Today I explain Romney’s total lack of comprehension of, and disregard for, the Constitution—the only defense we have against the growth of government.
Yay Gun Control!
At the Libertarian Party National Convention, I spoke with nominee Governor Gary Johnson, and his biggest concern with Romney is in the area of gun control, and with good reason. Yes, the NRA has endorsed him (which has many members livid), but the organization’s rationale is “he won’t be as bad as Obama.” (Have you noticed that’s a recurring theme with this guy?)
Once again, I will let Romney choke on his own words. From his campaign website:
Mitt will enforce the laws already on the books and punish, to the fullest extent of the law, criminals who misuse firearms to commit crimes . . . As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt was proud to support legislation that expanded the rights of gun owners.
Really? Massachusetts is ranked as a “tie” with New York for the state with the toughest gun control laws. He did nothing to support expanded gun rights, and the statement above is, to put it politely, inaccurate.
Anecdotally, I spoke with a Massachusetts delegate at the LP National Convention, and it was Mitt Romney’s gun control policies that drove him out of the Republican Party! Not only does Massachusetts have severe caliber limitations, the Bay State also has gun registration that requires gun owners to register not only which weapons they own, but where the weapons are kept. So if you move a gun from your house to your office, you have 30 days to notify authorities of the move or face felony charges and a permanent loss of the right of gun ownership. These are the kind of laws Romney says are “just right.”
Governor Romney has a solid record of pursuing gun control measures to control crime and increase safety. He is vocally supportive of the assault weapons ban, supported a waiting period, and supports registration. While Governor he continued Massachusetts’s history of gun control advocacy.
In 2002, Mitt Romney stated in a debate that he supported the tough gun laws in Massachusetts and that he believed they help protect us and keep us safe. He vowed not to chip away at those laws . . .
. . . He stated that his views did not line up with the NRA.
So, in Mitt Romney’s Constitutional universe, gun registration and other strict controls are perfectly legitimate under the Second Amendment. No wonder Romney scares the heck out of presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson when it comes to gun control.
Romney, Same Sex Marriage, and the Constitution
Last week President Obama thrust the issue of same sex marriage into the spotlight by coming out in support of same sex marriage. And, as cannot be disputed, the first law to recognize same sex marriage in the U.S. bears Mitt Romney’s signature. (As a libertarian I give both of them some credit for their positions, even though conservatives don’t.)
But what has me disturbed are the Constitutional arguments being bandied about now that this hot-button issue is back in the spotlight. Both Obama and Romney have come out and said it is a states’ rights issue. Last week, Romney said the following:
“I’m not running on marriage and marijuana, those are state issues, right? Aren’t they?” he said.
(I had to titter when it seemed like he was asking reporters for help with Constitutional interpretation, as well as the implication that federal marijuana laws are Unconstitutional!)
If marriage is a states’ rights issue, DOMA is Unconstitutional, and President Obama is justified in ordering the Justice Department to stop defending it!
But consider Romney’s campaign website:
As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act—a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton—but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman.
So is marriage a federal issue or a state issue, Mr. Romney? And if it’s a federal issue, could you please direct me to the relevant clause in Article I that authorizes Congress to interfere in an area that has long been held to be an exclusive area of state jurisdiction?
This is typical Constitutional flip-flopping from Romney, which shows he has no underlying Constitutional principles. You may disagree with presidential candidate Gary Johnson when he says that gun registration and marriage licensing restricted to heterosexual couples are both Unconstitutional, but you will never hear him waver on those positions because they are ingrained in his political being. Romney has no such Constitutional keel, and his flip-flopping on same sex marriage is another in a litany of examples.
Virtually every time Mitt Romney opens his mouth he becomes a more dangerous candidate in my estimation. Mind you that I have just presented a short list of reasons not to vote for him.
I anticipate that federal spending under Romney will be as high or higher than under Obama. We will go off the fiscal cliff with either.
And unless the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law, ObamaCare will be implemented on schedule, with perhaps a few tweaks, regardless of whether Romney or Obama is sworn in next January.
And, as any conservative or libertarian knows, the key to a restrained, responsible government is for it to operate inside the confines of the Constitution. As I have demonstrated, Romney is either clueless about the Constitution or plays it fast and loose (or both). As such, I expect him to be as much of a law breaker as Obama if elected, although Romney will violate a somewhat different subset of Constitutional provisions.
His oath will be to protect and defend the Constitution, although it’s clear he doesn’t know what that means. At least as a law professor Obama admitted that he interprets the grand old document in a contorted manner. With Romney I cannot discern any underlying Constitutional theory, and he seems to “wing it” without regard to the actual text.
If you view the lay of the land as I do, it is completely rational not to vote for Romney, the threats and cajoling of partisan Republicans notwithstanding. If you choose to pull the lever for him in November I will not call you irrational, a crybaby, or any of the other platitudes being slung about by Romney supporters. But, I think you will regret your decision.
Perhaps now you can understand that Governor Johnson is not kidding when he says that he would rather die than vote for Obama or Romney. He and many of his supporters like me agree that the country dies if either is elected.
When he told the story of his NPR interview to a group of supporters at the LP National Convention, I chimed in that I didn’t have his strength, and would have to vote for Obama if my life depended on voting for one of the two Big Party candidates.
When asked why, I said the answer was simple:
Obama can only get 4 more years.
To which another supporter replied:
Better the enemy you know than the enemy you don’t.
For news and commentary that strives to recognize the reality of politics, visit Political Realities.