Amending the 10th Amendment

Rick Perry’s infidelity to federalism is more troubling than his fidelity to Christianity.

Evidently Rick Perry is a Christian. But does he have to make such a big deal out of it?

“As a nation,” the governor of my state declared when he announced a prayer rally that attracted more than 30,000 people to Houston’s Reliant Stadium in August, “we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.” My response to The Response: No, thanks. My people have managed without Jesus for thousands of years. Why start now?

In truth, however, I was not terribly insulted at being excluded from Perry’s giant church service. Even if I drove on Saturdays, I would not have been thrilled by the idea of a four-hour trip to Houston for seven hours of hymns, prayer, fasting, and repentance. I get enough of that on Yom Kippur.

I was much more offended by the alacrity with which Perry, who announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination a week later, abandoned his avowed federalist principles to embrace the legislative agenda of the Christian right. It took less than a week.

“Our friends in New York,” Perry told GOP donors in Aspen on July 22, “passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

It soon became clear that Perry, who wrote a book championing federalism, does not really believe in the 10th Amendment. In a July 28 interview, he assured Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, that he supports amending the Constitution to declare that “marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” So much for letting states define marriage as they see fit.

Perry did a similar about-face on abortion. On July 27 he told reporters in Houston he favors overturning Roe v. Wade, which would leave states free to set their own policies in this area. “You either have to believe in the 10th Amendment or you don’t,” he said. “You can’t believe in the 10th Amendment for a few issues and then [for] something that doesn’t suit you say, ‘We’d rather not have states decide that.’ ”

Two days later, Perry’s spokeswoman told The Houston Chronicle he “would support amending the U.S. Constitution…to protect innocent life.” Most versions of the Human Life Amendment would ban abortion throughout the country, even in states that want to keep it legal.

After the prayer rally, Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, which sponsored the event, enthused that “the governor is a staunch social conservative, believing in both the sanctity of life and marriage not just as personal principles but as principles of public policy.” The evidence: “He supports federal amendments to protect both the unborn and man-woman marriage.”

Fischer and Perry seem to have similar ideas about constitutional fidelity. Fischer supports the First Amendment except when it comes to non-Christians, while Perry supports the 10th Amendment except when it comes to marriage and abortion.

Other exceptions may emerge as the presidential race proceeds. As much as I’d love to see the Republican nominee attack President Barack Obama for interfering with state decisions regarding medical marijuana (which Perry also says are protected by the 10th Amendment), I don’t think it’s going to happen.

Perry insisted his prayer rally was apolitical, allowing that God is neither a Republican nor a Democrat. But the Republican primary voters who are attracted by his conspicuous Christianity will expect Perry to translate his religious beliefs into government policy. Those of us who would not welcome a centrally imposed, religiously inspired moral agenda can only hope the governor’s promises on that score will turn out to be just as empty as his commitment to state sovereignty. 

Senior Editor Jacob Sullum is a nationally syndicated columnist.

© Copyright 2011 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • PIRS||

    "“Our friends in New York,” Perry told GOP donors in Aspen on July 22, “passed a statute that said marriage can be between two people of the same sex. And you know what? That’s New York, and that’s their business, and that’s fine with me. That is their call. If you believe in the 10th Amendment, stay out of their business.”

    It soon became clear that Perry, who wrote a book championing federalism, does not really believe in the 10th Amendment. In a July 28 interview, he assured Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, that he supports amending the Constitution to declare that “marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.” So much for letting states define marriage as they see fit."

    So there is a presidential candidate who is a hypocrite? A presidential candidate who says one thing to one group of people and something contradictory to a different group of people? I am truly shocked!

  • Realist||

    Yes, this is very rare.

  • ||

    Would your comment have been any different if you hadn't quoted anything?

  • ||

    0bama = Bush 3
    Perry = Bush 4

  • PIRS||

    S',

    I do not think he will be the GOP nominee this year. Gardasill sank his ship.

  • PIRS||

    Odd - I tried to copy and paste your handle and I just got S'

    strange.

  • sarcasmic||

    google html tags

  • ||

    Actually, you can't put special characters in the moniker box. I tried putting the apostrophe in Francisco d' Anconia and it and it posted as Francisco d' Anconia. Some sort of ascii code for the symbol????

  • ||

    okay...in my last reply, I typed Francisco "d@-#-0-3-9" Anconia without the dashes and it turned it back into an apostrophe when it posted. So, yes it is an ascii.

  • Francisco d Anoconda||

    Can't handle basic computer skills?

