Conservatives Claim to be Constitutional Strict Constructionists- Yeah, In a Pig’s Eye!

So what has turned my head on this lovely Sunday morning? I had today, 10/23/11, read an article entitled “GOP Candidates Would Cut Federal Judges Power”. I got quite incensed at the contents of this article for good reason. So, I guess that it is my turn to rant a little bit. Six of the 8 GOP presidential contenders say that they want to rein in what they see as the excessive power of Federal Judiciary. The other 2, who I call conservatives rather than right-wingers, were smart enough to keep their mouths shut.

Let’s start with a basic lesson or two in civics, shall we? The Supreme Court (Judicial Branch) is a fundamental provision to our way of government as framed by the ‘Founding Fathers’. It was put there as a check to the power of the other two branches, Legislative and Executive. This is pretty basic stuff that most of us learned in high school.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution

It would seem that I would not have to tell conservatives about basic constitutional tenets; after all they remind me all of the time about how strict constructionism is interpreted. I have spoken to fellow hubbers about the viability of repealing the 17th amendment, the popular election of senators. Of course, I disagree with the idea. Others say that President Obama operates routinely outside of the provisions of the constitution. This based on sour grapes about the New Deal, Great Society and Fair Deal themes inaugurated by progressive Chief Executives of the past. I say what I say much of the time, that their complaints have less to do with the Constitution and more to do with their political ideology and their desire to have it dominate American political discourse. I can hardly allow a handful of right-wingers to undermine the basic balance and protection provided by the Federal Courts.

Let’s look at some of the comments from those that would be King, in regard to the most fundamental principles of our Constitution:


Professor Newt Gingrich, who aspires to be the senior spokesman for the GOP and the conservative point of view, says that he would summon judges before Congress to explain their decisions and consider impeaching judges over their rulings. So, who does he think that he is? How can the 3 branches check each other when one branch can nullify the power of any of the others? He has obviously been reduced from scholarship to just another shamelessly cheap purveyor of red meat seasoned with scraps of the Constitution for added flavor on behalf of the ignorant masses to whom he hopes to appeal. He is a genius in line with: http://credence2.hubpages.com/hub/Baby-Boomer-Chronicles-Wile-E-Coyote-Super-Genius


Mr. Plain Speaking, Rick Perry says that there should be an end to lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices. Oh really? The court was created to make it possible for these men and women to focus on the constitutionality of cases brought before them. I don’t want them involved in politics and the pressures associated with appealing to the ridiculous tenets of rightwing fanatics. Somebody needs to ask Rick if there is anything under that 10 gallon hat of his. Time after time he seems to have a problem with speaking judiciously and appropriately. Perhaps it is time that he uses his head for something other than a hat rack.

I can’t leave out Ms. Michelle Bachmann, the inventor of the lie and misrepresentation. Oh yes, she said, “Congress should prevent the courts from getting involved in the fight over same-sex marriage, among other high-profile social issues”. Is that so, on what grounds? Again there is that conflict in the principle of separation of powers. If the legislature or the executive branches of government get out of line, then the court is obliged to get involved, regardless of whether Little Miss Smarty-pants approves or not.

What about the GOP flavor of the month, Herman Cain, What was it Michelle said? If you turn 999 around, you get 666! At a Tea Party forum in South Carolina in September, Republican candidate Herman Cain joined Bachmann and Gingrich in endorsing legislation that would overturn the high court's rulings declaring that women have a constitutional right to abortion. The proposal challenges the widely held view that Congress can't overrule the court's constitutional holdings. Again, these idiots seem to think that they can lord over an independent branch of our government. I guess if there is enough rightwing fervor, we can repeal the 14th amendment as well. These are decisions for the court to decide without interference.

