"Conservatives" need a new benchmark

"Less liberal" is simply not enough

By Kevin Price

After their designated election cycles, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate, as well as the President of the United States, swear to defend the U.S. Constitution. In the vast majority of cases, it appears they are lying.

Unfortunately, most Americans haven't read the half a dozen pages that make up that lean, but important, document. They haven't noticed Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that limits Congress to around 20 powers. These are real exciting things like post offices, standard weights and measures, and post roads.

Very few members of Congress care about these mandates, and to support them as the scope of government makes them seem little more than eccentric (or worse) in the eyes of their colleagues. It simply isn't trendy to support the law you swear you will defend. When I think of such, I consider my own U.S. Senators, John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchinson, both of whom are Republicans. One of them, Cornyn, is consistently ranked in the top 10 percent of the most conservative by groups that rate voting records. I don't consider this a badge of honor, but an indictment of how liberal Republicans and the Senate have become.

John Cornyn, for example, is among the many who voted for TARP in 2008. Instead of being a true leader and representing his constituents, he chose to be a cheerleader and tried to win favor from the GOP leadership. The bill he voted for began in the U.S. Senate (unconstitutional according to Article I., Section 7, which states that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." TARP included provisions for raising revenue. Where it started was grounds for being unconstitutional. I won't even begin to list the many other areas that it fails to uphold the Constitution.

Many who brand themselves as "conservative" use their colleagues with very liberal agendas as the benchmark their philosophy. The reality is, it simply means they are willing to take their time as they stroll down the road to serfdom. I believe the American people prefer those who are honest about their agendas (liberals) than those who are dishonest (so-called conservatives). The last election seemed to prove that true.

The only way to solve this problem is to set a different standard for our elected officials. It is time to select politicians who are strict constructionists when it comes to the Constitution. People who have sworn to defend it and a voting record that reflects that they have done just that. Many call themselves "strict constructionists," even George W. Bush who paved the way to much of the socialism the U.S. is now pursuing at a breakneck pace. That is where seriously examining one's political record matters. Instead of "conservatives," I'm looking for candidates who describe themselves as "restorationists" (of the Constitution), and can back it up with their actions.

Holding politicians to the constitutional standard will lead to more honest government, less government, and restoration of America's greatness. This won't happen overnight, and we will receive lectures about "practicality" and being "realistic." Making those concerns our primary drivers, which has been the case for decades, has squarely put us in the mess we are in today.

© Kevin Price