Beware the Stealth RINOS!

In fairness a lot of politicians can and indeed have had changes in heart be it Republican or Democrat, often its simply because the political wind happens to be changing, but sometimes its cause they get new perspective or new information.

I don't see a problem with theses votes:
* Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
* Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
* X e) Increase border security to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.
* Voted YES on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism. (Sep 2001)
* Voted YES on prohibiting needle exchange & medical marijuana in DC. (Oct 1999)

Indeed in the interest of protecting state sovereignty I would support the uses of Federal border control power. I don't dispute the Federal governments power to shut down state borders to certainty types of commerce just as they can shut down our international borders to certain types of commerce.

Minors should not be permitted to simply hop state lines to do something that is illegal in the state their parents choose to live in. Otherwise your not protecting state solvency as it relates to the rights of the parents. Even transporting minors could be regarded as aiding in the committing of a crime, its no different then smuggling. So I would support theses votes and laws as necessary and proper in protecting the states from each other, so that the States MAY have their own laws on abortion.

( Note: I may be wrong in the application of powers if so I think the constitution should be amendment.)

As for the D.C. Law you all know Congress has state like powers over D.C.

I reject allegiance,to the flock,of the Socialist Gulag in Washington,and to the agenda for which it stands,one cabal,under Satan,with disdain for and dominance over all.

I believe that if we don't take a firm stand on the constitution we will never encourage compliance with it. As a federal representative I would be working with my state's Governor and Legislature closely to nullify all laws I believed to be unconstitutional. We can't pick and choose which issues to apply constitutional principles even if they align with "conservative" issues, including abortion.

Michael is right to say always the constitution and the question on how he would vote should be mute. The effort is not on voting but on changing the argument to include a constitutional test on every federal issue.

Principle is never easy and we will continue to get what we are willing to accept in government. As senator I would use the platform to educate. I would probably lose the election the next time but I would have moved the constitutional argument forward. That is what we need to do. Voting for the lesser of two evils or voting on unconstitutional bills only perpetuates the problem. Imagine if 25 senators stopped voting and were working with their Governors?

I believe that if we don't take a firm stand on the constitution we will never encourage compliance with it. As a federal representative I would be working with my state's Governor and Legislature closely to nullify all laws I believed to be unconstitutional. We can't pick and choose which issues to apply constitutional principles even if they align with "conservative" issues, including abortion.

Michael is right to say always the constitution and the question on how he would vote should be mute. The effort is not on voting but on changing the argument to include a constitutional test on every federal issue.

Principle is never easy and we will continue to get what we are willing to accept in government. As senator I would use the platform to educate. I would probably lose the election the next time but I would have moved the constitutional argument forward. That is what we need to do. Voting for the lesser of two evils or voting on unconstitutional bills only perpetuates the problem. Imagine if 25 senators stopped voting and were working with their Governors?

Good luck with that.

The answer is simple, IMO. "Nay." I wouldn't even need to "walk" on that one. The answer is pretty clear to me. I won't speak for Michael, and he can answer if he wishes.

What would give you the right to dictate, as a federal legislator, to tell all the people of (pick any state) that they shall have no right to obtain any form of abortion, if that's what they want? As a legislator, you must find the authority. If you don't have it, don't pretend to just because you are presented with an opportunity to exceed your power.

So, again - what do you do? If you were a Senator: Yay, Nay, or walk? It is a simple question that doesn't need a long response.

Boldin - Let's get your answer as well.

Well, I suppose using this a measuring stick, then Ronald Reagan would be an epic fail. TEFRA tax increase, the 1986 Amnesty Act, a doubling of the federal budget among other things.

I guess we can also throw Rubio overboard as well, since at first he came against the AZ immigration law. (Before using the rather lame excuse that he was "misled" by the media as to the law's contents). Inhofe is not perfect, so he goes. Ditto for Sessions and Boehner. I am not even sure that Palin would pass this test 100%. Stealth, I tell you!

So let us all get on our Purity High Horse and stay home. That worked so beautifully in 2006 and 2008. Let Crist or the Dem win in FL. That'll show them not to mess with us!

Ideological purity is not going to get us where we want to go. Which is to not only capture the House and Senate, but to begin long and arduous process of defunding, dismantling and destroying the Left. (BTW, I coined that term, among many others). We just need enough conservatives to help get the ball rolling on that. Some RINOs are going to slip through, but even that is better than letting a Democrat hack hold the seat. A hack who will re-elect Pelosi as House Speaker, vote in brown-shirt lockstep with her and keep the Marxist descent of this government going full-bore.

And for all of the caterwauling about RINOS over the past year, the GOP has stood remarkably together on virtually every Marxist agenda item that Obama/Pelosi/Reid have rammed or tried to ram down America's throat. From MengeleCare, to the Porkulus to the Stimulus, even super-RINOS like Snowe and Collins have held fast. Certainly a lot better than I would have predicted 15 months ago.

