S/O - A Civics Lesson

[Anonymous]

I am undecided voter - won't matter, I live in Maryland. And yes, I am a lawyer. So, let me offer a free civics lesson:

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. (That's the 10th Amendment). So, if the Federal Government doesn't pay for something or regulate it, the States can, as long it is not otherwise unconstitutional.

So, I think Romney is all about backing the Federal Government out of all the things it's creeped into over the last 60 years. States can put in their own versions of "Obamacare," like "Romneycare". States can regulate abortion, but that doesn't translate to Romney being anti abortion, except to placate his right wing base. However, if you look at the right wing base being concentrated in certain states, then those states may end up with abortion severely restricted, but places like my home state, probably won't under a Romney administration.

So, even though I am pro-choice, I am becoming less concerned about Romney's abortion position. My pro-choice side os heartened that he is a Federalist, because if he has to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he may end up with a Federalist who will keep the Federal Government out of the abortion fight.

So, I would ask that the former Constitutional law professor that is our President stop glossing over these distinctions in Romney's position. Yes, Paul Ryan lies and Romney is a shape-shifter, but the President must have been a lousy Con law professor.

[Anonymous]

I went to Chicago Law and, yes, he was a lousy prof. The rest of the faculty did not have much respect for him and still don't.

But that doesn't mean he wouldn't be a good President. I don't happen to think he is but most excellent professors would be lousy presidents.

[Anonymous]

If you think that Romney is a real federalist, I have a bridge to sell you. Did Republicans like it when the Democrats started offering states more latitude in welfare programs? Hell no, they said Obama made a loophole to eliminate work requirements!

Does Romney support the state's right to deal with marijuana however it sees fit? Hell no.

Gun control? No.


Romney is a Cafeteria Federalist.

[Anonymous]

Did I miss it? Is there no gun control in Massachusetts?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I am undecided voter - won't matter, I live in Maryland. And yes, I am a lawyer. So, let me offer a free civics lesson:

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. (That's the 10th Amendment). So, if the Federal Government doesn't pay for something or regulate it, the States can, as long it is not otherwise unconstitutional.

So, I think Romney is all about backing the Federal Government out of all the things it's creeped into over the last 60 years. States can put in their own versions of "Obamacare," like "Romneycare". States can regulate abortion, but that doesn't translate to Romney being anti abortion, except to placate his right wing base. However, if you look at the right wing base being concentrated in certain states, then those states may end up with abortion severely restricted, but places like my home state, probably won't under a Romney administration.

So, even though I am pro-choice, I am becoming less concerned about Romney's abortion position. My pro-choice side os heartened that he is a Federalist, because if he has to appoint a Supreme Court justice, he may end up with a Federalist who will keep the Federal Government out of the abortion fight.

So, I would ask that the former Constitutional law professor that is our President stop glossing over these distinctions in Romney's position. Yes, Paul Ryan lies and Romney is a shape-shifter, but the President must have been a lousy Con law professor.

Can you please provide an example of Obama "glossing over" distinctions in Romney's position?

Also, don't you think your position is a bit selfish given that you are satisfied that your right to an abortion will likely be protected while the right of women in Alabama and Mississippi likely won't be?

[Anonymous]

OP here.

As long as you get all your news from either MSNBC or FOX or you believe the political commercials, you'll never get an unbiased view of either candidate's position.

But I am just tired of anything Romney says from a Federalist perspective being touted as his position on a topic. Just because he wants the Federal Government out of it, doesn't mean he's against it.

I never heard Romney speak on the welfare/work requirements, so I wont' hang that tag on him. I'll hang it on FOX.

[Anonymous]

Obama knows the distictions, and he is characterizing Romney's positions as a flip flop. That's a gloss, in my opinion.

I care about a woman's right to choose everywhere. But, the fight is currently at the state level, and for anyone to think otherwise is keeping their head in the sand.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Obama knows the distictions, and he is characterizing Romney's positions as a flip flop. That's a gloss, in my opinion.

I care about a woman's right to choose everywhere. But, the fight is currently at the state level, and for anyone to think otherwise is keeping their head in the sand.

