Can we stop pretending that Rick Santorum is a fiscal conservative?

...Jonah Goldberg explained that Mike Huckabee's brand of conservatism was inconsistent with traditional conservatism, in that the former Arkansas Governor believes that government exists, not to protect individual liberty, but to make people live moral lives in accordance with his personal beliefs....

While Rick Santorum doesn't have the record of supporting tax hikes that Tax Hike Mike had or some of the other points listed above--though some of the do apply, he certainly has a record of backing certain social policies based upon the notion that government exists to ensure a certain behavior from its citizens....

On the fiscal and regulatory side of the equation, Santorum doesn't even come close to having a record worthy of Tea Party support....

The only two conclusions I can draw from this is that the anti-Romney faction in the Republican electorate will so blindly follow whoever is deemed to be their "guy" at the moment that they don't care about his economic statism....

The other is that the Tea Party movement has been completely overrun with social conservatives. If that's the case, Republicans will lose this election, and lose it badly. That's not to say that social conservatives can't be fiscal conservatives, rather fiscal issues must come first in this election....

Santorum's social conservatism is going to turn away independent voters. For example, his strange rant against contraceptives is going to sound nutty and unserious to many on-the-fence voters in swing states. And national polls show that voters are now supportive of gay marriage, which Santorum vigoriously opposes.

This is the bed that Republicans have made. The idea that Santorum would be any better on fiscal issues than Romney is absurd. They're both fiscal moderates that aren't going to change the culture of waste in Washington.

Your posts simply demonstrate your confusion as to American Federalism. The Federal Government was never given the sort of role, you continually imply. What you seem to believe is that it was intended to direct the social development of America. That was never the intention. Rather it was given specific functions; and functions that have an inherent symmetry. (See Constitutional Overview".)

The Defense of Marriage Act, on the other hand, has justification under the "Full Faith & Credit Clause," to the extent at least, as it defines what a State may do when someone from another State claims to be married to someone of the same sex. In that limited sense, there is a Federal issue. But defining the moral issues involved in the pretense of marriage in such situations is a State problem.

The problem of corrupted Federal Courts, of course, is a Federal problem. But the way to solve it is not to discredit traditional Federalism by trying to elect one issue enthusiasts. We need persuasive genuine Conservatives, not only in the White House, but in the Senate that must ratify Federal Judicial appointments, and then hang very tough against anyone who will not demonstrate real conviction to honor his oath of office.

William Flax

“Congress, if it were really intent on stopping the activism in the Federal Judiciary, could have taken away the District Court’s jurisdiction to take in the cases that eventually led to the outrageous decisions of the Supreme Court.”

I fully agree.

And I am sure that president Newt Gingrich will ask the Congress to do IT!

Newt: “Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government.

Read this extended white paper on restoring the proper role of the judicial branch in Contract with 21st century America:

http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf

Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution

NEWT 2012 Position Paper Supporting Item No. 9 of the 21st Century Contract with America:

Restore the proper role of the judicial branch by using the clearly delineated Constitutional powers available to the president and Congress to correct, limit, or replace judges who violate the Constitution.

Judicial supremacy operates on the assumption that a Supreme Court decision on constitutional interpretation is final for all branches of government unless the Court reverses itself in the future, or a constitutional amendment is passed. The result is that courts have become more assertive and politicized to the point of an abuse of power. As federal courts have intervened in sectors of
American life never before imaginable, the public has increasingly come to view them as an usurpative device for unelected rulers. This abuse of power and loss of public confidence amounts to a constitutional crisis.

Yet judicial supremacy only survives due to the passivity of the executive and legislative branches, which have refused to use their respective powers to correct the Court.

This NEWT 2012 campaign document serves as political notice to the public and to the legislative and judicial branches that a Gingrich administration will reject the theory of judicial supremacy and will reject passivity as a response to Supreme Court rulings that ignore executive and legislative concerns and which seek to institute policy changes that more properly rest with Congress.

A Gingrich administration will use any appropriate executive branch powers, by itself and acting in coordination with the legislative branch, to check and balance any Supreme Court decision it believes to be fundamentally unconstitutional and to rein in any federal judge(s) whose rulings exhibit a disregard for the Constitution. The historical and constitutional basis for
this position is outlined in this paper.

http://www.newt.org/sites/newt.org/files/Courts.pdf

Your posts simply demonstrate your confusion as to American Federalism. The Federal Government was never given the sort of role, you continually imply.

I understand it all too well, however the Courts our Congress and the States all seem to be totally satisfied having a King, we now must battle in a different theater.

The states have simply abrogated their tenth amendment rights, Obama sues Arizona, and the Constitution clearly states that those cases must be heard in the Supreme Court, but alas none have demanded that.

We have young children being handed salacious materials to children, that would land you in jail if you gave the exact same material to a child.

We have food inspectors deciding what should be pin our children lunch box

I heard Tom Coburn, just last night, praising MO's crusade to control what we eat, and how much exercise we should perform. That brought to mind all the Chinese workers doing exercise before going to work. I am shocked he didn't pass out a few little Red Books to the announcer.

We daily have some offended child suing in court to remove whatever offends them and we have courts that compel it.

We had Prop 8 over turned in California by a completely unbiased gay judge.

We have an entire City that has legalized public nudity, among dozens of other nutty things they do.

We have HHS a regulatory body invading church doctrine disguised as a women's health issue, and the next thing will be what they can speak from the pulpit. Notice Islam is exempt from all this, and I have not heard one politician or talking head, point that out.

The public schools have been invaded by homosexuals with an agenda, and they are aided and abetted by the communist that are produced in the schools of education.

The Progressive haters in this country have for decades plucked an Apple from the tree of liberty, and those we send to congress to protect that tree, are always ready to negotiate for that Apple, but never seem to get it back until a few bites have been taken. Then when all are satisfied that we have had a great compromise showing how well they worked together, they grab another apple and repeat.

States have done a terrible job of protecting the Constitution, about that I have no illusion. This will not be easily undone, and there is 0 chance it will be fixed by men without moral conviction.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams

Obviously, any problems of social confusion in any State is something for that State to deal with. Suggesting a one-size fits all, Federal role, is totally counter-productive.

Now, that said, there is a stated Federal role in the Constitution to guarantee to each State a republican form of Government; but the Federal Government has actually been acting counter to that intent, trying to force every State to adopt a form of Egalitarian Democracy--the very thing that Madison & the Constitutional fathers sought to avoid.

William Flax

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.