Friday, March 02, 2007

Romney Targets McCain Legislation

From Romney's CPAC Speech:

To me, a fundamental principle of democracy is at stake. It is the people who are sovereign in America, not a few folks in black robes. Judges add things that aren't in the Constitution, and they take away things that are in the Constitution. In that regard, they let the campaign finance lobby take away First Amendment rights. If I'm President, I will fight to repeal McCain-Feingold.

Another aspect of American sovereignty is the security of our borders. The current system is a virtual concrete wall against those who have skill and education, but it's a wide open walk across the border for those that have neither.

McCain-Kennedy isn't the answer. As governor, I took a very different approach. I authorized our state police to enforce immigration laws. I vetoed a tuition break for illegals and said no to driver's licenses. McCain-Kennedy gives benefits to illegals that would cost taxpayers millions. And more importantly, amnesty didn't work 20 years ago, and it won't work today.

Strong move to go after McCain-Feingold directly like that. I suspect that McCain, in retrospect, will realize that allowing Gulliani and Romney the stage at CPAC without presenting himself was a mistake. It will certainly be interesting to see Team McCain's rejoinder tomorrow.

1 comment:

Kralmajales said...

Unbelievable, more on the judges crap.

Remember, conservatives have appointed a boatload of the federal bench with conservatism and its goals in mind. Believe you me, conservatives have done as much or more to politicize the bench than any Democratic President has in the last 2 decades. And are they activist...YES...for conservative causes.

Oh...what about the stretching of the Constitution and our statutory law by conservative lawyers in the justice department? Where is their deference to precedent, the constitution, and statute? I can assure you that the original intent of the framers was never to tap phones and monitor emails without some check on the government. AND the statute passed under Carter doesn't allow it either. Its against the law. The only argument conservatives make in this realm is one that is admittedly either ACTIVIST or is frankly against the law. So which side are you all taking?

Rep. Wilson (Republican NM Intelligence Committee) recently called the administration to task for creating what they themselves termed as "innovative" legal arguments so that the administration can tap phones and email. They would not even produce these "innovative" legal argument to the intelligence committee in closed session because it would violate National Security. All of this without statutory approval of Congress...which by the way is a halmark of judicial restraint.

Sounds like Wilson is among the lone conservative voices fighting activism in our justice system. Maybe Romny agrees with her? I doubt it.

What sucks about all this, is that it takes a column of my size or more to explain these points to the masses. But you all just keep on slamming our nations greatest public servants, our judges, and then do exactly the opposite of what your ideology preaches.

This is why I am an independent.