Ann Coulter: THE PROBLEM WITH SANTORUM

AnnCoulter.Com ^ | February 29, 2012 | Ann Coulter

[Syncro]

THE PROBLEM WITH SANTORUM

February 29, 2012

Even when I agree with Rick Santorum, listening to him argue the point almost makes me change my mind.

I also wonder why he's running for president, rather than governor, when the issues closest to his heart are family-oriented matters about which the federal government can, and should, do very little.

It's strange that Santorum doesn't seem to understand the crucial state-federal divide bequeathed to us by the framers of our Constitution, inasmuch as it is precisely that difference that underlies his own point that states could ban contraception.

Of course they can. States could outlaw purple hats or Gummi bears under our Constitution!

State constitutions, laws, judicial rulings or the people themselves, voting democratically, tend to prevent such silly state bans from arising. But the Constitution written by James Madison, et al, does not prevent a state's elected representatives from enacting them.

The Constitution mostly places limits on what the federal government can do. Only in a few instances does it restrict what states can do.

A state cannot, for example, infringe on the people's right to bear arms or to engage in the free exercise of religion. A state can't send a senator to the U.S. Congress if he is under 30 years old. But with rare exceptions, the Constitution leaves states free to govern themselves as they see fit.

In New York City, they can have live sex clubs and abortion on demand, but no salt or smoking sections. In Tennessee, they can ban abortion, but have salt, creches and 80 mph highways. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

And yet when Santorum tried to explain why states could ban contraception to Bill O'Reilly back in January, not once did he use the words "Constitution," "constitutionally," "federalism," their synonyms or derivatives. Lawyers who are well familiar with the Constitution had no idea what Santorum was talking about. Read More »

[Lazlo in PA]

Anne was persona non grata here, and suddenly 3 people post the same article in a few minutes.

I think you will find that all three people have one thing in common. Guess what what that is?

[Rummyfan]

....the taxpayer subsidizes the wasted human space teaching these moronic courses (at prices far outpacing inflation), and then the taxpayer pays the incomes of the graduates who are resigned to filling ever-growing no-show, self-paced and self-evaluated government jobs.

Who else would employ a graduate with a degree in Women's Studies, Early Childhood Education, Physical Education , Sociology or Queer Studies but the government?

An aside I know, but an excellent summary of higher education.

[Twinkie]

“Obama may be ordained as leader of the country as a judgment of God.”

Yep; I’m beginning to wonder if what you say might be true. He does ordain leaders; and they aren’t allowed unless He ordains them.

The people of this country by and large demanded abortion, then infanticide - so it appears that God has given this country up to feast on abortion and infanticide until it fairly PUKES.

The Democrat Party was always known as the party that “cared” about the poor and the working people. It just gradually became an almost totally corrupt and cynical organization that is drunk on power; and few notice or can define the problem.

Obama is a perfect leader of such an organization. Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[potlatch]

Oh, oh, Michelle Bachman would be jealous.........lol.