So are you then advocating the coercive force of government to impede my own right to buy products that I want but that you apparently disapprove of? What gives you that right?

Mr. Tyrrell, you are much less enamored of your individual liberties, and much more trusting of government, than I.

Sorry, but it is not "unjustly maligning" Bush to criticize him for his extreme expansion of the size and scope of the federal government. Bailouts, TARP, Medicare drug benefit, Patriot Act, "No Child Left Behind", etc.

Of course people are condemning it in public, but it isn't like Politico just made up the story. Palin is simply far too polarizing. I do "fear" her getting the nomination... because I don't think she's qualified to be President and I want to actually beat Obama.

I'm no fan of Maddow personally, but I'm curious what evidence you've found that she's killed babies? (And isn't it a bit redundant to called someone a "murderous killer"?)

Sorry, but we need neither the Phylis Schlaflys of the world nor government bureaucrats deciding for us what books we can read, games we can play, or TV shows and movies we can watch. The nanny state is no better when run by "conservatives" than when run by "liberals".

This is, quite simply, one of the best op-ed columns I've read in a long time. Bravo, Mr. Goldberg.

... the smell of smoke. I can't even understand how anyone in his (or her) right mind would light up, knowing the health effects and the general poor hygiene of smoking.

That said, if I own a restaurant, bar, etc., it should be my decision whether or not smoking is allowed, or for that matter, even required. If I have to pay employees more to work there because of the hazard, well, that's my problem as an employer, and I have no right to force people to work for me -- if they do so, they are doing so voluntarily.

Now when it comes to buildings and places owned by the public, obviously the public has the right to decide issues like this; statutes against smoking in, say, courthouses are certainly fine.

Sorry folks,...

... Mr. Krauthammer nails it. Even when I disagree with him (this isn't one of those times, and they tend to be rare) he is clear, concise, and thoughtful.

I'm all for the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty, but the answer to government intrusion is not to take power from individuals and give it to the government -- in your idea, the state governments. Not only is it the wrong idea from a liberty and self-determination standpoint, but your central thesis -- that "state governments are the only collective power strong enough to put restraints on the federal government" -- has no basis in reality. When have state governments shown restraint on collective power? They're busy clamoring for "stimulus" dollars like everyone else.