    ...the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent... ~sumthin' or another I heard on a longass radio broadcast

  • PIRS||

    "As much as I’d love to see the Republican nominee attack President Barack Obama for interfering with state decisions regarding medical marijuana (which Perry also says are protected by the 10th Amendment), I don’t think it’s going to happen."

    There are at least two Republican candidates who do not think the Federal government should interfere with state decisions regarding medical marijuana - Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. I would not be surprised to find their existence ignored in most media publications. But in what is supposed to be a libertarian publication - I am a little more than disappointed.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I don't think Johnson has a realistic shot at the nom, but yeah, Sullum could've paid some lip service to Ron Paul here.

  • PIRS||

    I agree with you about Johnson not having much of a chance - but at this point I don't think Rick Perry does either. The Gardasill think has doomed his chances. Ironically it may have also doomed Michelle Bachman's chances also. This despite the fact nothing she ACTUALLY said about the topic was untrue. The way the media reported her comments caused many people to think she was a kook.

  • Ice Nine||

    This despite the fact nothing she ACTUALLY said about the topic was untrue. The way the media reported her comments caused many people to think she was a kook.

    AAMOF what she said about the vaccine being harmful to "innocent little girls" was untrue.

    She is a religious kook but is not a general kook as the MSM portrays her. Even though she might not have been my first choice I was suppportive of her as long as she didn't rub our noses in the extreme religious stuff. She lost me though precisely when she rolled out her gratuitous, hysterical Gardasil riff on Perry, the primary purpose of which was to appeal to her fellow religious fundies, who are queasy about anything having to do with pooters - especially anything that might facilitate their carefree use.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Remember, heaven is no sex.

    In the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage. ~Luke 20:35

    Except for that kinky "Bride of Christ" fetishism that Paul was into.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Obama's got it. 4 more beers!

  • Uncle Joe||

    You are taking that "Reason is a libertarian publication" a bit too seriously.

    I think "Reason is more libertarian than other publications" is a bit more accurate.
    But in the end it's not saying all that much.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Pilate said unto him, What is liberty? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Libertarians, and said unto them, I find in him no fault at all.

  • Old Man With Candy||

    I don't see the inconsistency. He's honest enough to say that if we want policies that are violative of the 10th amendment, it will take a constitutional amendment to do so, not just legislation or other political action. I disagree with his proposed amendments, but am impressed that he sees the need for them to enact his desired policies, rather than just using the 10th to wipe his ass.

  • cynical||

    Yeah. He believes that the 10th amendment is the law of the land, but doesn't necessarily believe in the principles behind it in some cases. It's an infidelity to federalism as a concept, not the 10th.

  • Realist||

    ".... rather than just using the 10th to wipe his ass."
    If he gets elected, he will.

  • Hijack - this AM's FT||

    A hardline libertarian party in one of the newest, smallest and poorest members of Europe’s single currency looks set to throw a spanner in the machinery of expanding the eurozone’s bail-out fund – seen as crucial to restoring market confidence in the bloc

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    How do you say Kochtopus in Slovakian?

  • Mike E||

    I can't believe I am going to defend Perry, but amending the constitution is respecting the constitution. After all, the states would have to pass the amendments.

  • o2||

    socons /= libertarian

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    This meme again? It's the lamest "gotcha" since the argument that conservatives should be in favor of giveaways to Solyndra because, well, they're against red tape, right? And checking the books of a company before giving it taxpayer money would be red tape, right? Inconsistency!

    Perry wants to amend the Constitution to enact some policies he supports. Until that tie, he recognizes that the states have the power to adopt different policies. If that's the worst inconsistency that can be found in his record, I will be impressed.

  • PIRS||

    Eduard, let me take an extreme but illustrative hypothetical. Let us suppose a candidate said "I support the First Amendment. I may not agree with Wiccans but the first Amendment protects their right to worship as they please." And in front of a different gathering he said "I support a constitutional amendment that would ban Wicca."

    Would you call that inconsistency?

  • MJ||

    That's not quite the argument Reason is making. They are saying that Perry's support of of a marriage amendment is betrayal of the 10th amendment and federalism. The problem is an amendment is the proper federalist means to deal with this kind of issue.

    There's also the fact the pro-homosexual marriage camp Reason supports has no interest in federalism itself. If it could impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states at once (by SCOTUS decision, for instance) Reason would hail it as a social libertarian victory.

  • PIRS||

    "The problem is an amendment is the proper federalist means to deal with this kind of issue."

    Wong - you are confused as to the meaning of Federalism. This would be a CONSTITUTIONAL means to REDUCE federalism. Federalism by definition devolves political power

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Sorcery by daffynition devolves political power.

