judicially conservative judges irrespective of whether they are politically conservative or liberal.

Case in point:
The Massachusetts state supreme court ruled in favor of same sex marriage. However, one of the judges who ruled against it is herself a lesbian. She claimed that judges are supposed to rule on law, not make law. Thus, she demonstrated judicial conservatism, even though she is likely politically liberal herself.

So conservatives rightly claim that Roe v. Wade was based on judicial activism since abortion is not found in the constitution.

Liberals have caught on to this label "judicial activist", and are now hurling it back at any conservative who follows the constitution. But liberals fail to understand the term.

To the poster named mine
Cheer up, help is on the way! Duncan Hunter is the most qualified candidate by far and will be the best President since Ronald Reagan. If you will contact skjohnson00@gmail.com he may be able to share some ideas which I will be sharing with him regarding the Duncan Hunter campaign. Your post has cheered me up, already! Let's have some serious fun getting Duncan Hunter elected!

lily - fear not
From what I've read from you, there's not one person that will prevent you from your "passage to death" when your time is anywhere close. I think a person could reasonably make a claim to initiate the process now since you already appear brain dead.

Duncan Hunter
The RNC is so totally out of touch that it can't fulfill it's most basic functions. It should be able to pick a group of the three strongest contenders and then galvanize the Republican electorate to form a consensus on the next candidate. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. We individual Republicans must do the heavy lifting this presidential election - and we can! Additionally, NEVER, EVER underestimate the ability of the demtard candidates to blow themselves up. I would love it for the dems to chose hitlary and one week before the election have the Republican legislators come up with a ruling or precedent where a spouse of a previous President is tantamount to a 3rd term for the previous President to throw them into complete jump off a cliff, lemming panic.

Supreme Court & Abortion
Lilly wrote:

"...that the abortion ruling was made in order to spare women future regret. I have the Constitution at hand as I write and do not find such a reference in it."

Where in the Constitution do you find the "emanations" and "penumbras" the Court cited in Roe. v. Wade?

ps. I would call them "fulminations."

Social Issues
I truly believe abortion is the major social issue of our times. A nation that has allowed the deliberate murder...and I use that word judiciously...of close to 50 million of its most innocent and defenceless is walking on very shaky ground.

Lilly, you wrote, "...that the abortion ruling was made in order to spare women future regret."
Are you implying that many women do not regret having had an abortion?

Please go to the Silent No More Awareness Campaign website, silentnomoreawareness.org. There you will find the thoughts of many, many women who, sometimes immediately, and sometimes years later, realize the horror of what they have done. And beg God for forgiveness.

Please.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.