Friday, April 18, 2014

One should resist voting on social views

My wife and I both agree that we do not vote for people just because of social issues.  What I do vote for are people who are constitutionalists, or anyone who has a track record of supporting the Constitution.

I believe if a leader is someone who defends and protects the Constitution, it shouldn't matter what their personal views on social issues are, because their personal opinions shouldn't matter so long as they obey the law.  

This is the argument I made when Rudy Guliani was running for President even though he voiced pro-choice opinions when running for New York Mayor.  I said that if he obeys the Constitution, or the law, we shouldn't have to worry about his personal opinion about abortion.  

I am a strong pro life person, as I believe it is wrong to kill babies.  On the other hand, I am a strong supporter of the 10th amendment, which states that anything not covered in the Constitution is left for the states, the people, to decide.  

For this reason, if the Judges decide Roe-v-Wade had followed the law and not their opinions, abortion would have been left to the states to decide. Barring a new amendment, that is the law of the land. 

If you want to change the law, be it that you are a conservative like Rick Santorum who wants to force people to accept the pro life argument, or a liberal like Nancy Pelosi who wants to force people to accept pro choice argument, you will have to convince the people that your argument is the best.  

So, you see, I vote for people who have a strong track record of defending the Constitution as it was written by the founding fathers, and not based on someones social issues. I vote based on fiscal issues, not social issues.  

Now, I'm not implying that I don't hold strong opinions on social issues, because I do.  I'm just saying that, so long as the law is followed, the people will be happy. All Roe-V-Wade did was tick off half the nation and create a social divide and partisan divide.