  • PIRS||

    Are you still afraid of political uprisings in the Levant?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    You're not?

  • PIRS||

    "You're not?"

    Not if we get out of the Middle East and stop subsidizing both sides of the conflict, no. Our presence in the Middle East (and "foreign aid") only exacerbates the problems there.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Can't run a civilization without crucifying the uncivilized savages.

  • PIRS||

    "Can't run a civilization without crucifying the uncivilized savages."

    I find it interesting you use the word "run" here. That implies control. Libertarians want to control nothing but their own destinies.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Libertarians want to control nothing

    I hear your sales pitch. I also know its not true.

    Libertarians are actually control-freaks. They want to control other people via State-established abstract lines on the ground called private property and close the artificial borders and prevent freedom of movement of fellow humans.

  • PIRS||

    "State-established abstract lines on the ground"

    Why need these be "state-established"?

    Do you understand the concept of property?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    I understand the concept of property. It is state-established, that is, by aggression.

    I also know that the reality of how property is established goes against the classic liberal and libertarian rationalizations.

    Before there was a "homesteader," there was a soldier slaughtering or driving off the first families making a living on the land without any abstractly delineated lines on the earth.

  • PIRS||

    I too am convinced you are the person who once went by the moniker "White Indian". If not, you share that person's basic philosophy.

    The Indigenous tribes were not monolithic in their perceptions of property. Some did not believe land based property could exist, others did not. In any case the concept that land could be property existed long before Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492.

  • seguin||

    And before them there was the Comanche slaughtering the Tonkawa to keep them from the prime hunting grounds. Or the Osage pushing the Caddo to the South.

    Jeebus White Indian, you have no grasp of pre-colonial or even post-colonial Native American history. Give it up.

  • ||

    WI ALERT!

  • Pontius Pilate||

    The playboy miner doesn't have the slightest clue how to reply to me - at least within reason.

  • sarcasmic||

    I haven't figured out why so many Reason staff want to redefine marriage to mean any two individuals regardless of gender.
    As far as I'm concerned the libertarian answer would be to get the government and courts out of the marriage business entirely, and let society decide.

  • PIRS||

    "As far as I'm concerned the libertarian answer would be to get the government and courts out of the marriage business entirely, and let society decide."

    Sarcasmic, ideally I would agree with you. I am an ancap. In my perfect "libertopia" each church could define its own rules and each insurance company define its own rules. If the Catholic Church decides one thing and the Quakers decide something else no problem. If one insurance company decides one thing and another decides something else no problem.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Apparently, society already decided to get the government and courts in the marriage business.

  • PIRS||

    "Apparently, society already decided to get the government and courts in the marriage business."

    Do you believe this is ideal? If so, why?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Of course it's not ideal; it's just reality.

  • PIRS||

    "Of course it's not ideal; it's just reality."

    Do you oppose it? Would you support libertarians in their efforts to reduce governmental control in this area?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    I smell a White Indian primitive who wants to throttle the agricultural city-State.

  • PIRS||

    "I smell a White Indian primitive who wants to throttle the agricultural city-State."

    Who are you describing?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    I see no difference between:

    1. "reduce governmental control" (you)
    2. "reduce the agricultural city-State control" (WI)

  • PIRS||

    In other words WI asociates what he views as evil with government. I do too. But we have different conceptions of what is evil. He, like the authors of the book of Genesis views the fruit of knowledge as evil. I view coercion as evil.

  • ||

    Even more baffling is their rationale for insisting on "any two, and ONLY two". I won't accept having my polygamous friends treated as SECOND-CLASS CITIZENS!

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Never let one woman be bored in bed is the key to polygyny happiness. Keep 'em both busy, I say!

  • PIRS||

    "There's also the fact the pro-homosexual marriage camp Reason supports has no interest in federalism itself. If it could impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states at once (by SCOTUS decision, for instance) Reason would hail it as a social libertarian victory."

    I cannot speak for others here but I, myself, am an ancap. I have no interest in government at all. I care more about liberty. If two gay guys got hitched would you love your spouse any less?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    An-cap is an oxymoron.

  • PIRS||

    "An-cap is an oxymoron."

    No, it is not.

    http://mises.org/daily/1778

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Yes, it is a misleading and oxymoronical term contrived by manipulative lassaiz-faire capitalists to draw uninformed, young, and rebellious youth into their ideology by applying the word "anarcho" to it.