Rick Santorum and Ron Paul have spouted much of the same nonsense to appeal to an ideology that is firmly based upon resentment. My progressive instincts naturally distrust the accumulation of power by one at the expense of the other. They know that most of the things that they want would never pass the smell test at the highest court of the land and most likely will never get the votes legislatively. Progressives are about enlightenment while Right-wingers rely on indoctrination, instead. The more controversial issues for the rightwing agenda will never pass nationally. We have the left coast, mid-Atlantic, New England and the upper Midwest, Wisconsin and Minnesota, Illinois. As of late, states in the Mountain West are not as “red” as they once were. States on the move, like Colorado and New Mexico are breaking the big red line. Of course when we say “Blue Hawaii” here, it refers to more than just the Michener novel. Then, there are the toss up states, and I will leave the conservatives with all of the rest. So, I tell right-wingers and conservatives both, you had better figure out an alternative method.

In my opinion, the Judicial Branch is the most important. While the others are subject to heat of politics, these men and women are free to operate above the fray. I don’t want that watered down in any way. These people who want to be my leader would chop up my Constitution to appeal to the cretin right-winger? This is unacceptable. Conservatives have told me honestly, that we do not need to legislate and rule from the bench as people will usually do the right thing. As a racial minority, after almost a century of slavery since the founding of the republic and another of “Jim Crow”, it most assuredly took a long time. It is all that much easier if you are not the one waiting for people to rise to their “better natures”. It took national and state legislatures an interminable amount of time to getting around to ‘doing the right thing’. Tradition, sexism and racism were not going to just disappear, but had to be rooted out and those that were comfortable with the status quo had to be made uncomfortable in interests of justice. I like the phrase that this society is based on the rule of majority with the consent of the minority. Whatever rights and privileges that I enjoy today as a member of a minority group, is due to the courts. So, I tell the right-winger to leave the court alone, I like it just as it is.

More by this Author


28 comments

PETER LUMETTA profile image

PETER LUMETTA 5 years ago from KENAI, ALAKSA

Credence a very good assessment of the Judicial Branch in our Government. Only one thing bothers me. Those conservative justices that saw fit to make corporations "people". This is a big setback for the country and is showing the effects now. It will take more than an act of Congress to make this right. Also the criminal activity of Justice Thomas is a scandal and is not being handled right. There are some big flaws in the system right now and they need to be addressed. All pert of an extreme overhaul needed in theis country, Thanks,

Peter


Joe Friedman profile image

Joe Friedman 5 years ago from Chicago, Il

Great article Credence. I agree with Peter on the Corporate Personhood. How can we trust the judges of the highest court in the land, when we know they are bought and paid for? We need to put these judges under a microscope and make public all of their past affiliations.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

What follows is solely my opinion, based on unschooled years of reading and trying to figure out the Constitution.

Regarding Mr. Gingrinch: Article II, section one indicates the sole power the President has with respect to the Supreme Court: he can nominate those who will act as Supreme Court Judges. Article 1, section two indicates the House of Representatives has the sole power of Impeachment. Article III, section 1 indicates judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”, which I interpret to mean they are untouchable as long as they are not out breaking the laws they preside over. So, my interpretation, the president is powerless on the matter if he disagrees with a Supreme Court Justice ruling. That said, and if recall is correct, both Congresses and the President have investigational organizations available to them by which they would discover and affirm ‘Bad behaviour’, which I suspect would lead to more tax dollars down the drain if our leaders are investigating each other willy-nilly when they honestly disagree.

Regarding Mr. Perry: See paragraph on Mr. Gingrinch, Article III, section 1 applies. If Mr. Perry seeks change, then Article V, about how to change the Constitution applies.

Regarding Ms. Bachmann: Article 1, section 2, and Article III, section 2 apply. Article III, section 2 indicates what cases the Supreme Court can get involved in, their jurisdiction is not unlimited as defined in the Constitution.

Regarding Mr. Cain: There is precedent for enacting legislation that exceeds the authority of the Constitution, however, that act is an act of Congress rather than an act of the President. In fact, it happens often. Simply review the number of cases brought to the Supreme Court over the years. Such legislation goes through the long painful process of being decided upon by the Supreme Court. One would hope a President would factor into his decision the consequences of that approach, specifically, the effect long term uncertainty has. But there is precedent where long term uncertainty seems to be encouraged.

