Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Romney's Constitution Question

I'm not a Mitt Romney apologist, but he's come under fire for this statement here....

But the criticism is entirely unfair. He was being trapped.

In 2003, Rick Santorum came under criticism because he disagreed with the 1965 Supreme Court decision of Griswald vs. Connecticut. This case has been used to argue that homosexuality, abortion, polygamy, etc. are constitutional, because the Court determined that there is an extended right to privacy in the Constitution. However, originally, the case was about the state of Connecticut's right to ban the sale of contraceptives. Back in 1965, a lot of states banned this. As Romney stated, there isn't a state out there now that even wants to ban the sale of contraceptives. With socialized medicine and welfare, it is a lot cheaper to prevent the birth of a child than to provide medical care and food for that child.

However, Romney is in a dubious place. As a former Mormon bishop, if he says no, states do not have this right, he risks ticking off the Mormon church, whose theology encourages large families. If he says yes, in principle, he alienates almost everyone else who believes that sexuality without procreation is a human right.

Romney made a dodge of the issue, which really is a complete non-issue. A rather clumsy dodge, but a dodge all the same. He wasn't saying that he didn't know the Constitution, but that he was passing it off on someone else, since it was clearly a stupid question. But I believe (and I am not sure) that Romney's health care program provided for birth control.

However, what this makes clear is that the media is gearing up on a full-court press on Santorum, and they are attempting to determine what others are going to say on this matter.

1 comment:

Not Alone +++ PAS said...

Wow, thanks for sharing this video.

What it shows most clearly in my observation is which of the candidates actually knows the Constitution and believes that it actually matters in politics. I could not help but laugh, with disgust at Romney's lack of knowledge of the Constitution and total unwillingness to think Constitutionally, and with great pleasure at Paul's immediate and crystal clear answer.

As for Romney's dubious place, he is there because of his own unwillingness to say what he believes, if indeed he believes it.

Regarding it being a non-issue, think about what you are saying. Is the Constitutionality of anything ever a non-issue for a candidate for political office?

Anyway, thanks for sharing.