    Just because anarchism is actually about opposing ALL systems of hierarchy, it doesn't stop me from trying to use the word anarcho-capitalism to make me look hip and rebellious!

  • PIRS||

    How is a system that opposes all coercion hierarchical?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    You don't oppose all coercion, you merely say you do as a masquerade to hide your propensity to aggression.

    A gentle traveler falls asleep in the grass near your home. He's sleeping, he's not harming anything, and he's sleeping. You'll commit aggression against him, or farm it out to the government to commit aggression against him.

  • PIRS||

    You invented a scenario and then decided for yourself how I would react and then made a judgment based upon that. As is often the case in such scenarios much information is missing. Is this person deliberately trespassing? Just in an unfortunate situation? Did he simply loose his way and get disoriented? Each of these scenarios would deserve a different response. The person deliberately trespassing would himself be the aggressor. If I responded with force it would not be I who did the initiating. If he was simply in an unfortunate scenario I would be far more forgiving and if he seemed like a good sort of person I might help him out or even offer him a job. If he simply got disoriented and got lost accidentally wandering onto my property I would direct him as best I could toward the location he was trying to reach.

    How is this aggression?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    trespassing

    Trespass. There's the word you use to veil your initiation of aggression against fellow humans.

    You label somebody who is obviously not being aggressive in any manner (he's sleeping on "your" unharmed "property") an aggressor.

    Sleeping on grass isn't "initiating force," except in libertarian lala land.

  • MJ||

    "Sleeping on grass isn't "initiating force," except in libertarian lala land."

    If the person sleeping there kills the grass? Defecates and otherwise pollutes the property? Your assuption that trespassing does no damage to the property holds no water and therefore your assertion that it is not an initiation of force is false.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Even if we stipulate that the snoring traveller is somehow harming the grass, how do you twist that into initiating aggression against you?

    And if he isn't harming the grass or creating a public health nuisance, is he then not trespassing? I never heard that trespassing laws necessitated harm or damage. (painted yourself in a corner there...lol)

  • MJ||

    The traveller is harming my grass, therefore he is harming me. Is that really very difficult to comprehend?

    "I never heard that trespassing laws necessitated harm or damage."

    No, they do not, but an ignorant traveler may not be aware of the damage he is causing, therefore the property owner has the right to declare his property off limits to approved persons.

    Arguing that a property owner is the one initiating force agaist a trespasser was a tired and silly argument the first hundred times some abusrd leftist goon tried it.

  • PIRS||

    Property is an extension of the self. It is the result of your using your time and your body to create or trade what you created with others.

    If you disagree expect me for supper because I am comming whether I am invited or not.

    And I could use a new computer so I will take yours.

    I could use a new car so I will take yours.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    In an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology (band or tribe) in which our ancestors lived for 99% of human existence on earth, such behavior would be perfectly acceptable if you needed it.

    Just like buddies share beer today. It's human nature.

    Gift-economy, baby.
    https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Gift_economy

  • PIRS||

    "In an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology (band or tribe) in which our ancestors lived for 99% of human existence on earth, such behavior would be perfectly acceptable if you needed it."

    It still is among close friends and family. There it is VOLUNTARY. The problem comes when people from another tribe, whom you do not know, who may have unknown motives comes in. Today we simply have a large population of humans. Tribes are no longer as defined by geography.

  • MJ||

    "Just like buddies share beer today. It's human nature."

    With your friends and family. Most of humanity are not my friends and family, there are no bonds of trust on a larger scale that make a gift economy workable.

    We cannot go back there, and really, 99% of human existance on earth rather sucked, so most of us do not want to.

  • MJ||

    "No, it is not."

    Correct. It is merely a moron.

  • PIRS||

    MJ, I take it you prefer namecalling to arguing. Fine. Let me know if you change your mind and want a more mature level of conversation.

  • MJ||

    Anarcho-Capitalism is a utopianist fantasy. When you come to a more mature level of political philosophy then you will not be mocked.

  • PIRS||

    MJ, you have not put forth any argument. All you have done is throw arounds insults of one kind or another.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    more mature level

    Supporting the State out of one side of your mouth and being against the State with the other? Since when is contradiction more mature?

  • MJ||

    So the only mature choices in your world are absolute anarchy or absolute totalitarianism? Your woorld seems a horrible place to live in.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    So we must compromise with a rapist or a statist kidnapper or anybody else using aggression, because otherwise we're "absolutist?" Extremist, even?" You know what Goldwater said about that.

  • MJ||

    You're the one defing defending oneself one's property as "aggression". As a wise person once said, "There are no contradictions, if you perceive a contradiction, check your premises. One of them is wrong."