From my point of view, you left out the other untaught branches of our government, the people, and the states. We still have the power of the vote. That power affects both Houses of Congress, and the Presidency. All that said, I agree, the power of the Judiciary should remain unchallenged under the powers described in the Constitution. And I find it scary that those who answered appeared to answer without regard to the wordings in the Constitution, nor without reference to our system of government as described in the Constitution. But, that trend did not begin with the Republican debates.

And lastly, if there is criminal activity, as Peter suggests, or situations of being bought and paid for, as Joe suggests, then it would be my opinion (understated) that such activities are ‘bad behaviour’, and impeachable by Congress under the Constitution.


Auntie D profile image

Auntie D 5 years ago from California

Well said Credence2. I think the GOP idiots of the month really want their own kingdoms and to heck with the constitution. They will then be able to control the serfs much easier.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Peter thanks for weighing in. I think that that ruling making corporate entities 'persons' like you or I, sucks! Now that these entities are persons, they can cease being this nebulous, undefinable mass when it comes to paying taxes. The only thing worse is having the 'right' attempt to politicize the court. There is always hope that this will be revisited by the court as a result of these new 'persons' stepping out of line and we could get a reassessment of that original ruling.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Joe, thanks for your comment. That ruling has me concerned of about the danger that I have always expressed about a political process subject to control by those with the most money to spend. I am still for campaign finance reform, but with everybody taking money routinely that went by the wayside. The basic danger is that of an plutocracy, those with the most money run the country, over the will of the majority. This is fundamental and quite serious. we will just have to see how things turn out.


HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Great Hub Cred2. The Republicans and Conservatives are Strict Constuctionists when it suits them. Basically they are full of it. They believe in States Rights except when it came to Bush v. Gore. They believe in individual freedoms but not abortion. They believe in freedom of religion but not a mosque in downtown Manhattan. Hypocrisy rules with them.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, FJ, you need to give yourself more credit, I appreciate your contribution to discussing these issues of our times. After over 225 years, many great minds has grappled with the document and how it is to be properly interpreted.

I think we are on the same level when we acknowledge that “good behavior” has nothing to do with rulings that do not appeal to either of the other branches for mere political reasons. I recall the term ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” that is a completely different standard than what is it Professor Newt seems to be alluding to… With all of his experience, Newt should know better…

Our Constitution, as part of its intelligent design, can be amended but the stuff that Newt and Perry talk about rises to a level where the President can dissolve the current Congress and call for new elections, like tyrants in other societies have done. That is much different from changes within the framework.

As for Ms. Bachmann, you are right about legislation that exceeds the authority of the Constitution; many of us have said that about the Patriot Act. However, anything coming out of the executive or legislative branches can be and are to be subject to judicial review. The idea that any legislative or executive acts can be removed from consideration of the court before the ink has dried on the paper is ludicrous on its face. The concept of jurisdiction has a legal implication; it is not something to apply merely for political advantage by one side or the other.

Indirectly the voter and states elect the president and its legislators who in turn appoint the sort of judges that reflect the will of the majority of the electorate from the perspective of the president. Of course, the Senate’s role in the confirmation process is a check on the Executive. You are right, this trend did not begin with the GOP debates. However, when six people who want to be president, pander to the lower common denominator and their frustrations, it is not presidential.

I, too, did not care for the decision of the court to grant ‘personhood” to the corporate entity regarding its participation in the political process. I think the process is already corrupting and awash in the influence of big money. However, I subscribe to the Constitutional process as a principle. If I say that I subscribe to a principle, yet change my point of view out of political expediency or because of an outcome not to my liking, it is not longer a principle but becomes something else….


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Auntie D, thanks for reading and commenting. I am reminded of the phrase Hitler used after British Prime Minister Chamberlain called upon him in 1937-38 to work out disputes to avert war. Chamberlain hardly had time to return from Germany when Chancellor Hitler refered to the peace document as a "just a scrap of paper" Maybe our Constitutional scholars who want to be King see our Constitution in the same light?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

HS, thanks for your comment. I am most hopeful that the public can see through these clowns who aspire to the greatest office in the land and ask the appropriate questions. Do we really hate Obama more than we hate "stupid"?


