RSS Feed MenuAs mentioned below, I interviewed Tom Campbell – the demon sheep himself! – by telephone on Jan. 16. Some highlights from the conversation:
Campbell opened the interview by explaining his decision to switch from the governor’s contest to the senatorial.
Since I announced for governor in June 2008, we have had a remarkable change in the national scene. We have a new president and the greatest incursion into the private marketplace since the New Deal. I could not win in the Republican primary for governor. I heard from so many supporters, ‘You’d be a good governor, but there’s no way you can raise the money. Therefore we will not contribute to you.’ It became a self-fulfilling prophecy. But many of those same individuals pressed me: would you consider running to replace Barbara Boxer?
I have the best chance of beating Barbara Boxer. As a social moderate, I am not vulnerable to attack on that side – although no doubt Boxer will try.
I asked: If a moderate stance on social issues is such an important commitment, what does that imply for your votes on future Supreme Court nominations? Would you for example have voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor?
Campbell:
My ideal justice would have a more constrained view of the judicial role than Sotomayor. Yet on balance, I would have voted yes. The rule for a senator cannot be that you will only vote to confirm the person you would have chosen yourself, if the choice had been yours. There has to be some deference to the president.
I asked him: Do you have any sympathy for the new libertarian judicial activism – the kind of thinking sometimes described as the “constitution in exile” school?
Campbell:
I have no appetite for the court expanding its muscle to prevent the people’s will – except insofar as the constitution requires reining in such authority.” As an example of where the constitution might require such reining, he cited US v. Lopez, where the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Clause did not justify a federal ban on guns near schools. “I strongly supported safe schools as a state senator. Yet I cannot say that this is the federal government’s business.
Frum: Would you have any sympathy for the view that the individual mandate in the Obama healthcare plan is unconstitutional?
Campbell:
I would. The individual mandate might be such an example. It’s a stretch of the Commerce Clause to entrust this power to the federal government. A requirement to purchase is not the same as the federal taxing power.
More to come
rbottoms // Feb 4, 2010 at 9:33 am
What the hell did I just watch?
I think you can pack it up now folks, Carly is a laughing stock. Or is that livestock. You people are going to beat the Democrats with this kind of insanity? The teabaggers crazy is at least something we comprehend before we laugh it, this is just gibberish.
sinz54 // Feb 4, 2010 at 10:00 am
rbottoms: What the hell did I just watch?
That video was for a Republican primary.
You’re not involved. It doesn’t concern you.
oldgal // Feb 4, 2010 at 10:17 am
I’ll be taking a serious look at Tom Campbell. Devore signed the Norquist pledge – I will not vote for any candidate who takes a pledge to an individual that supercedes the pledge taken to the citizens of the state. Carly will (and should) self-destruct again, just as she has in the other positions she has held. Campbell is one of the few politicians in Calif. who has the guts to compromise on the hard decisions.
DFL // Feb 4, 2010 at 10:44 am
As long as Campbell supports judicial candidates who are strict constructionists, I can support him as senator despite his flaws. Carly Fiorina would be too much a puppet for John McCain and McCain’s Mini-Me Lindsay Graham. His defense of congressional prerogatives with regards to foreign military engagements is thoughtful and correct.
ProfNickD // Feb 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm
DFL,
Campbell is not a strict constructionist. Strict constructionists believe that the Constitution creates expressly stated powers that the federal government may exercise — those not expressly stated are reserved to the states (10th Amendment).
Campbell think the Constitution allows the federal government to do anything that is not expressly prohibited to it, the exact and utter opposite of a strict constructionist.
rbottoms // Feb 4, 2010 at 1:12 pm
>You’re not involved. It doesn’t concern you.
Me: I’ll take Hypocrisy for $1000, Alex.
Alex: He’s an Oxycontin addict, takes sex tours of South America with Viagra stuffed in his pants, and champions family values while racking up numerous divorces. He is also the creator of “Operation Chaos”, where Republicans attempted to influence the Obama/Clinton primary race.
Me: Who the hell do you think you are telling me what concerns me?
Alex: What the f….
Me: Sorry Alex, the answer is Rush Limbaugh.
mlloyd // Feb 4, 2010 at 2:26 pm
Oh good, a “strict constructionist” who thinks that insurance is unconstitutional. I’d link to a bunch of law articles pointing out that this isn’t true, but what’s the point? “Strict constructionist” just means, “someone who will vote the way I want them to on politically important cases.”
This site isn’t about bringing the GOP back to Eisenhower, it’s about keeping it the party of Phil Gramm and Dick Cheney instead of Sarah Palin. What’s the point.
PracticalGirl // Feb 4, 2010 at 8:13 pm
THIS is why I LOOOOVVE political season.
Demon Sheep, besides being the cheesiest piece of production I’ve seen in a while, also proves why most attack ads are so darn risky. Tom Campbell’s name was the only one highlighted. When you’re trying to get your name out, it never hurts to have your opponent spend money to do it. Bonus points if the ad gets recycled by the masses, and your only association is that you’re running against a complete nutjob.
This ad had no substance, and is particularly hilarious since Fiorina herself is known for her outsized ego. She should have stuck with her aborted attempt to rename the state Carlyfornia…At least that’s close to the way the Governator pronounces it!
GOPer on GOPer action-always fun!
sinz54 // Feb 4, 2010 at 9:06 pm
ProfNickD: Strict constructionists believe that the Constitution creates expressly stated powers that the federal government may exercise — those not expressly stated are reserved to the states (10th Amendment).
You’re wrong.
The Tenth Amendment says something weaker. It says that the Federal Government is limited to powers not prohibited by the states. It never said that the Federal Government is limited only to powers expressed in the Constitution.
You should learn about the history of the concept of so-called “implied powers.” That the Federal Government can assume powers implied by other more expressly stated powers goes all the way back to the George Washington Administration.
sinz54 // Feb 4, 2010 at 9:08 pm
mlloyd: Oh good, a “strict constructionist” who thinks that insurance is unconstitutional….This site isn’t about bringing the GOP back to Eisenhower, it’s about keeping it the party of Phil Gramm and Dick Cheney instead of Sarah Palin.
Why blame the site for what the posters post?
DFL // Feb 5, 2010 at 10:43 am
Thanks for setting me straight, Professor Nick.
ProfNickD // Feb 5, 2010 at 8:37 pm
sinz,
Not sure where you are getting this interpretation of what a strict constructionist is or the meaning of the 10th Amendment.
The 10th Amendment says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The plain-text meaning is clear and hardly needs to be paraphrased — any power not delegated (i.e., “granted”) to the federal government is a function of the state governments (unless the Constitution prohibits state governments from exercising it, such as creating ex post facto laws) or remains with the people themselves and not to government at all.
True, activist/progressive judges believe that the implied powers portion of Article I, section 8 (the “necessary and proper” clause) suggests that the federal government possesses some vague and practically unlimited set of powers that the Constitution does not expressly grant it. The Supreme Court said as much in the McCulloch case in 1819and has done so numerous times since.
But no strict constructionist would accept this interpretation of implied powers. To do so would effectively void out the 10th Amendment and destroy the concept of federalism — which is exactly what has happened, increasingly so over the last 75 years.
Strict constructionists are “Constitutionalists,” not adherents of “Constitutional law” — they believe in the plain-text meaning of the Constitution, not some willy-nilly rendering of it by activist courts.
Campbell, at least in terms of his response in Frum’s interview, is clearly not a strict constructionist.