Huckabee and the Role of the Federal Gov't

[awkx]

Now that Huckabee won in Iowa, he might have a real chance of becoming the Republican nominee. Although he's not my top pick, he does have a good stance on the Second Amendment and recognizes that it is about resisting tyranny. My biggest issue with Huckabee is that he doesn't seem to understand or respect federalism and the 10th amendment. The federal leviathan is already too big, but Huckabee seems to want more government, not less. For example, he proposed a national public smoking ban. Now, I would be delighted to have smoke-free air, but it's not the job of the federal government; this power is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.

Perhaps as a state governor, Huckabee did not familiarize himself with the notion that the federal gov't is supposed to be one of limited, delegated powers. (After all, as a practical matter, Congress and the Supreme Court has interpreted "Congress shall have power ... to regulate commerce ... among the several states" to mean "Congress can do whatever the hell it wants to do".) So, I've written a message to Huckabee's campaign asking for a explanation of his stance on federalism. It goes along the following lines:

• I'm concerned about your position on federalism and the Tenth Amendment.
• All 3 branches of the federal gov't overstep their authority.
  • E.g., Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade.
  • Abuse of the Commerce Clause (e.g., burdensome ATF regulation of firearm sales within a single state's borders and threat of license revocation for clerical mistakes)
• Respect for states' sovereignty requires one to respect states' decisions to act foolishly as well as wisely.
• Would you defend the right of the people of California to decriminalize marijuana against unconstitutional federal interference?
  • (The feds needed a Constitutional amendment to establish a prohibition of alcohol. Likewise, an amendment would be necessary to federally outlaw marijuana that stays within a single state's borders.)

If his campaign responds, I'll post the response. Maybe if Huckabee hears from enough limited-government advocates, he'll adopt that as part of his platform to appeal to the pro-Constitution section of the GOP.

[Eugene V. Debs]

I wouldn't hold your breath. Republicans typically spout a lot of limited government rhetoric, but rarely stick by it once in office-- in fact, they tend to do the opposite and support more authoritarian government. Paul may be the only one in Congress who actually walks the walk (and even he doesn't 100% of the time).

Then consider that Huckabee is running for PRESIDENT. That's the most powerful executive position in the world and it's been a very long time since anyone held that office who believed in or practiced limited government principles. Paul may be the only candidate who would do anything to reign in the Imperial Presidency, but, the more likely outcome, were he ever elected (doubtful), is that the GOP and Dems would unite to reign HIM in.

[awkx]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

Republicans typically spout a lot of limited government rhetoric, but rarely stick by it once in office-- in fact, they tend to do the opposite and support more authoritarian government.

Exactly! If Huckabee responds with some platitudes about limited gov't or states' rights, I'll consider it nothing more than a steaming pile of BS. But if he responds to my specific question and defends California's right to decriminalize marijuana (and I know from the intertubes that he is personally against decriminalization), then it might show that he pays more than lip service to the Tenth Amendment.

Anyhow, I'm still holding out hope for Ron Paul to get the nomination. Then in November I wouldn't have to choose the lesser of two evils or vote 3rd party.

[Pa. Patriot]

Just another status quo republican