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

"If I say that I subscribe to a principle, yet change my point of view out of political expediency or because of an outcome not to my liking, it is not longer a principle but becomes something else…."

Agree. That is why you will see me (if you follow my comments) so often offering the reminder that all those associated with the federal government have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. When I hear someone, no matter who, act as if it is their privilege alone to interpret it as they see fit, then I make a note to not vote for that person in the future.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hello, FJ, that is a 10-4, You know just before I retired and made all my goodbye speeches, I told my boss that if I were ever to be fired I could always accept in my conscience being fired for doing my job rather than be fired for not doing it. Intergrity and principle are these days like finding pearls in the ocean. I am glad that we share these ideals. Cred2


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

Hello, Credence2,

You said, " ... As a racial minority, after almost a century of slavery since the founding of the republic and another of “Jim Crow”, it most assuredly took a long time. It is all that much easier if you are not the one waiting for people to rise to their “better natures”. It took national and state legislatures an interminable amount of time to getting around to ‘doing the right thing’. Tradition, sexism and racism were not going to just disappear, but had to be rooted out and those that were comfortable with the status quo had to be made uncomfortable in interests of justice ... "

You are way off base. It is not because of court decisions and legislation that black people are free and equal today. It is because a whole lot of people shed blood, sweat and tears to make that happen.

For example, if the Civil War had not been fought and if the North had not won that conflict, no court in the world would have been able to set enslaved blacks free.

As a matter of fact, if not for the fact that there was a Civil War and the North came out on top, you just might be living on some Southern plantation today, pickin' cotton or choppin' sugar cane for free.

The only kinds of people who rely on such things as decisions and decrees by courts to provide them with freedom and equality are the ones who think like slaves.

Blacks who do NOT think like slaves, or who are highly liberated in the way they think, do not sit around and wait for guys and gals wearing black robes to GRANT them freedom and equality. They go out and fight for those things by exercising high degrees of black enterprise, capitalism and self-determination.

Because the vast majority of blacks share your unliberated way of thinking, their society will continue to occupy the same second-class status that it occupies today from now until the "end of time."


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hello, feenix, nice of you to drop by the ‘left bank’ where the adults speak of the issues of the day. You are invited to come again, and come often. Now, we will discuss the issues at hand. I restated your paragraphs and marked the area of my reply, thanks.

__________________________________________________

You are way off base. It is not because of court decisions and legislation that black people are free and equal today. It is because a whole lot of people shed blood, sweat and tears to make that happen.For example, if the Civil War had not been fought and if the North had not won that conflict, no court in the world would have been able to set enslaved blacks free.

As a matter of fact, if not for the fact that there was a Civil War and the North came out on top, you just might be living on some Southern plantation today, pickin' cotton or choppin' sugar cane for free.

_____________________________________

The issue by 1860 was well beyond litigation, everybody knew that

Yes, the civil war was about slavery, but it was also about the concept of secession. Slavery, regardless, would have never continued much beyond the beginning of the 20th century, as with an increasing industrialized America, it would not have been cost effective to do so. Britain abolished slavery in early half of the 19th century, Brazil, representing South America, abolished slavery in the 1880s. So the idea that I or anyone else would be chopping cotton is irrational at best. Many of us put our butts on the line fighting in major conflicts over the last century, to come home and be told that we could not vote. So, we too, provided a great deal on “faith”, the idea that by doing the right thing that we, some day, would be recognized for it.

____________________________________________________

The only kinds of people who rely on such things as decisions and decrees by courts to provide them with freedom and equality are the ones who think like slaves.

____________________________________________________

There are other kinds of people, those that believe in the rule of law and not that of the jungle. Which one of those are you? As Lyndon Johnson said in 1967 in a slipped comment he made regarding the riots in major American cities, “we could wipe all of you out, if we wanted to. “ The rule of law since the days of Moses provides protection from merely being slaughtered by superior numbers, just because they can. What planet do you come from, not to recognize this old age truth?

