The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 8 of 17)

p>Bob Barr makes Kerry look as solid as the Rock of Gibraltar! br> -- Eric Edward br> Walnut Cove, North Carolina /p>

I'm not going to refute Mr. McWormwood's main point. Perhaps Barr has flipped and flopped and changed a great deal in his quest to be the Libertarian standard bearer. But I look at his quotes from Barr (I assume they are Barr's, please let me know if I'm wrong) and I am struck with a couple of questions.

First, is Barr wrong? Is the Constitution not under constant and consistent assault? Even the land-mark DC gun-ban case was a 5-4 ruling. And that doesn't cover the New London and several other horrible rulings from the Supreme Court. And in Mr. Lehrer's article today we see three Federal laws in clear violation of the Constitution that are still on the books, one recently passed. No Child Left Behind, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Social Security, public smoking bans, the War on Drugs... All of these violate the Constitution, and no one raises a cry.

The major problem with the conservative movement, and the Republican Party, is they act from the same basic premise that the Democratic Party and liberal movement: That the government is here to advance your agenda. Conservatives won't stand up and say that anti-drug laws are wrong because anti-drug laws aide the Conservative agenda. No one strikes down public smoking bans. No one is really willing to fight entitlement programs. Health-care mandates... I'm going to stop before this becomes a laundry-list of constitutional violations in modern America. I'll just say that maybe Barr isn't wrong, even if he is a late-comer.

Second, Does the Republican Party have any interest in lowering the size and scope of government? Cutting taxes isn't enough. Until such time I see Republican's start to talk about cutting down and cutting out unnecessary government agencies (DEA anyone?) and making serious proposals on securing our porous border I just can't disagree with Barr's statement.

p>Third, Is the FMA right? I know that Gay Marriage is such a contentious issue for the right, but I seriously got to ask this question. Why is it a question of should homosexuals be able to marry? Shouldn't the question be why not? For that matter, by what right do states provide marriage licenses? I don't want a justification, I want to see where a Constitution gives the state the right to say who can or cannot get married. Remember, Constitutions do not just create governments for us to live with whatever law they pass. Constitutions empower governments with certain rights, and the government such empowered cannot step outside of those listed enumerated rights given to it within the constitution that created it. Don't get me wrong; I think marriage should be between a man and a woman, I just don't think the State should define it as such. br> -- Charles Campbell br> Austin, Texas /p>

Dear Mr./ Mrs./ Miss McWormwood,

topics:
Taxes, John McCain, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Business, Earmarks, Social Security, Medicaid, Sports, Abortion, Books, Movies, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, NATO, Conservatism, Immigration, Energy, Alaska, Oil, Medicare