Rick Santorum: Compassionate? Perhaps. Conservative? By No Means.

I have been involved in a number of Facebook discussions today on a number of topics. One such discussion produced the following question:

"Daryl, what are your thoughts on [Rick] Santorum? Just curious."

I have long despised Santorum, even in my younger years when I was much more sympathetic to the so-called "social conservative wing" of the GOP. So I quickly provided the following response. 

"I think Santorum represents everything that's wrong with the GOP in the post-Reagan era. He is a standard bearer for Bush neoconservatism, which is pie in the sky liberalism at its base, as well as misguided social conservatism. 

What I mean by 'misguided social conservatism' is a focus on government prohibition and moral position taking that flies in the face of conservative values like limited government. I have no problem [I should say little problem with many] with the personal positions he holds on social issues. I share many of his positions myself. I just take issue at his insistence that we need the government to regulate those social issues. And this is coming from me--a guy who has never touched a drop of alcohol, practices abstinence, supports tradition, and the like. So it isn't that I am some immoral degenerate trying to get my behavior supported in the public arena; this is coming from a traditional conservative that believes like the Founders that social institutions and not the gov't should influence such behavior. 

Plainly put: Santorum is all for big gov't as long as that big gov't suits his desires to shape society in his image--a Catholic one at that. Moreover, as an Evangelical Christian I take issue at his reliance on federal laws to change hearts and minds rather than the Gospel. I would not vote for him under any circumstances."

Hours later I came across the latest from Jack Hunter that gives a great analysis of the former Pennsylvania senator's big government ways. If I would have known of its existence at the time, I would have just posted the following video. 

Finally a Voice of Reason in the Budget Debate!

It is so refreshing to finally hear someone in Washington refusing to play the partisan game and standing up, like an adult, offering a real voice with real solutions to our national spending and debt crisis. Thank you Senator Paul for taking a stand against the status quo that is being supported by both parties.

Rand Paul and Mike Lee on the Unconstitutional Libyan War

Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul took to the Senate floor, championing the constitutional requirement for congressional authorization before military action and calling out the hypocrisy of the Obama administration. It was a rousing speech and a great moment for my favorite young senator.

The Most Ballin' Committee Meeting Speech EVER!

Please take the time to listen to Rand Paul's truthful statements about energy regulators and their hypocrisy regarding choice.

Dangerous Rand Paul by the Southern Avenger

For readers of this blog, it is no secret that I wholeheartedly support Rand Paul for Senate. This is not only because he is the best candidate in the race; he is the only conservative running. But I also am excited about what he means to the liberty movement as a true constitutional conservative. Once again Jack Hunter hits the nail on the head in his latest piece on Paul.

Enumerated Powers Act: A Step in the Right Direction

My attention was recently drawn to some good news. Though it's not the first time it has been proposed, I can't remember seeing such support for the Enumerated Powers Act in the past. Today, the senate version has 22 co-sponsors, while the house version boast 60 co-sponsers of its own. Sadly, it is only Republicans who have thrown their support behind the legislation thus far, but Democrats should remedy this lack of support quickly as S. 1319 and H.R. 450 are a huge step in the right direction.

If you are unfamiliar with the legislation, here is a basic rundown.

The Enumerated Powers Act would require each bill that goes before Congress "to contain a concise explanation of the specific constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act." If an explanation cannot be provided, a point of order is called in which the chamber must acknowledge that constitutional authority could not be found for the proposed legislation.

I see two major benefits of this bill. First, it will cause lawmakers to reevaluate what they think about constitutional authority. They must actually turn to the document in their law-making process and see if their actions are constitutional or not. (A novel, I know!) Second, if they refuse to submit to constitutional law-making, it is brought to the attention of everyone as a point of order is called. Image these words: "The senator would like to propose the follow legislation even though he lacks any constitutional authority to do so."

In essence, unconstitutional bills will be noted as such for the record, the public would be made aware of constitutional infidelity, and the sponsor would be exposed on the chamber floor.

The bill wouldn't stop the passage of unconstitutional bills, but it will expose unconstitutional bills in a way that is currently lacking. Hopefully, this exposure could lead to a lesser volume of unconstitutional proposals.

Of course, the likelihood of the Enumerated Powers Act passing is slim, especially lacking Democrat support. But who knows in the current climate? If one where to say just a little over a year ago that a bill to audit the Federal Reserve would experience massive bipartisan support and make it out of committee, one would be laughed at as a fool. But we now see what has happened with H.R. 1207.

What stands in the way? Our elected officials hate to the constraints of the Constitution, and as we have failed to hold them accountable, they know they can get away with their infidelity to the rule of law.

But, like I said, the times are changing. So lets see if we can get our elected officials to support the Enumerated Powers Act.