I myself am going out shortly to vote in the GOP primary. I am voting for a black man, who grew up poor in New Orleans, served 27 years in the Navy and as also a business owner. This is the kind of fresh blood we need to overturn our current Communist Congressional Cabal. You can stay home and feel smug and superior all you want. I am actually going to do something about it.

If that is too hard for you to understand... what does your answer or argument of "I believe this movement is about following the Constitution all the time, and not just when it's convenient," tell you to do as a Senator. You could say we shouldn't be voting on this and they will say, "We are voting on this." So that is scenario, you are a senator and the bill is on the floor and you can't change that fact, "are you going to vote unconstitutional?" There isn't an unconstitutional vote which is why your writing is ridiculous. I want to know what you would do Matthews. Yay, Nay, are walk out and be no vote just like Obama? Three options - simple question. You tell me.

Your black and white scheme is not black and white. He voted as a conservative as he was called to do and it is outright ridiculous to say otherwise unless you have a solution to the problem. So, you tell me...what is the solution? And don't say - state rights etc etc ... because that wasn't an option. Again, pick one of three: yay, nay, or walk out? What do you do? Ever seen a partial birth abortion? Maybe you should spend some time in a hospital. Again so what do you do: Yay, Nay, or walk out?

Also, Shane, I'd invite you to look at a sample of Ron Paul's voting record. About the only questionable area I see is his votes on banning partial birth abortion. I am not quite sure why he does that, except for perhaps his conscience drives him too strongly to pass the opportunity to vote it on this matter.

Everything else in the list seems to be pretty straight-up "Constitutional." You'll see he votes "no" a lot. On many "yes" votes, you'll also see that they tend to be on matters that are strictly within the federal realm, such as federal elections process, various amendments which have the effect of giving the feds less powers, some federal law enforcement, etc.

From appearances, I would consider he does a much more accurate job than DeMint.

Here. See for yourself: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_...

(Maybe I'm wrong)

Shane, what I would do depends on the matter at hand. If there is no conflict, and it is a matter of upholding Constitutional restraint, then, that's what I do.

Regarding abortion, I am personally opposed to it. However, if I am to uphold the Constitution and recognize my limit of authority, I am obliged to vote against a bill that restricts abortion. Conversely, I am required to vote against a bill that requires the states to permit abortion over the state's objection.

When you excuse DeMint for his failure to adhere because he "has to do what conservatives do" when called to a vote, then, you should as readily excuse any democrat for voting "like good democrats" when bills are called to a vote, as well. This is how it has become a free-for-all. Representatives offer "popular" legislation, and the voters expect them to vote for what they want without regard to limits on power.

It would be quite hypocritical to call out democrats and blame them for usurping the Constitution, while finding excuses for Republicans to do the same thing.

Like I said, there are many liberal and conservative groups out there to join in furtherance of policies that are aimed to achieve specific results, notwithstanding the Constitution.

There could be scenarios where the decision could be difficult, and I will grant you that. For example, what if a bill was introduced that would trade "decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level, while restricting abortion even further under the federal level?" Here, you have conflicting things. Another example could be "reducing funding of the Dept. of Education, while requiring certain education mandates." Here, I can see a conflict in that a reduction in budget for the department brings it closer to as if there was no department, but the mandates bring us right back into quagmire.

So, you are right. It is not all black and white. Eventually, you will have to decide whether you think a candidate is voting as close as possible to his/her authority, or doing something different. From the laundry list concerning DeMInt, I'd say it appears he does not, and he just simply votes his "conservative conscience."

I suppose in the examples I gave above, I might tend to not vote, because, by so doing, I am taking sides with one faction at the expense of another. I see no basis in the Constitution to prioritize which is more evil - pro-lifers, or pot smokers.... or less department, but more mandates.

IMO, since you raise specifically the abortion issue, you might think that because DeMint voted in favor of parental notification, that this could minimize the damage done by Roe v. Wade. However, this would not be true. Roe was decided against a state that wanted to outlaw abortion. So, many think that anything to gut Roe is a good thing - in other words that parental notification somehow operates to gut the Roe decision and restore state's rights.

This would be incorrect. All that does is modify Roe and make it applicable to states that might actually want to be even more permissive as regards abortion.

So, in terms of Roe being bad for state's rights, it was. However, a "modified Roe" is just as bad. No Roe would be Constitutional. Parental notification requirements are nothing more than a modified Roe - telling states what they must do.

Hope that helps explain. If you have some specific hypothetical in mind that I did not address, let me know. I do agree, however, that in some situations, conflict could present itself. But just because a bill is put in front of you and you're a pro-lifer and want everyone to see the genius of the pro-life cause, does not mean you should, as a federal Congressman, vote for it - as tempting as it might be.

Where would it end, otherwise? If I am a devout Christian and thought everyone who read and studied the Word, would find the light, do I then vote for a bill requiring one hour of daily Bible study because someone offered it for my vote?

What has been occurring is factions are trading abuses, rather than abstaining from abusing.

