No credit ...

. . . whatsoever.

*sigh*

Despite my philosophical, principled (read: Reagan Conservatism) driven arguments low these many years, which has seen me RIP into the hide of one G.W. Bush and the GOP in general (i.e. border security; spending; war strategy; bail outs; TARP; being "Democrat light" in general etc, etc) Titus still insists on labeling me with the occasional "partisan hack", point in case - his latest inference.

You noted that this DC congressional vote subject is "yawn", old news, won't happen and the GOP, especially Ryan, would be advocating it too if it were a "conservative Mecca", because the subject is nothing more then a partisan football, and they are Party men, not ideological, nor principled . . or even intellectually honest.

Well, let me muster all of my collective articulation, art and ability of prose to summarily issue a resounding: SCREW YOU!

I'm not some Party hack. I WOULD NOT advocate this if it were a town of 3 - Pat Buchanan, F. Ryan, and Rush Limbaugh, because of my respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers and their vision -a point I articulated in that last post. Would the GOP? Hell, I don't know, I'm fed up with them as it is, but not I. And you're wrong on another score - this most certainly does not "come up every 4 to 8 years." And is not just a traditional political football that goes nowhere this time around. Bush didn't advocate this, nor bring it up. Nor did Speaker Gingrich, Speaker Hastert, nor leader Trott nor his successor, the heart surgeon (whose name escapes me at the moment, Fisk maybe); and neither, in any meaningful way, did Pelosi nor Reid when they were in the minority from 2000-2006. It has been brought up before, no question, but not every election cycle, and certainly not with Democrats of this aggressiveness towards "change" controlling both Houses and the Oval Office (read: I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did it this time - this is no mere political banter anymore). And it certainly isn't some old go nowhere chestnut when seen in the light of the sweeping changes - regardless of Constitutionality, precedent or tradition - that Obama is engaging in during his first 60 days. It is another significant piece of his power grab puzzle that sees the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, at best as (in his words): "a set of negative liberties describing what the government can't do to you, but not listing what it should do on your behalf; and that's where the Warren Court didn't go far enough, wasn't radical enough." That description is scary in and of itself, especially when all other rights and privileges are clearly intended to be left to the states and the individual citizen. It is precisely the worry the founders had in even listing a Bill of Rights at all - there was fear (as I know you are aware) that they may be at some point interpreted as the "only" rights afforded individuals, rather then just specifying especially protected ones, leaving all others to the purview of the individual or state.

That is the context this DC seat advocation must be seen in - the sweeping, unprecedented, unconstitutional, ill advised, frightening Utopia Obama envisions as his mandate, if not calling from on high, that he was sent here for, to inflict on the rest of us.

****
The 10th . . . Pending my own reading, reaffirming state sovereignty always seems a positive for any conservative, however, I have the same initial reservation our founders did in trying to "specify" or "clear up" or "redefine" state's rights more directly - they may come to be interpreted as the ONLY rights (or general parameters laid down therein) afforded states rather then a simple or reaffirming clarification. Given MN is among the advocates this could be (remember, I haven't read it yet and am going off of your limited description) a rouse meant to clear the way for Obama to impose ever more burdensome federal mandates by being able to declare - "see, A, B and C are NOT specified in the 10th Amendment, I CAN mandate socialized this and federalized that."

But I will read it, and form a more permanent opinion then.