Help Spread Liberty. Donate Today!

Like us on Facebook!

Mitt, Newt and Rick: Let’s end the myth that the GOP believes in limited government.

The 2012 campaign for the GOP presidential nomination should, once and for all, end the myth that the GOP is the party of limited government, free markets and personal liberty. I submit it is instructive to look at the records of the three remaining GOP candidates not named “Paul.”

The following bullet points were excerpted verbatim from’s candidate profiles. Yes, I have cherry picked items inconsistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty. Yes, these same profiles mention positions of each candidate that are consistent with limited government, free markets and personal liberty.

The point of this post, however, is to show that none of these three candidates believe, as a first principle, in limited government, free markets and personal liberty. They each are more than willing to make exceptions when expedient. Therefore, any claim that they believe in limited government, free markets or personal liberty must be prefaced by the qualifier “when convenient.”

Mitt Romney:

  • Defends the mandate-and-regulate approach to health care he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts
  • He favors strong government surveillance powers to combat terrorism, and has praised the PATRIOT Act as a useful information gathering tool. 
  • previously backed … No Child Left Behind. 
  • He’s conveniently in favor of subsidies for corn-based ethanol.

Newt Gingrich:

  • Opposes Obamacare but in 2005 joined Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in “appearing to endorse proposals to require all individuals to have some form of health coverage.”
  •  Gingrich joined Obama’s “Race to the Top” in 2009, calling Education Secretary Arne Duncan “a serious innovator.” 
  •  Gingrich likes ethanol subsidies and has accused “big cities” and “big urban newspapers” of trying to hurt the farmers who benefit from them. Also likes fossil fuel subsidies and said in 2010 that “a low-cost energy regime is essential to our country.” Supported cap and trade in 2007, 

Rick Santorum:

  •  While he was in office … his record was, in the Club for Growth’s words, “plagued by the big-spending habits that Republicans adopted during the Bush years of 2001-2006.” He was a strong supporter of dairy subsidies, voted for Medicare Part D and the 2005 highway bill
  • Sen. Santorum voted for the Sarbanes-Oxley law that he now wants to repeal. He also backed steel tariffs and was a player in the GOP’s corporatist K Street Project. After initial opposition to the program, he became a big AmeriCorps booster.
  • “This idea that people should be able to go and do whatever they want and it doesn’t really matter as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody, that’s not our founders’ view of freedom.”
  • He joined Hillary Clinton’s crusade against violent video games, used campaign finance regulations to threaten critics’ freedom of speech, and favors a porn crackdown.
  •  … he has warned against “the 10th amendment run amok.”
  •  He also has a history of supporting national schooling standards. He voted for the No Child Left Behind bill in 2001.
  •  … he has an on-again, off-again history of support for energy subsidies as well. In 2008 he called for Washington to “mandate that all cars sold in the United States…be ‘flex-fuel vehicles’—that is, they should be able to run on a blend that is 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline.”

Can we quit pretending? The GOP loves government programs. One might be able to make the case that the GOP loves government programs less than Democrats, but that is damning with faint praise.


<img width='1' height='1' src='' alt='' [...] [...]

The U.S. Constitution applies to citizens and non-citizens alike. Check the text.

The notion that the U.S. Constitution only protects U.S. citizens is palpably false. It is an indictment of our education system that any American could think such an outrageous thing.

The drafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were educated men. They chose their words carefully. They debated over precise word choice. One can assume every word they chose was done with a purpose.

The Constitution and the first ten amendments distinguish between the concept of “people/persons” and the concept of “citizen.” For example, Article I, Section 3, says “No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States…”.

A “person” is therefore different from a “citizen.” Everyone is a person, but only some are citizens.

This distinction is seen again in Article II, Section 1: “No Person except a natural born Citizen … shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Again, you may be a person, but you can’t be President unless you are also a citizen. The drafters of the Constitution knew when they wanted it to apply to people and when they wanted it to apply only to citizens.

The first two paragraphs of Article IV, Section 2, clearly distinguish between “citizen” and “person.” It reads:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Therefore, only citizens are entitled to “privileges and immunities” but all persons charged with a crime who then cross state lines shall “be delivered up.” It does not matter if you are a citizen or not if you are a fugitive. Of course that makes sense.

The point, however, is that the Constitution and its Amendments clearly distinguish between “citizen” and “persons.” “Citizen” means those either born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) or naturalized. “Persons” and “people” mean everyone.

For instance, the First Amendment states that ”Congress shall make no law … abridging … the right of the people peaceably to assemble…”. The First Amendment therefore grants to all people the same protection against certain congressional action, regardless of citizenship status.

The Fourth Amendment, likewise, applies to the “people,” and not just citizens. It reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated …”.

Likewish, the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

And the Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused [not just citizens] shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The notion that the U.S. Constitution does not apply to non-citizens is incorrect. It even applies to those in the country illegally. For instance, the government cannot keep an illegal alien locked up indefinitely. An undocumented worker will still get an attorney appointed to him if charged with a crime.  I hope this little blog post helps alleviate that misconception.

In light of the War on Terror, the Patriot Act and the recently passed NDAA, among other legislation, it appears the Constitution doesn’t even apply to citizens any longer.

And that is sad.


<img width='1' height='1' src='' alt='' [...] [...]