Bruce Bialosky
Recommend this article

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.

Recommend this article

Bruce Bialosky

Bruce Bialosky is the founder of the Republican Jewish Coalition of California and a former Presidential appointee. You can contact Bruce at bruce@bialosky.biz