First it was Reason online, now it’s Hot Air. Rick Perry wants amendments to ban both gay marriage and abortion. Per Allahpundit, these are…
Two caveats to his otherwise strict support for the Tenth Amendment,
No they’re not. Again, acknowledging the need for an amendment shows support for the 10th Amendment. It doesn’t prove respect, but does indicate it. What’s weird is that, unlike Steve Chapman yesterday, Allahpundit shows a bit of awareness in his musings.
There’s nothing necessarily inconsistent in that position: You can be a strong federalist and still condone federal solutions for exceptionally grave evils like slavery…
Then why did you call them “caveats”?? Anyone who believes that human life begins at conception should want to amend the Constitution to forbid abortion. There can be no “liberty” and “pursuit of happiness” without a life to experience them.
BTW, what’s with this “exceptionally grave evil” standard? You don’t get to decide my criteria. If I want an America free of public chewing, then by gum I’ll propose the Bye Gum Amendment and you can’t stop me!
Of course the real test of respect for the 10th isn’t proposing an amendment. It’s proposing one that fails…and accepting defeat. You can try, try again, but until your amendment passes you must acknowledge your concern is still a federal matter.
Then again…looking at abortion as a right-to-life issue, the proponent knows it’s a federal matter. The acknowldgement would be that the country still doesn’t agree. Abolitionists were right not to take setbacks to mean they should stop opposing the slavers.
But the gay marriage thing? Perry’s words mean, if his amendment fails, he has to acknowledge the legality of gay marriages anywhere they’re wanted.
Of course, in the federalist view other states are free to not recognize gay marriages. Unfortunately, (most) proponents of gay marriage are statists. And the definition of statist is “I spit upon your 10th Amendment! Ptooey! “ So rather than proposing an amendment to guarantee gay marriage, they’ll go the “Full Faith and Credit” route and force everyone else to accept them.
Which will solve the controversy, of course. Just as the judicial fiat of “Roe v. Wade” did for abortion.