The 10th Amendment

[Statistikhengst]

This article sums it up pretty well.

10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

Prescription drugs

No Child Left Behind

TARP

A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.

Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.

Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

But I digress....

If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.

I want to publicly thank you for inviting me to this thread. I will read every posting of input first before commenting, and then will probably multi-quote a lot of people and respond in one fell-swoop.

My purpose for being here is to learn more background behind the 10th amendment and to also find as much historical precedent as to how it has (or has not been applied). I personally do not see this as a Right-Left issue. I see it more as a purely legal issue.

So, bear with me for a while while I research, and to use your name for a second, to listen.

 

[PMZ]

From Federalist 45:

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

****************************

This against the backdrop of the Articles of Confederation are a good indication of where the Founders were.

The election of 1800 pretty much sealed it.

Have a nice day.

But they couldn't agree on that. That’s why it is not in the Constitution.

Sure.

The 10th amendment isn't a part of the constitution.

This is what was used to sell it to New York.

Federalist 45 is not the Constitution. It is advertising for one side of one issue.

 

[Listening]

This article sums it up pretty well.

10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

Prescription drugs

No Child Left Behind

TARP

A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.

Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.

Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

But I digress....

If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.

I want to publicly thank you for inviting me to this thread. I will read every posting of input first before commenting, and then will probably multi-quote a lot of people and respond in one fell-swoop.

My purpose for being here is to learn more background behind the 10th amendment and to also find as much historical precedent as to how it has (or has not been applied). I personally do not see this as a Right-Left issue. I see it more as a purely legal issue.

So, bear with me for a while while I research, and to use your name for a second, to listen.

Welcome !

In some ways, it is a right/left thing in that the right (or those who call themselves conservatives) are in favor of a more decentralized government except in those specific areas where the Constitution calls for the federal government to take the lead.

In this regard, those of us on the right would say that (that strictly from a process standpoint) there is no room for something like Obamacare coming from the federal government. By that same token, Social Security would not exist either.

If you look at my opening post, you'll see that I suggest that the right take a subtle approach to gradually working to dismantle some of the overblown federal machinery and allow each state to determine what it wants to do.

I am sure we won't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but it is always good conversation.

Thanks for joining in.

 

[Listening]

But they couldn't agree on that. That’s why it is not in the Constitution.

Sure.

The 10th amendment isn't a part of the constitution.

This is what was used to sell it to New York.

Federalist 45 is not the Constitution. It is advertising for one side of one issue.

http://educationtofreedom.weebly.com/uploads/4/6/8/3/4683979/federalistpapersbook.pdf

Thomas Jefferson famously referred to The Federalist as “the
best commentary on the principles of government, which ever
was written.”

Clinton Rossiter has claimed that The Federalist
stands in third place among the greatest writings in American
history, behind only the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution.

We might agree with this assessment, but we
might also add an important qualification: Of these three
documents in the pantheon of American political writings, The
Federalist is least studied and least understood.

*****************

Too much.

 

[hunarcy]

You cannot take us back to antebellum days. States rights was settled by the Civil War. If you don't like that outcome, start another one.

I don't believe that is true. The 10th Amendment wasn't nullified by the Civil War. Only the idea that the States could divide themselves from the nation and establish their own nation.

 

[PMZ]

The weakening, and possible eventual destruction of the Union, and replacing it with 50 disjointed autonomous regions, is to end the greatest successful experiment in democracy ever, with no conceivable benefit to anyone except state politicians freed of oversight.

50 separate militaries, 50 separate borders, 50 separate air traffic control systems, intra state commerce and transportation and energy replacing interstate, 50 separate CDCs, 50 separate education standards, just as a few examples, is chaos.

Take any particular topic related to government that is presently federal responsibility, and imagine dismantling it and then rebuilding it 50 times, gives a hint of the shear lunacy of the implementation.

Lastly, the US Constitution would have to be discarded and re-written in the terms that conservatives wish today it had been written in.

The net result? 50 indefensible weakly connected fiefdoms, each with government spanning the responsibilities of today's Federal Government, squabbling like children over every issue.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This article sums it up pretty well.

10th Amendment, Federalism, and States' Rights | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

My question is why does the GOP forget about the 10th when they have power at the federal level.

GWB disgusted me with several of his laws.

Prescription drugs

No Child Left Behind

TARP

A strict interpretation of the 10th would say none of this should have occured.

I believe the GOP would do well to start including this more in their talking points going forward.