  • Uncle Joe||

    "There's also the fact the pro-homosexual marriage camp Reason supports..."

    Does Reason support the pro-homosexual camp, or does it support the pro-homosexual ideal?
    And is it even pro-homosexual, or simply not ANTI-homosexual?

    "If it could impose homosexual marriage on all 50 states at once (by SCOTUS decision, for instance) Reason would hail it as a social libertarian victory."

    Would they? Would Reason support it as a libertarian victory if private people are forced to marry homosexuals?

    I'm interested in the answer to those questions.

    As far as the state is concerned, if you believe in the state, they damn well SHOULD be stopped to discriminate, since a violent monopoly discriminating against non-violent lifestyles is aggression, and libertarianism is against aggressive violence.

    In the free market discrimination is allowed because it is based on the principle of freedom of association. The state has nothing to do with freedom of association, it FORCES you to associate with it, and obey its rules. Therefor it does not have a moral right to discriminate.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    free market discrimination

    Love it.

    The state is just discriminating against libertarians, on the principle of freedom of association - you can always leave and live in freedom out in the woods or tundra.

  • sense, this makes none||

    Sense, this makes none.

  • ||

    Wow, you're really stretching high up the retard ladder with this one.

  • MJ||

    "Does Reason support the pro-homosexual camp, or does it support the pro-homosexual ideal?
    And is it even pro-homosexual, or simply not ANTI-homosexual?"

    Don't take "marriage" off the phrase "pro-homosexual marriage", it changes the entire meaning of what is being discussed. Leaving it in makes much of your question nonsensical. Considering most Reason writers seem to have bought into the homosexual political activists thinking that being against homosexual marriage means being anti-homosexual, I am not sure there is a difference.

    "Would they? Would Reason support it as a libertarian victory if private people are forced to marry homosexuals?"

    I have to assume you willfully misread what I wrote, or you are an idiot. Reason has supported homosexual marriage be legally accepted anywhere, by any means required. They have proven they only give a fig about federalism on this issue if it supports the expansion of homosexual marriage.

    "...if you believe in the state, they damn well SHOULD be stopped to discriminate,..."

    If the discrimination is unreasonable, or serves no purpose. The pro-homosexual marriage camp always assumes without explanation that keeping marriage as a heterosexual institution is unreasonable discrimination. Marriage at its core is how society defines the responsibilities of fertile couples towards each other and their progeny. A homosexual couple cannot never be fertile with each other by definition. Therefore, it is not unreasonble discrimination to exclude homosexuals from marriage. What value does formalizing homosexual relationships have for society except salving your desire for cosmic justice by making false equivalencies?

  • akn||

    "What value does formalizing homosexual relationships have for society except salving your desire for cosmic justice by making false equivalencies?"

    Legal recognition of our relationships would bind us to ourselves and our children (yes, gay people are parents too, and it does not matter how we became parents), creating the same protective framework in which to raise our families as heterosexual couples enjoy.

    But to be honest, I think all civil marriage should be abolished and all tax benefits and special legal rights that come with marriage should be denied to all couples. Straight and gay couples alike should have contracts, wills, powers of attorney etc. to organize their lives, and present themselves as however they see themselves ('married,' 'partners,' etc.).

  • Metazoan||

    Reason is in the pro-liberty camp. I agree with them. While I think federalism and state's "rights" are an important tool, if a state is violating individual rights, well, the federal government should stop it. Individual rights > state's rights.

  • PIRS||

    "Individual rights > state's rights."

    I could not agree more. This is exactly right.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Reason isn't about liberty, it's about one thing: Get the hell of my property.

    Libertarians secretly worried that ultimately someone will figure out the whole of their political philosophy boils down to “Get Off My Property.” News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us.

    I Hate Your Politics
    March 22, 2002 by John Scalzi
    http://whatever.scalzi.com/200.....-politics/

  • PIRS||

    Pontius Pilate,

    Expect me for supper. I am comming whether I am invited or not. Oh, and I am taking your computer because mine is getting kind of old. I could also use a new car so I will take yours.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Engine and tires have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Hayzeus of the band Nazareth, rise up and walk!

  • PIRS||

    Good luck when the word gets out. I'll let out the word to the Occupy Wall Street People. Expect them for supper.

  • ||

    PIRS

    You do realize you are debating WI, right?

  • Francisco d Anoconda||

    And losing.

  • PIRS||

    I suspected as much. And, no, I am not losing.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Sure, but it's hardly as awful as if he'd supported a *statute* against Wicca.

