Can-Do Conservatives and Bob Vander Plaats: It’s About Freedom
September 21, 2009 8 Comments
On September 18th some members of Iowa Team Huck and members from Georgia and Indiana sponsored a fundraiser for Iowa gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats who is endorsed by Governor Mike Huckabee. Conservative activists at the fundraiser were still experience the fallout of Michael Reagan’s message during his visit here: throw your principles under the bus just to get Republicans elected.
In the wake of this type of message it was inspiring to hear candidates at this event (State Rep. Kent Sorenson and Vander Plaats) re-affirm their commitment to not move to the center but instead stand firm on the social issues while promoting other conservative ideals, and Sorenson made it a point to say that he defeated a Democrat incumbent in his district by doing just that. It was also motivational to hear from one of the keynote speakers, Brian Donegan, on how disabled members of society need to be represented in this movement for conservative principles.
Brian Donegan is a Team Huck member from Georgia and he came to promote the organization that he founded, Can-Do Conservatives of America, and to endorse Bob Vander Plaats for Governor of Iowa. Can-Do Conservatives promotes all the issues of the Republican party and was founded to give the disabled and their supporters a voice in the conservative movement. Brian’s speech told of this incredible journey of being born disabled and eventually becoming a political activist despite his disabilities which he calls “blessings.” He stated in his speech that he is looking for a hand up, not a hand out and he is in favor of liberty and freedom to pursue the American dream like anyone else.
Bob Vander Plaats admitted during his speech that the topic of disabilities is what got him started in politics and he whole-heartily supports Donegan’s movement. His speech also focused on his commitment to run on all of the issues despite what some of those in the GOP are recommending and that he is standing on the platform of freedom. The Can-Do Conservative movement, his Executive Order to halt the runaway Iowa Supreme Court, the tea parties, and the town halls are all about freedom and that is what he will fight for as Governor of Iowa.
The runaway Iowa Supreme Court? Yes, I guess that’s a fair description, considering that their decision was unanimous! So if BVP is all about freedom, I guess his freedom is the sort that restricts other people’s freedom. It’s the “freedom” of the Gov to curtail the role of the courts. How confused is that?
Jerry, what part of taking lawmaking out of seven unelected people on the court’s hands and giving it back to thousands of Iowans where the decision constitutionally belongs is restricting freedom? And yes, Bob can do this. It is in the Iowa Constitution. I would think you would want him to do this. This isn’t about gay marriage, it is about giving the freedom back to the people and not letting the courts run your life. Courts were not set up to do this. They have stepped out of bounds.
What are you afraid of………….a vote?
Please quote the relevant passage from the Iowa Constitution which says the Gov can give executive orders to the Iowa Supreme Court. Thanks.
Courts also keep the legislature from stepping out of bounds. Such as when the US Supreme Court told the DC city council they could not ban handguns at home.
Article IV, section 1: The supreme executive power of this state shall be vested in a chief magistrate, who shall be styled the governor of the state of Iowa.
Yes, thank God that it took highly educated judges in the US Supreme Court to decide with a wimpy 5-4 decision that the Constitution is constitutional! Anyway, this decision is different. The courts stuck to their job of interpreting the law and not making a new law like the Iowa Supreme Court did. We have always had the right to bear arms.
It looks like you are trying to turn an executive power into a judicial power–kinda making the Gov into a super duper supreme judicial power, too. But your case is not the least bit convincing.
No, I’m not trying to twist or change anything. I’m just following the Constitution as it was written. Your side might like to try it sometime.
Just so you know, in a latest push poll that was supposed to turn people against the Executive Order idea because the question claimed three times that it would create a Constitutional crises, 58% of Republicans still said “do it”, 50% of Independents still said “do it”, and 30% of Democrats still said “do it.” It wasn’t the results that the anti-Bob Vander Plaats people (Doug Gross) wanted to see from the question.
If you are just following the Constitution as it is written, why do you say your plan would create a crisis?
Obviously, the crisis arises because you are perverting the meaning of the Constitution when you say the Gov can issue orders to the court.
I am not saying it would cause a Constitutional crises. Bob Vander Plaats’ critics are calling it that. The Executive Order is in line with the Constitution so it would not create a crises but instead avoid one because right now the two branches of government (DOMA from the legislature vs. court’s opinion) are at odds with each other on the issue of gay marriage and Vander Plaats is saying it needs to be solved and calling on letting the people vote on it. He is giving the power back to we the people.