Romney did flip flop and it had nothing to do with federalism. He said he had no anti-abortion legislation on his agenda in his Iowa newspaper interview. Then, he said that he does plan to legislatively defund Planned Parenthood. So, no legislation to legislation in 24 hours. About par for Romney.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. ... But I am just tired of anything Romney says from a Federalist perspective being touted as his position on a topic. Just because he wants the Federal Government out of it, doesn't mean he's against it.

So, OP, is it your view that Romney is not really Pro-Life at all? And it's just that he wants to be a pure Federalist, and abortion rights at the state level will just be possible "collateral damage"?

I just did a quick news search and found several articles from just the past 24 hours, which all seem to make clear that Romney is Pro-Life.

Romney: ‘I’ll Be a Pro-Life President’
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/10/romney-ill-be-a-pro-life-president/
“The actions I’ll take immediately are to remove funding for planned parenthood. It will not be part of my budget.” During the GOP primaries Mr. Romney said he would advocate for a bill designed to protect unborn children “who are capable of feeling pain from abortion.” In the past he’s also thrown his support behind a constitutional amendment to define life at conception.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/11/proudly-pro-life-romney-s-wriggle-on-abortion-seen-as-pragmatic.html
"In the wake of Romney’s comments, the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony List promptly distributed an article the candidate had written in June 2011, outlining his commitment to promoting an anti-abortion rights agenda. The group expressed its “full confidence” that Romney “will stand by” those commitments."

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obama knows the distictions, and he is characterizing Romney's positions as a flip flop. That's a gloss, in my opinion.

I care about a woman's right to choose everywhere. But, the fight is currently at the state level, and for anyone to think otherwise is keeping their head in the sand.

Romney did flip flop and it had nothing to do with federalism. He said he had no anti-abortion legislation on his agenda in his Iowa newspaper interview. Then, he said that he does plan to legislatively defund Planned Parenthood. So, no legislation to legislation in 24 hours. About par for Romney.

More to the point, Romney will, as Grover Norquist so bluntly put it at CPAC earlier this year, do what he's told. The people who would love to tell him what to do don't have any problem with government interference in our personal business.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/13/grover-norquist-speech-cpac.html

[Anonymous]

Romney is clearly more federalist than Obama, as are most past governors. Romney is at least open to the idea that some issues should be decided on the state level even if one thinks there is a "right" answer to the issue. Obama barely thinks this.

[Anonymous]

OP here. thanks for the updates. I am still on the fence. Go ahead. Keep feeding me the info.

The debate told me one thing about both men, they do have a completely different position as to the role of Federal government.

As for planned parenthood, defunding planned parenthood is like defundng PBS -- pandering to the right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here.

As long as you get all your news from either MSNBC or FOX or you believe the political commercials, you'll never get an unbiased view of either candidate's position.

But I am just tired of anything Romney says from a Federalist perspective being touted as his position on a topic. Just because he wants the Federal Government out of it, doesn't mean he's against it.

I never heard Romney speak on the welfare/work requirements, so I wont' hang that tag on him. I'll hang it on FOX.

Marriage is controlled by states. Do you think Romney will be Federalist on this one? Will the Federal government recognize any marriage under federal law? Nope!

Romney is using Federalism as an excuse for opposing Romneycare when he invented it. His federalism is a position of convenience.

[Anonymous]

Of this I am certain: Romney will put people into leadership positions in the Department of Justice and the White House Counsel's Office who are real federalists, as in members of The Federalist Society. Those people respect the constitutional divide between the federal government and the states. If that appeals to you, keep it as part of your voting calculus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. thanks for the updates. I am still on the fence. Go ahead. Keep feeding me the info.

The debate told me one thing about both men, they do have a completely different position as to the role of Federal government.

I don't agree ... or maybe I just don't understand you.

I think both have very similar views of the federal government: they want federal government to accomplish certain tasks that state governments are not equipped to handle for various reasons. The big difference between the two candidates is what tasks they want accomplished (or not).

You seem to stick by this belief that Romney is some small-government purist, but I don't think that's accurate at all. Both major parties (and their candidates) are big government proponents. They just want government to be doing different things.

To me, it seems Federalism is just a fig leaf that some people (mostly politicians) hide behind when they want to avoid taking a clear position on an issue, and/or want to avoid taking responsibility for the clear consequences of what the states will do if not constrained by the federal government.