Keep in low key, but slowly ramp it up.

I have to explain federalism to most of my adult friends. They think of government as the federal government.

Most can't tell you who their state senator state rep is.

But I digress....

If the GOP were to do this (provided they half meant it), I think the Tea Party and other conservative groups would rally to push for more localized government.

I want to publicly thank you for inviting me to this thread. I will read every posting of input first before commenting, and then will probably multi-quote a lot of people and respond in one fell-swoop.

My purpose for being here is to learn more background behind the 10th amendment and to also find as much historical precedent as to how it has (or has not been applied). I personally do not see this as a Right-Left issue. I see it more as a purely legal issue.

So, bear with me for a while while I research, and to use your name for a second, to listen.

Welcome !

In some ways, it is a right/left thing in that the right (or those who call themselves conservatives) are in favor of a more decentralized government except in those specific areas where the Constitution calls for the federal government to take the lead.

In this regard, those of us on the right would say that (that strictly from a process standpoint) there is no room for something like Obamacare coming from the federal government. By that same token, Social Security would not exist either.

If you look at my opening post, you'll see that I suggest that the right take a subtle approach to gradually working to dismantle some of the overblown federal machinery and allow each state to determine what it wants to do.

I am sure we won't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but it is always good conversation.

Thanks for joining in.

Here is a good essay explaining why the ACA doesn’t violate the 10th Amendment:

But there is another argument, similarly novel and ahistorical, that has gone relatively unnoticed "“ that the ACA violates the Tenth Amendment and related federalism principles. The argument is that the Tenth Amendment is a bulwark against federal overreaching in the ACA: the Tenth Amendment cabins federal power, protects state citizens, and protects states' rights. This Tenth Amendment argument, like its Commerce Clause companion, lacks support in the text, history, and Supreme Court jurisprudence of the Constitution. Like so much of what we hear in constitutional debates today, it is an insidious attempt to shift the frames of constitutional debate and, at the end of the day, reshape the very contours of the Constitution.

The ACA and the Tenth Amendment : SCOTUSblog

 

[Listening]

I want to publicly thank you for inviting me to this thread. I will read every posting of input first before commenting, and then will probably multi-quote a lot of people and respond in one fell-swoop.

My purpose for being here is to learn more background behind the 10th amendment and to also find as much historical precedent as to how it has (or has not been applied). I personally do not see this as a Right-Left issue. I see it more as a purely legal issue.

So, bear with me for a while while I research, and to use your name for a second, to listen.

Welcome !

In some ways, it is a right/left thing in that the right (or those who call themselves conservatives) are in favor of a more decentralized government except in those specific areas where the Constitution calls for the federal government to take the lead.

In this regard, those of us on the right would say that (that strictly from a process standpoint) there is no room for something like Obamacare coming from the federal government. By that same token, Social Security would not exist either.

If you look at my opening post, you'll see that I suggest that the right take a subtle approach to gradually working to dismantle some of the overblown federal machinery and allow each state to determine what it wants to do.

I am sure we won't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but it is always good conversation.

Thanks for joining in.

Here is a good essay explaining why the ACA doesn’t violate the 10th Amendment:

But there is another argument, similarly novel and ahistorical, that has gone relatively unnoticed "“ that the ACA violates the Tenth Amendment and related federalism principles. The argument is that the Tenth Amendment is a bulwark against federal overreaching in the ACA: the Tenth Amendment cabins federal power, protects state citizens, and protects states' rights. This Tenth Amendment argument, like its Commerce Clause companion, lacks support in the text, history, and Supreme Court jurisprudence of the Constitution. Like so much of what we hear in constitutional debates today, it is an insidious attempt to shift the frames of constitutional debate and, at the end of the day, reshape the very contours of the Constitution.

The ACA and the Tenth Amendment : SCOTUSblog

Lacks support in text & history. Now, that is funny.

Lacks in jurisprudence is certainly true in many ways. Which is just another way of saying we've had a lot of really crappy politicised members of SCOTUS.

Fail.

I noticed the article reaches out to the worn out old "expressley" argument. Flushed away.

But this was just an example.

The 10th amendment and the ACA are not the point of the OP in a restrictive way.

My discussion of Roe is more to the point.

 

[PMZ]

From Mr Jones' reference above:

The Tenth Amendment arguments against the ACA

Against the Tenth Amendment's text, history, and jurisprudence, Tenth Amendment (and related federalism) claims against the ACA, both in the litigation and in the public debates, are simply breathtaking. In short, they are bald-faced attempts to rewrite the Tenth Amendment and give birth to an entirely new kind of federalism, one that has no support in the text, history, or practice of the Tenth Amendment.

