Keep Talking Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum used the media-frenzy surrounding today’s hearings on the constitutionality of the individual mandate to make a very pointed jab at Mitt Romney, and I for one am very amused by this.

Rick Santorum used the first day of the Supreme Court’s health law hearings to paint a distinction between himself and Mitt Romney on the issue of health care reform, saying the former Massachusetts governor knows he can’t fight Barack Obama on the issue.

“There is one candidate who is uniquely disqualified to make the case. The reason I’m here and he’s not,” Santorum said of Romney as he spoke to reporters outside the Supreme Court. “The reason that I talk about Obamacare and its impact on the economy and on fundamental freedoms and Mitt Romney doesn’t is because he can’t because he supported government run health care as governor of Massachusetts.”

Yes. Please, keep talking.

I encourage Santorum to keep talking because this does nothing to discourage democratic voters from voting to re-elect President Obama, however it does discourage republican voters from voting for Mitt Romney today and from voting for Mitt Romney in November.

It’s poetic justice that the nominee-in-waiting of the Republican party is the grandfather of that which they hate most. That which they’ve spent over three years doomsaying the consequences of. Obamacare.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • GrafZeppelin127

    If Santorum was smart, which is to say not smart, he would be arguing that RomneyCare is unconstitutional too, because it is an infringement of liberty under the 14th Amendment.

    Romney and a lot of GOP enablers like to give RomneyCare a pass because it’s the state, not the federal government, that is imposing socialist fascist commie Nazi freedom-destroying tyranny on its citizens by forcing them to buy a product they don’t want, which apparently they’re fine with, but that distinction only goes to the issue of legislative overreach, not infringement of liberty. They’re not the same thing.

    The 14th Amendment makes it explicit: “No state shall … deprive any person of … liberty … without due process of law.” The federal government is prohibited from doing that by the 5th Amendment, not the Commerce Clause. (And not the 10th Amendment.) Legislative overreach is not in and of itself an infringement of liberty. It can also be an infringement of liberty, but that’s a separate doctrine and a separate question.

    State laws can’t violate the federal constitution. The states can’t provide less protection for individual liberties than the federal constitution provides. Hence an infringement of liberty by the federal government can’t not be an infringement of liberty by the state. The fed in theory can infringe liberties that the states can’t, but not the other way around.

    The point, though, is that while legislative overreach is not an infringement of liberty, you don’t have to have legislative overreach in order to have an infringement of liberty. State laws that are well within state police powers but that nonetheless infringe on liberties are unconstitutional (see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas).

    So if ObamaCare is an infringement of liberty, then RomneyCare is an infringement of liberty. If RomneyCare is an infringement of liberty, it’s unconstitutional.

    • D_C_Wilson

      But . . . but . . . but . . . State’s rights! Freedom! Don’t Tread On Me! Monkey Nuts!