Based on a letter I sent to his campaign... a letter that I know will probably never get anywhere:
I believe in most of what Rick stands for. But there is a critical problem:
http://www.ricksantorum.com/appointing-constitutionalist-justices-and-judges-who-refuse-legislate-bench
...says,
Rick is committed to nominating to federal judgeships only very qualified and ethical individuals who, at a minimum, possess a clear record in support of the following key constitutional principles:
- That the Constitution provides federal judges with authority to decide cases but that all legislative power is reserved exclusively for the legislative branch and, accordingly, judges have no authority to legislate from the bench and must never do so.
- That the Constitution provides that the U.S. Constitution and U.S. laws are the supreme law of the land, and that federal judicial power extends to cases arising under the United States constitution and federal laws and, accordingly, judges should not in any way rely upon any form of foreign law or international law for the purpose of interpreting the United States Constitution and laws.
(emphasis added)
But this is wrong, or at least not explicit enough to prevent the kind of misinterpretation that has brought us to our current state.
The constitution clearly states that:
1. The Supreme Court only has authority on issues of constitutional or federal law, which in turn require explicit constitutional authority in order to be valid (according to the 10th amendment and/or articles III and VI); and
2. The Constitution (and Federal law) is only "supreme" on constitutional matters. The law of each state is actually supreme in that state, taking precedence *over* the Federal Constitution, on matters that are not explicitly reserved to the federal government (as stated in the 10th ammendment); this is again according to the 10th amendment and/or article VI.
In other words, on matters of Education, Energy, Health, Drug Enforcement, Transporation Safety, Environmental Protection and Wildlife Lands, Criminal Justice, or any other area of responsibility that is not explicitly granted in the constitution to the national government... the law of the state of Texas (or any other state) is actually the supreme law of the land, for that state and the U.S. citizens in it.
While the quoted section from Santorum actually does say "federal judicial power extends to cases arising under the United States constitution", to me it does not go far enough, and is not explicit enough in excluding state and local issues from the mix.
I think that Rick sort of gets it, but if he really got it, he would be much more careful, as the founders were, to specify that federal judicial power extends only to matters of constitutional law, just as power of the federal congress and the federal executive branch lawfully extend only to matters that are explicitly defined as enumerated powers in the constitution.
See these passages of the Constitution:
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority..." (Article III) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution)
Again, the federal judicial power extends to cases "arising from the constitution"; and "the laws of the United States" are supposed to be only those laws authorized by the constitution -- any federal law that surrounds a power not authorized by the constitution, is UNconstitutional and thus void.
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" (Article VI) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution)Ditto here, speaking about the power and scope of the U.S. Constitution, and the national government that it establishes and limits.
Rick, please study it and revise your position. You'd actually get support from more strict libertarians, probably even erode a fair bit of the non-extreme Ron Paul support; and I don't think that such a traditional constitutional position would scare off more moderate conservatives.
Oh, and the other problem with Rick Santorum? He's just too nice looking.
Posts