Opponents of the ACA have propounded three principal arguments.

First, they have argued that the Tenth Amendment (and related federalism principles) cabin congressional authority and keep it appropriately bound. The argument assumes that because federal authority is limited and defined, something in the Constitution must limit and define it. For opponents, the Tenth Amendment is one limit.

But this argument confuses the concept of limited government (as in defined or enumerated government) with a concept of limited government (as in small government). The Constitution creates a government of defined and enumerated powers; but nothing in the document says that those defined and enumerated powers must be small. In fact, as we have seen, they might be quite large. The Tenth Amendment says nothing about this. Moreover, this argument merely harkens back to the Court's categorical approach to the Tenth Amendment in the early nineteenth century "“ an approach soundly rejected in 1941, and rejected again just last year in Comstock. This argument is nothing more than an effort to rewrite the Tenth Amendment in a libertarian image "“ an image that has no support in the text, history, or jurisprudence of the Amendment.

Next, opponents have argued that the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from commandeering states and their citizens. The argument draws on the anti-commandeering principle in the Court's current Tenth Amendment jurisprudence.

But this argument misses the mark. Nothing in the ACA commandeers state governments or their employees; at most, the Act creates incentives to encourage states to take certain actions. Moreover, nothing in the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from "commandeering" citizens. It does it all the time, perhaps most clearly in the requirement for selective service registration. The government may rely on a different authority (a non-Commerce Clause authority) for selective service registration, but that does not matter. If the Tenth Amendment prohibits commandeering citizens, it would prohibit commandeering under any authority. This argument, too, is nothing more than a bold attempt to rewrite the Tenth Amendment.

Finally, opponents have argued that the Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from interfering with states' rights to protect their own citizens from the individual mandate. This argument arises out of those state laws enacted in the wake of the ACA that prohibit any requirement that state citizens purchase health insurance. These state laws are nothing more than transparent attempts to manufacture state standing to challenge the ACA and to make political statements against the individual mandate.

But the arguments are wrong. As we have seen, the Tenth Amendment does not protect states' rights. Opponents' arguments to the contrary merely take us back to National League of Cities and even earlier "“ to the Articles of Confederation, when "states' rights" meant something. They are, again, a bald-faced attempt to reshape the very meaning of the Tenth Amendment.

 

[Listening]

Just got notified of yet another 10th amendment group that is coalescing Tea Party and other activists to push for state soveriegnty in the areas it was intended states be left alone.

Nothing is ever settled.

 

[PMZ]

Just got notified of yet another 10th amendment group that is coalescing Tea Party and other activists to push for state soveriegnty in the areas it was intended states be left alone.

Nothing is ever settled.

The 10th is quite settled and has been from the founders agreement to the words through history until today.

You just have accepted the propaganda that a different interpretation would be self serving to the leaders that have recruited you.

The Constitution doesn't care about your apocalyptic movement. It is what it is and says what it says. That will only change at the pleasure of a super majority of we, the people. And that's not going to happen.

 

[Listening]

Just got notified of yet another 10th amendment group that is coalescing Tea Party and other activists to push for state soveriegnty in the areas it was intended states be left alone.

Nothing is ever settled.

The 10th is quite settled and has been from the founders agreement to the words through history until today.

You just have accepted the propaganda that a different interpretation would be self serving to the leaders that have recruited you.

The Constitution doesn't care about your apocalyptic movement. It is what it is and says what it says. That will only change at the pleasure of a super majority of we, the people. And that's not going to happen.

No argument here to consider. Just more preaching.

As explained, the 10th is clearly still in play and is being pushed all the time. Issues like Roe and Obamacare will always be redefined as states work their magic.

Apocalytpic movement.

I expect there were such statements made when they went to rewrite the Articles of Confederation....and came up with our wonderful Constitution.

 

[PMZ]

Just got notified of yet another 10th amendment group that is coalescing Tea Party and other activists to push for state soveriegnty in the areas it was intended states be left alone.

Nothing is ever settled.

The 10th is quite settled and has been from the founders agreement to the words through history until today.

You just have accepted the propaganda that a different interpretation would be self serving to the leaders that have recruited you.

The Constitution doesn't care about your apocalyptic movement. It is what it is and says what it says. That will only change at the pleasure of a super majority of we, the people. And that's not going to happen.