    Perry's Clintonisms can be boiled down to: "so long as the Constitution is in its present form, states can establish same-sex marriage, and I will defend their constitutional prerogatives - but I would like Congress and 38 of our 50 states to put a stop to this situation."

    Imagine a supporter of same-sex marriage saying this sort of thing! "I would like a constitutional amendment establishing a right to same-sex marriage, but until such an amendment passes I acknowledge that it's not a constitutional right, and I will defend the power of any state to ban such marriages, much as I disagree with them."

    I doubt that such a candidate would get too much support from the Human Rights Campaign Fund. Too much nuance.

  • PIRS||

    I actually think that slowly allowing the country to adapt to the concept state by state would be best. You would create more resentment and backlash to do otherwise. Laws do not change hearts. Anyway lots of gay people who grow up in areas where they feel less free to be who they are move to states and regions where they can be more open. How else do you explain places like San Francisco, California and Key West, Florida?

  • Pontius Pilate||

    state by state would be best

    The Libertarian Domino Theory held that if one state fell under libertarian influence or control, its neighboring states would soon follow.

  • PIRS||

    And we have yet had the opportunity to test that theory out.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Free market of ideas failure?

  • PIRS||

    We are gaining ground in the free market ideas. We have yet to win many actual elections though. It is possible Ron Paul could win in 2012 however. If that happens things will change in a positive way.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Are you talking about the party against the State that has a State statue for its symbol?

  • PIRS||

    "Are you talking about the party against the State that has a State statue for its symbol?"

    LOL, back when I was a minarchist I was a member. I occasionally still vote for their candidates as being the lesser of multiple evils. But not necessarily. What is important is policy, not party labels. I could even vote for a Democrat who wanted to remove some of the chains on us.

  • White Idiot||

    Dude, White Moron isn't even making a point about party "labels" - he's literally talking about the visual images the party uses in its logo.

  • sarcasmic||

    This is why whoever wins the Republican nomination will lose (Ron Paul will not win).

    They'll try to get the social conservative vote by touting gays and abortion, and they'll lose.

    Lose, lose, lose.

  • Maxxx||

    Obama and the dems will be so hated by next year that the Church lady would win in a landslide.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I've seen too many teams snatch defeat from the jaws of victory to consider that a given.

  • PIRS||

    I actually think Ron Paul has a very good shot at winning. His support is growing - slowly - but more important his support is deep. His supporters are not fickle and will not suddenly switch their allegiance to another candidate because of some new advertising campaign by Herman Cain or Rick Santorum. Ron Paul has a very good chance this year.

  • sarcasmic||

    Ron Paul hasn't a chance.

    Too many people have an emotional reaction to his principles on foreign policy. Simply suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were provoked can get you into a fist fight depending on who is around. Same with suggesting that we should bring all the troops home. You know - fight them there or you'll fight them here. Yeah it's bullshit. But we're talking about emotional reactions, not rational thought.

    Ditto on drugs. While I really liked his comment "if we legalize heroin tomorrow, is everyone is going use heroin? How many people here would use heroin if it were legal?", most people do not think that way. The typical reaction is an emotional one. Drugs are bad m'kay.

    No. Ron Paul hasn't a chance.

  • PIRS||

    sarcasmic, the emotion runs both ways though. His opponents may be emotional but so are his supporters - and they are more likely to show up at the polls. Also, do not forget that many states are open primary states. In an open primary state you do not need to be registered as a Republican to vote in the Republican primary. In my state [Florida] you do but I switched my party affiliation from LP to Republican just to vote in the primary - I am not alone in that.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'd say his supporters are much more rational than his detractors. Well, the ones that aren't stoned anarchists that is.

  • J.Daniel||

    I honestly don't think his performance in the primaries even matters. Were he to garner the majority of delegates through the primaries, I think the RNC will figure out a way to mount a challenge at the convention. The mainline GOP wants no part of Ron Paul, and they would not support him.

  • Realist||

    This^^^

  • Realist||

    The Republicans will not tolerate Ron Paul....period!

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Too much private property of the innovative industrialists defending capitalism is at stake to tolerate Ron Paul.

  • Realist||

    Yes.

  • Larry David Sandwich||

    Republicans don't stand a chance if they continue to run these wacky theocrats.

  • PIRS||

    "Republicans don't stand a chance if they continue to run these wacky theocrats."

    On that I completely agree. But I am hopeful this year. Ron Paul even won the Values Voter Straw poll! So it seems even many voters who in past years have supported governmental solutions to their problems are thinking twice about that this year.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    4 more beers! 4 more beers!