_____________________________________________________________

Blacks who do NOT think like slaves, or who are highly liberated in the way they think, do not sit around and wait for guys and gals wearing black robes to GRANT them freedom and equality. They go out and fight for those things by exercising high degrees of black enterprise, capitalism and self-determination.

_____________________________________________________________

Recognizing the power of the rule of law is not thinking like a slave. You may believe yourself inbound able, but the reality is that without the law and restraint is provides on what people do or do not do, you would not be here against 9 to one odds. You are not so formidable or powerful to think that you can prevail against superior numbers, financial and institutional advantages held by our adversaries do you? That Bruce Lee stuff is fit only for television, again, an irrational perspective. And it is like I have told you often before, recognizing the significance and purpose of the law and how it affects society is a supplement not a replacement for black enterprise, capitalism and self-determination.

___________________________________________________

Because the vast majority of blacks share your unliberated way of thinking, their society will continue to occupy the same second-class status that it occupies today from now until the "end of time."

_______________________________________________________________

Well, feenix, I am glad that you have figured it out as the sage oracle of all time. Many of us still question your reasoning and its basis and wonder how it holds water under close examination.

Thanks for you imput and I will see you around the hubs, to be sure.


Xenonlit profile image

Xenonlit 5 years ago

Any court that leans so far toward corporate fascism cannot possibly give a hoot about the constitution. Neither do the other conservatives with their corrupted agendas. I don't know why they are so obsessed with that document when they clearly do not read it to themselves! Well done.


feenix profile image

feenix 5 years ago

Hello, Credence2,

You said, "Well, feenix, I am glad that you have figured it out as the sage oracle of all time. Many of us still question your reasoning and its basis and wonder how it holds water under close examination."

Thank you for sharing that, pal. You have just handed me a brand-new niche.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Xenonlit, thanks for reading and providing comment. The rightwinger is by nature a hypocrite. They talk about the sanctity of the Constitution only when one of their sacred cows are on the spit. The current gang of 9 still have far to conservative a bend for my liking. It does not look like any of the right wing jurists are up for replacement now, so c'est la vie.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thank you, feenix, but I did not mean to encourage you!


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Credence2, it would be more on the mark to say that in general politicians are by nature hypocrites, but then, so are many who attend church religiously. Hmm maybe its just people in general suffering the 'not in my backyard' syndrome. Anyway, it's not isolated to rightwingers.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Of course, you are right FJ, but there are degrees and extent. It may be my bias, but in my world, I am having more trouble with the right than with the left. Family Values, yes that too in a pigs eye. I am always going to be harder on the one that claim to wear the mantle of purity and that behaves contrary to it than the otherside. I am going to always hold the holier than thou to a higher standard because they have challenged me to do so. Good to hear from you again, all the best, Cred2


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 5 years ago from Space Coast

"put there as a check to the power of the other two branches

their complaints have less to do with the Constitution and more to do with their political ideology

reduced from scholarship to just another shamelessly cheap purveyor of red meat seasoned with scraps

Somebody needs to ask Rick if there is anything under that 10 gallon hat of his

these idiots seem to think that they can lord over an independent branch of our government

Judicial Branch is the most important . . . I don’t want that watered down in any way

easier if you are not the one waiting for people to rise to their “better natures”"

The people this is really meant for might not be able to focus all the way through, Glen Beck isn’t spouting it, and the rhetoric will probably turn them off. I broke it down for them.

I am a registered “staunch Independent” (on my card that way). I am neutral. I am disgusted. We are literally at war, all we can do is be petty, and trifling . . . that is a sure formula for disaster. I lost 25 followers when I defended President Obama, who has won my reluctant heart. That’s my right you belligerent, subversive haters! I come from a military family (Brig. General “Wild” Bill Curry - USAF, ret. - fired last combat sortie in Viet Nam). I ain’t scared a’ nothin’ but the Lord. I was raised that way . . . bring it and you will be lying over there next to Goliath.

