Some recent polls show we’re becoming more liberal on social issues, and this has made some liberal political columnists happy. Youth will be served, and young Americans are not social conservatives. Santorum, Huckabee and other traditionalists who appeal principally to the Christian right turn most young voters off. So is this a problem for Republicans?
Nope. The essence of federalism is tolerance. The people of South Dakota are strongly against abortion. California is the reverse opposite. Colorado and other states want legalized marijuana. Most states probably don’t. Gay marriage flies in some parts of the country, not in others. True American conservatives — those faithful to the federalist impulse at the heart of the Constitution — don’t have a problem with any of this. Let the states decide. It’s that simple, and it appeals to the young, whose attitude is a combination of “Care about it”, “Do your own thing”, and “Stay out of my life and I’ll stay out of yours.”
This is anathema to so-called progressives, who have succumbed to the flip side of federalism — fascism, intolerance, and demands for uniformity. So let the election next year be, in part, between the tolerance of federalism and the rigidity of the hard left.
The public seems to be going the other way on abortion. Even the young don’t really approve, but almost everyone is conflicted on it. But the political answer on abortion is the same as on every other social issue — let the states, and the people within each of them, decide. .
The Supreme Court may be set to rule soon on gay marriage. If Justice Kennedy wants to keep getting invited to fancy cocktail parties he’ll rule that gays have a constitutional right to marriage. That’s complete bullshit. Another Roe v. Wade, the worst decision since Dred Scott. If that’s what happens there might be a place for Article V. Use it to amend the Constitution to return the power to decide social issues to the states. Abortion, gay marriage and marijuana would no longer be within the domain of the federal courts or Congress. The people of each state will decide these matters for themselves.
There may not be the kind of consensus on this idea that is required for a successful Article V movement. But it is a solution that most Republicans and moderates could live with. It’s the best political answer to some vexing political questions.
I’m totally convinced that if we have an Amendment Convention on the BBA it will be followed by Conventions on other topics. If the Reagan Initiative is included in the BBA it’s possible the Second Convention could be on social issues. Time will tell.
Since the idea of the Reagan Initiative surfaced three months ago no one has argued that it is outside the scope of a BBA. Some people haven’t embraced it, but no one has tried to say that it couldn’t be done, legitimately. When I explained it to Kelly Mader in Savannah he didn’t immediately buy in. He wanted somebody’s legal opinion — maybe the corporate counsel at Peabody, presumably some kind of big time lawyer. When he joined our San Diego cc yesterday it meant that he’d been given the green light by whomever he consulted with. You may not like the idea of transferring federal lands to the states, or constitutional regulatory reform, but you’re not going to be able to say that the Amendment Convention cannot address these issues if it chooses to do so.
Mader said something else that rang a bell. The EPA is running amok. Their proposed regulations will kill the coal industry, but they’ve got a whole lot more coming down the pike. They want EPA jurisdiction and control over every mud puddle in the country. They’ve gone berserk. It’s as though Obama has decided that fighting climate change is going to be his legacy, and he doesn’t care too much if he pisses the whole country off while he’s at it. The coal industry may be ready to roll over and play dead, but a lot of people are going to want to fight. What can they do, with Obama and his veto pen?
Constitutional regulatory reform, as part of the Balanced Budget Amendment.
As we say in Cali, por que no?