So what would your suggestion be? Walk out of the session? Extend an unconstitutional law even further by allowing an extension to the rights of abortion? What do you propose Matthew's? Everyone just leave the floor? You think the bill is going to leave the floor and it all just magically disappears - that the Supreme Court magically changed its ruling? It doesn't work that way in Washington. If you are in the Senate, you vote what you believe is right. There isn't a, "I think this is unconstitutional going back to Roe v Wade vote," there is a yay, nay, or walk out. What do you do Matthews?

Maybe philosophically, but not Constitutionally or legally. As I said, if it agonizes a person to side with the Constitution on all issues, CPAC might be a better group to join.

I believe this movement is about following the Constitution all the time, and not just when it's convenient.

Many arguments can be made to try defend Unconstitutional actions, but it doesn't make them Constitutional. It could be those actions are what some voters might want, but what they want is not always what Congress is authorized to give.

I am in total agreement of this article in that we MUST quit this garbage of voting the lesser of two evils within a party. There are a few good people running on the republican ticket because just like the voters they can't break the mold, yet the ones I have talked to have shown their true colors one way or another and I don't mince words with anyone. I am finding some jewels outside the two parties, oh if I could only share what I have learned! We do need to get through this election time and do the most good we can, but then we must form the next action of education. DoI!

Wooo Hooo NOW we are getting to the guts of the whole thing! I have been waiting for this moment! I'm going to take it a little more out of the box! I have been doing some research on those who signed the "Declaration of Independance", note "not the Constitution"! I had to back off for a few days to answer a question in my mind and here it goes! What is the Declaration of Independance and why it is more important to us today than the Constitution? We all know that the Constitution has been trampled on and no longer a law of this land. So in my opinion it is time for us to get behind the Declaration of Independance because that is the only document that will break this cycle! ........

This article reveals a naivety by the author who seems to think that, despite decades of contrary evidence, Republicans are somehow closer to the Constitution. What do you do for a politician with no record to review?

The two party system has royally screwed up America and both parties suck. If you think the answer is to vote Republican, you're completely missing the boat.

Research and vote the person - forget the party. I call myself a Constitutional Textualist because I believe the words of the US Constitution should control. There isn't a party for me so I have to research every candidate. That's my job as a citizen. Unless a candidate for federal office begins and ends every quote with a reference to the US Constitution (think Ron Paul), I'm not giving her/him my "precious" vote. I'll stand on principle and let the chips fall. I won't vote for the lesser of two evils. (In some ways, the election of Obama has been good because it's gotten people's attention as to how bad it can get.) I'm not going to worry about 'splitting the vote' or other short term strategies. I'm looking at the long term effects.

DeMint is just the typical narcissist that modern politics seems to attract. They only care about getting and keeping power and have no interest in or use for the Constitution and the rule of law because those just LIMIT their power.

If we work at the local level to restore power to the states, the Federal elections won't matter as much. That was the original design.

For me - unless there's a candidate that will stand up for the Constitution "every issue, every time, no exceptions, no excuses" I will NOT give that person my precious vote - my personal endorsement. Politicians don't think we vote for them for some of the garbage they claim - they consider votes an endorsement of everything they offer to us....

Instead, I expect to spend my time continuing to focus on state governments - working to nullify more unconstitutional federal actions at the state line.

I agree with what you are saying but I don't know how much longer I can stand of the current congress. I would prefer anything at this point.

Anyway, we should work on the state level to make changes in this country. In my state, I am going to write a letter asking them to do the same thing in Idaho about only using gold and silver for collecting taxes. Its a long shot but a letter or two might get the ball rolling and let them know that there are people out there who want this.

I'm not suggesting that we vote 3rd party as I do believe that it will split the vote. However, I am tired of voting Republican and winding up down the same path as the Dems are sending us - only slower! There are some good Republican conservative Constitutional candidates out there - and those are the candidates I intend to support - I'm done with RINO's like McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Charlie Crist. It is going to be a long fight to restore our Constitution - but continuing to vote for candidates of either party that refuse to uphold their oath of office will never get us there. It's time they are held accountable to the voters.

I prefer to avoid any political labels at all and yes I will be voting republican this november only because the democrats sicken me. Until someone gives me another viable choice I will be voting republican. One day the libertarian party will stop sounding like whackos who hate the post office. This is no offense to libertarians because I voted libertarian in the presidential election but, up to this point, libertarians can't express themselves very well.

Anyways, we have a long way to go in this country so I would suggest keep making arguments to our friends and enemies and eventually we will change the political thinking in this world.

Thanks for a great article. I wasn't sure about DeMint but I had this "doubt" about him in the back of my mind. The only thing I can point to was as one of the co-sponsors of Bernie Sander's S. 604 to Audit the Fed bill (which mirrored Ron Paul's bill H.R. 1207 in the House), I became "suspicious" when in January 2010, Senator DeMint introduced his own version of Audit the Fed - S. 2939 - seehttp://bit.ly/dasuOe - similar to S. 604 but not identical.....didn't make any sense to me why he would do that when he had already signed on as a co-sponsor of S. 604. Now maybe we know the answer!