  • YHWH||

    The sad truth is that both D and R voters want the federal government to be the central scrutinizer, centrally engineering all 50 states socially and economically. The only difference is what kind of social and economic engineering they want the government to provide. Probably 90% of Americans wouldn't give a thimble of warm spit for freedom. Probably 75% actually fear freedom, not theirs but yours.

  • Realist||

    "Probably 75% actually fear freedom, not theirs but yours."
    Both. If you have freedom it requires thinking for youeself and to most, that is scary.

  • Realist||

    Should be....yourself.

  • White Indian||

    75% of libertarians actually fear freedom.

    Thus, they cravenly kowtow to the agricultural city-State's coerced order.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    A lot of people would really like the freedom to take the freedom away from anyone they don't like so I think the numbers are as high as you suggest.

  • ||

    Is getting constitutional amendments passed necessarily opposite the idea behind the 10th amendment?

    I'm not religious and I think these proposed amendments are done, but you seem to be forgetting the text of the 10th amendment.

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution..."

    If a constitutional amendment is passed, it's, how can I say this, a part of the constitution; thus falling outside the scope of the 10th amendment.

  • ||

    An amendment to the Constitution...IS...the Constitution. Therefore there is NO conflict.

  • Francisco d Anoconda||

    Self-contradiction IS still a conflict.

  • ||

    done = dumb

  • ||

    Where in the 10th Amendment does it say "The Constitution shall never be amended again"?

    It must be next to the clause that says "The right of abortion shall not be infringed."

    Rick Perry is telling people that if they don't like what this or that state does, their problem is with the FEDERAL SYSTEM, and the solution is to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, not have it rewritten by a 5-4 judicial ukase. I am baffled by the convoluted reasoning that he "doesn't believe in the 10th Amendment." Does that mean that the people who amended the Constitution to ban slavery "didn't believe in the 10th Amendment" and "betrayed federalism"? Just asking.

  • Entropy||

    I could have sworn I read the same article by the same guy 2 months ago... is this a rerun?

    At any rate, I still have the same issue. Supporting an ammendment to the constitution is NOT hypocritical to his support for the 10th ammendment or federalism. That is the proper method for advocating such things.

  • Realist||

    Reason never has reruns!

  • Realist||

    "Evidently Rick Perry is a Christian. But does he have to make such a big deal out of it?"
    Yes, if he wants the thumper vote!

  • ||

    Wow ,another Presidential candidate who taylors his message to fit the audience he is speaking to.Better yet,another Presidential candidate who plays fast and lose with the constitution when he sees fit.Ron Paul for President in 2012!

  • ||

    He running for commander in chief not pastor in chief.Rick Perry ,If you want to dictate our public morals then launch a Christian version of jihadism or comport to a secular constitution and tell the pastors they live in a constitutional republic,not a theocracy!

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian jihadi.

    ~King Agrippa
    Acts 26:29

  • Mr. Mark||

    His "fidelity to Christianity" is troubling?

    So it's only okay to exercise one's right to the free practice of religion if your religion meets with Jacob Sullum's approval?

    The prayer rally he held was not a government event. Does he lose his 1st amendment rights when he takes office?

    On another note, supporting an amendment to the constitution is not unconstitutional and does not violate in any way the 10th amendment.

    So, stripping away all the extraneous B.S. in the article, you have a problem with Rick Perry supporting the idea of the federal government regulating who can get married?

    Fine. I agree - with that.

    The rest is irrelevant.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    not a government event

    "I am a strong Catholic; however, I don’t use my religion as a side show with my legislative duties."

    ~Rep. Josh Byrnes (R) Iowa
    http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.c.....ayer-rally

  • PIRS||

    Mr. Mark,

    I support the right of Orthodox Jews to practice their faith. What I would oppose however is if they tried to prohibit eating lobster. To my knowledge none of them in the USA have tried to impose their faith on others.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    ...Jews...none of them in the USA have tried to impose their faith on others.

    Are you circumcised?

    If so, did you consent to that mutilation of your body?

  • PIRS||

    No, I am not.

  • Pontius Pilate||

    Millions are mutilated, without consent, because of faith, imposed.

    Well, at least you didn't bleed like a little girl at menarche* to satisfy a pederastic sex rite of symbolically transforming boys into girls. Yep, that's what it's all about.

    SEX RITES: The Origins of Christianity
    The Ritual Use of Sex, Drugs, and Human Sacrifice
    http://ancientmeme.blogspot.com

  • PIRS||

    Would you prefer to give government control over how a child is raised? If there is any law that REQUIRES this be done I oppose that law. But that does not seem to be your argument.