I was taught to do everything I can to get my candidate elected. After the election, the winner is the Commander In Chief. He is to be treated with the utmost respect at all times. I am to keep my mouth shut and follow orders. That is how the war (which we are in) is won. Next election we get the stupid, crazy bastard out of there.

Mr. Obama lost my respect when he broke tradition and went to Chicago to eat deep dish pizza instead of laying the wreath on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier on Memorial Day (his first year in office). I said, “What a dip ####! He should be impeached.” He has proven to be a fast study and with my professional background, I like the work he and Michelle have done, and the inspiration provided to our youth. They all love him. As far as his origins . . . one of my ancestors jumped ship to get here. I know the truth. He is a full blooded Hawaiian. If the native Hawaiians accept you as one of their own . . . you are a Hawaiian now, period . . . end of story.

I live in Florida. As far as politics go . . . I see the writing on the wall. I am making friends with the Miccosukkee Seminoles. They have the same policy and I want to survive.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

WD, thanks for your comment and providing information to well augment and support the article....Best regards, Cred2


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 5 years ago from Space Coast

A rant within a rant. Actually, not. You make excellent points. You wouldn't know we were at war, the way we act. We are playing in to the enemy's hand.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Yes, indeed, WD, so it appears. I am under the impression that you agree with my assessment of this situation. Thanks for the kudos, Cred2


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA

@credence2 - good points - and your examples (the Repubs), certainly aren't doing themselves any favors with statements like that, and need to be held accountable for their them - they're wrong,

--- but that's a bit of a biased illustration - if you really wanted to define Constitution Constructionalism

but... perhaps a little more balance would have made it a little less obvious this was an attack piece

you could have included:

Representative Richard Gephardt, Democrat, Missouri - in his presidential run -

"When I'm president, we'll do executive orders to overcome any wrong thing the Supreme Court does tomorrow or any other day," (Dems arbitrating what's right or wrong?)

or a little more current -

U.S. Senators:

Charles E. Schumer (D-NY),

Russ Feingold (D-WI)

Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Evan Bayh (D-IN)

Al Franken (D-MN)

- announcing new legislation Thursday to blunt the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision (didn't get the ruling they felt was right?)

there are more, but you get the idea.

not that I'm trying to say the examples I noted are Constructionists, and that your points and examples weren't correct - just that fussing about or attempting to change disagreeable court decisions doesn't define the term of Constitutional Constructionist - no matter which party the the boneheads that claim it are are from.

GA

Still - except for trying to paint it like the Repubs are the only ones play that game - good article.

GA


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

First of all, GA, thanks for reading and weighing in. Yes, I have a bias and I was pOed, I will admit it. Your comments and viewpoint help me balance a natural tendency to lead with my left hand.

But it is true GA, that you have choices, the law makers can change the rules of the game in regards to the ability to control influence of money on our electoral process. Do they not have the authority to attempt to do that if they wish? Heck, the GOP has been playing with Roe verses Wade in the same way over 30 years, have they not? The Dems did not say that they would change the nature of the court and the constitutional fundemaentals of the tenure of the '9". This was some time ago, when Gephardt was involved in politics, of course I disapprove of anything that plays populist games in that way.

GA, your point is well taken both sides are guilty from time to time. But the GOP bears the brunt of it this time. To have that come from Presidential candidates, so many of them, show a woeful lack of knowledge and appreciation of how the system is supposed to work, in primetime, is not encouraging. Only the moderate, Huntsman, who I can live with and Romney rightfully remained silent.

Thanks for the bracer! Cred2


GA Anderson profile image

GA Anderson 5 years ago from USA

@Credence2 - can't think of anything else that needs to be added. On this issue - I'm in the choir.

I need to do some looking at Huntsman. Unfortunately, for conservative Americans, I too think the Republican slate of potential candidates is just more of the same-old same-old.

on another note, and an obvious effort of shameless self-promotion, here's one I think you might like - and agree with,

http://hubpages.com/politics/Fight-Against-Voter-I...

GA


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 5 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

hi, GA, thanks for your comment, I am checking out your link as we speak....

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working