It’s not Federalism if Allahpundit doesn’t like it

Aw, not this again.
Look, I understand that the infamous Allahpundit is pretty liberal on social issues. That’s fine. He’s entitled to be wrong, and it’s not at all surprising (he’s an atheist based in New York City). There’s nothing outrageously silly in this quote of his in a post about Rick Perry’s support for two proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution banning gay “marriage” and abortion:

Two caveats to his otherwise strict support for the Tenth Amendment, both of which happen to serve the agenda of social conservatives whose votes he’s depending on. He backed away from his “states’ rights” defense of legalizing gay marriage last week; here’s the inevitable climbdown on abortion too, which he described as a states’ rights issue a few days ago. Follow that last link and re-read the post to see why it was predictable. I’m surprised he didn’t anticipate the tension his Tenther rhetoric on these issues would cause with his base, which he could have defused by mentioning his support for the amendments straightaway. There’s nothing necessarily inconsistent in that position: You can be a strong federalist and still condone federal solutions for exceptionally grave evils like slavery which the states, for various reasons, can’t be trusted to police as diligently as they should. That’s the core of the pro-life argument for an anti-abortion amendment — it’s a matter, literally, of life and death. What’s Perry’s argument, though, for why gay marriage qualifies as an “exceptionally grave evil” warranting a nationwide ban? Is smoking, say, an evil sufficiently grave to require a constitutional amendment outlawing it? (Don’t answer that, liberals.) He’s not in a legal trap here but he is in a philosophical one. And a political one, of course, as the press will use this to throw him off his economic message. Specify, please, which behaviors are so pernicious that we can’t risk letting parochial state legislatures deal with them.

What’s outrageously silly — or intentionally obtuse — is the slug under the post on the home page. Here, click on the screen shot and look closely:
HotAir.com
Perry’s current position does not conflict with his support for the Tenth Amendment, nor does it conflict with the doctrine of federalism. Amending the Constitution is inherently federalist, because every amendment must be ratified by the states. Read Article V yourself:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

This is not the first or even the second time that Allah has tried this cute little assertion. Not buyin’ it, pal. Find a new rhetorical trick.

Comments are closed.