  • Entropy||

    So I'm unclear whether your parents were bound and gagged while you were circumsized at gunpoint, or you're advocating for legal emancipation of infants.

  • White Idiot Ignores Anthropolo||

    "Among the Walmadjeri and Gugadja of Australia, rites of passage involve genital mutilations, intensive religious instruction, blood rites, and extended pilgrimages to sacred sites."

    http://www.anth.uconn.edu/facu.....s2009.pdf, pg 5.

    Guess what "socio-cultural typology" the Walmadjeri and Gugadja belong to? Fucking idiot.

  • Realist||

    "So it's only okay to exercise one's right to the free practice of religion if your religion meets with Jacob Sullum's approval?"
    Not at all. He has the right to believe and speak as he pleases and I have the right to be troubled by it. And not vote for him.

  • philmon||

    Well, you know, the neither the states nor the Federal Government shouldn't be defining marriage at all. They can recognize whatever they want, but they should not define it. It was never the State's to define.

    The right's move to "define" it as what it has always meant is actually a pre-emptive measure to keep government from being used to re-define it. So I see this less as a contradiction and more as a recognition that if one side doesn't block, the other wins using the same ill-conceived method.

    And I have to wonder why believing that abortion is murder -- is taken reflexively a religious question. Are we really saying that there is no valid argument that it is the taking of a human life ? That one could not subscribe to any particular religion and still hold that it is wrong?

    I'm pretty sure murder is in the 10 commandments as something that is wrong. Does that fact make it a religious question? Should we make all murders legal, since religions say it is wrong?

    I get the feeling that in the minds of many, "anti-abortion" = "religious right", and therefore it is invalid to have any laws governing it, or it's "theocracy".

    "Thou shalt not steal."

    Hey, there's another thing the Christian Right teaches. Take it off the books, you theocrats!

  • Tony||

    Where personhood begins is not a question science can answer. And we should not submit public policy to the hardest line on this question without a good reason. Prohibiting abortion comes with consequences to grown human beings. You have to weigh human welfare with the welfare of embryos, and the only people in the room calling embryos people are those who believe so because a magic sky man injected them with a magic peopleness substance at the moment of conception.

  • Bizaro Tony||

    Whether Global Warming is a good thing or not isn't a question science can answer. And we should not submit public policy to the hardest line on this question without a good reason. Prohibiting CO2 emissions comes with consequences to grown human beings. You have to weigh human welfare with the welfare of polar bears, and the only people in the room calling polar bears endangered are those who believe so because Gaia is angry with humans because they make money using her body.

  • Tony (circa 1859)||

    Where personhood begins is not a question science can answer. And we should not submit public policy to the hardest line on this question without a good reason. Prohibiting slavery comes with consequences to respectable human beings. You have to weigh human welfare with the welfare of negroes, and the only people in the room calling negroes people are those who believe so because a magic sky man injected them with a magic peopleness substance at the moment of conception.

  • Hold on now...||

    Hey, isn't it supposed to be Team Red that's anti-science?

  • Francisco d Anoconda||

    1957: Francisco d'Anconia
    2005: The 40 Year Old Virgin

    Ms. Rand agreed with Catherine MacKinnon's statement that "All sex is rape," but that's a good thing...Atlas Shrugged follows Dagny Taggart, railroad heiress/author self insertion, on her quest to have sex with ("get raped by") a series of increasingly powerful men.
    http://www.cracked.com/funny-304-ayn-rand/

  • PIRS||

    The most untrue and unfunny article I have ever read about Ayn Rand. And that is saying something. There are legitimate criticisms of Ayn Rand and I am certainly no Randian but they picked out untrue statements from message boards and Dirty Dancing quotes and used those rather than actual legitimate criticisms.

  • ||

    PIRS

    Please don't feed the trolls. Ignore White Indian and he will go away. Otherwise we'll be wading through his ridiculous nonsense forever.

  • So...||

    ...is ALL sex rape, or just male-on-female sex?

  • ||

    If you think it's hard to find a politician who believes in the 10th Amendment, try to find a judge who believes in the 9th.

  • duke||

    Evidently Rick Perry is a Christian. But does he have to make such a big deal out of it?... In truth, however, I was not terribly insulted at being excluded from Perry’s giant church service.... I was much more offended by the alacrity with which Perry, who announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination a week later, abandoned his avowed federalist principles.

    Me thinks Mr. Sullum is offended too easily.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement