While I congratulate Michelle on her win, the BIG NEWS is that this puts "unelectable" Ron Paul... well, if not "in the race" at least "in the target area" for the race. You can bet the bigwigs in the RNC are absolutely crapping their pants tonight. Look for a STORM of vituperation, attacks and howling yammering outrage from the mainstream conservatives, neocons, and of course the Mitt Romney RINO crowd (the real power brokers in the RNC).
This is such good news for a variety of reasons.
1) Romney, or GWB IV (I call Obama GWB's third term) is on the bank flopping and gasping for air. He can no longer play the role of the aloof front runner. This in and of itself is great news.
2) Bachmann (who I do not support, but like WAY better than most of the republican field) *IS* truly a political outsider, as well. I hate establishment politicians so intensely, so completely, so savagely that I would be willing to elect ANYONE not shaped, formed, guided, and modeled by the DC game....., even risking that they may be swallowed by the establishment (and probably will).
3) Pawlenty and Santorum were SOUNDLY rejected.
Which brings us to the next topic, which was the only domestic topic that got much real play the other night, that of the 10th amendment.
Asked last night whether there was a difference between the state or federal government mandating that an individual buy a product ( health care insurance), Bachmann responded that there was no difference. It is “unconstitutional,” she maintained, regardless of whether it is imposed by the state or federal government. She did not cite which part of the Constitution denies states this authority.
Of course, that’s because no clause in the Constitution prevents states from doing so. Romney, as dismissive of the Constitution as he is, got that one right. Ron Paul also noted that federal government is not empowered to go in and stop states that do bad things.
Rick Santorum then PERFECTLY illustrated the fascist element of the Christian Right when he claimed that their responses were all “the Tenth Amendment run amok.”
I quote Santorum:
Michelle Bachmann says that she would go in and fight health care being imposed by states, but she wouldn’t go in and fight marriage being imposed by the states. That would be okay. We have Ron Paul saying oh, whatever the states want to do under the Tenth Amendment is fine. So if the states want to pass polygamy, that’s fine. If the states want to impose sterilization, that’s fine. No! Our country is based on moral laws, ladies and gentleman. There are things the states can’t do. Abraham Lincoln said “the states do not have the right to do wrong.” I respect the Tenth Amendment, but we are a nation that has values. We are a nation that was built on a moral enterprise. And states don’t have the right to tramp over those because of the Tenth Amendment.
Folks THIS IS NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL from the power weilding thuggery of the left, who will trample your liberties for whatever cause they deem "good." Now, Rick Santorum's "good" is a LOT closer to my view of "good" as both of us have world views which claim to be biblically derived. Again, though, this is NOT THE ISSUE. The issue is, WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The left claims it is to "do good" as does the Christian Right. Now all left to do is fight it out over what "good" is. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO!!!!!! THIS IS NOT THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT WE HAVE AND YOU ONLY THINK (word used loosely, there) YOU WANT IT. It is a recipe for tyranny and centralized decision making and loss of liberty. My GOD has not the past 150 or so years taught you people ANYTHING??????
Under the 10th amendment, states do have the ability to “DO BAD THINGS”... do stupid things, to violate all but the most basic liberties spelled out in the Constitution. I get so tired of going over this with the knuckle draggers from the right, who clearly have NO idea of the separation of powers. This is, by the way, why almost ALL the energy of the Christian Right has gone toward electing a president, and it took the rise of a secular "tea party" to actually wrest power away from the statists where it REALLY matters, on a state a local level. The Rick Santorums and Michelle Bachmanns of the world are darlings of the right because they have the same top down view of power, that the federal government may step in and "correct" the states and demand they comply. This is, simply, balderdash.
The states have sovereign authority to decide whatever they wish on whatever matters they like, provided that this authority has not already been delegated to the federal government, or has not been explicitly denied them in the Constitution. Again the text of the 10th reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
James Madison in the federalist papers (number 45) tells us what the relationship is between the states and feds:
"The powers delegated by the proposed 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, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."
Nowhere here does Madison describe the Constitution as empowering the federal government to intervene in a state’s affairs, even when the states are not behaving correctly. In fact, the very purpose of the Tenth Amendment is to enable states to retain the authority and ability to do stupid things (and hopefully good things, too). The right,and the Christian right in particular, is actually arguing for the dissolution of state sovereignty. If this is so, why not just dissolve state governments altogether and let each state have an "office" in DC? This is MINDLESS, and again, a recipe for tyranny.
I never thought I would see the day when "conservatives" are actually arguing essentially that there are no limits to federal power if the other states don't like the activities of a particular state. I expect it from leftists, who hate decentralized power. I expect better from professed conservatives.