No argument here to consider. Just more preaching.

As explained, the 10th is clearly still in play and is being pushed all the time. Issues like Roe and Obamacare will always be redefined as states work their magic.

Apocalytpic movement.

I expect there were such statements made when they went to rewrite the Articles of Confederation....and came up with our wonderful Constitution.

There have always been fringe political movements. They come, they have their 15 minutes of fame, then most people figure out that they are not what they claim, and they fade away. Even Communism went through that cycle here.

Conservatism and it's extreme, the tea party, are in the decline and you are merely one of the slower ones in accepting both sides of the conservative coin, and it's role as a temporary aberration in American politics.

You may be stuck where you are for the rest of your life. We aren't.

 

[Listening]

The 10th is quite settled and has been from the founders agreement to the words through history until today.

You just have accepted the propaganda that a different interpretation would be self serving to the leaders that have recruited you.

The Constitution doesn't care about your apocalyptic movement. It is what it is and says what it says. That will only change at the pleasure of a super majority of we, the people. And that's not going to happen.

No argument here to consider. Just more preaching.

As explained, the 10th is clearly still in play and is being pushed all the time. Issues like Roe and Obamacare will always be redefined as states work their magic.

Apocalytpic movement.

I expect there were such statements made when they went to rewrite the Articles of Confederation....and came up with our wonderful Constitution.

There have always been fringe political movements. They come, they have their 15 minutes of fame, then most people figure out that they are not what they claim, and they fade away. Even Communism went through that cycle here.

Conservatism and it's extreme, the tea party, are in the decline and you are merely one of the slower ones in accepting both sides of the conservative coin, and it's role as a temporary aberration in American politics.

You may be stuck where you are for the rest of your life. We aren't.

I know you meant to include links to support your claims. Somehow they didn't make it.

Link: Conservatism is on the decline

Link: Conservatism temporary aberration to American politics.

Please try again.

A debate isn't a debate without an argument, you know.

 

[PMZ]

Clear is good. And I completely agree, my problems with your cause is not any label, but that it's anti American. Not what got us here. Outside of the mainstream interpretation of our Constitution.

I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.

When you get away from your handbook of labels and get a breath of fresh air I hope you won't be to embarrassed by the silliness of these posts.

Never heard of the Free State Project. Mainstream does not have to apply to all 320,000,000 of us. Only enough that control a small local segment. You can see it in neighborhoods where I live.

What is unAmerican about you is that you constantly seek to homogonize society when the country was designed to allow maximum latitude.

You know nothing about how the country was designed except for media propaganda.

You are a sucker, and that's a minority condition.

 

[PMZ]

No argument here to consider. Just more preaching.

As explained, the 10th is clearly still in play and is being pushed all the time. Issues like Roe and Obamacare will always be redefined as states work their magic.

Apocalytpic movement.

I expect there were such statements made when they went to rewrite the Articles of Confederation....and came up with our wonderful Constitution.

There have always been fringe political movements. They come, they have their 15 minutes of fame, then most people figure out that they are not what they claim, and they fade away. Even Communism went through that cycle here.

Conservatism and it's extreme, the tea party, are in the decline and you are merely one of the slower ones in accepting both sides of the conservative coin, and it's role as a temporary aberration in American politics.

You may be stuck where you are for the rest of your life. We aren't.

I know you meant to include links to support your claims. Somehow they didn't make it.

Link: Conservatism is on the decline

Link: Conservatism temporary aberration to American politics.

Please try again.

A debate isn't a debate without an argument, you know.

I think that those statements are self evident to those whose input is news rather than opinion.

So, I'm fine considering the my opinion which puts them equal to your posts.

 

[whitehall]

If you think the GOP "has power at the federal level" with a hostile president, hostile majority in the senate and a crooked Attorney General you have been reading too many Huffington blogs.

 

[PMZ]

How do you run against a woman candidate?

It's a question I've been asked since 1984, when I worked for Geraldine Ferraro.

In those days, it wasn't uncommon to see men who were running against women making subtle (and not so subtle) appeals to toughness, using national security and crime issues as a way to raise questions about whether their female opponents had what it takes.

Maybe that's why my favorite ad from 2008 was Hillary Clinton's red phone ad. Twenty years ago, that was precisely the kind of ad you'd run against a woman. In the 21st century, it was a very strong and tough woman who ran the ad. Times have changed — at least on the Democratic side.

Not so, it appears, for Republicans, who are getting special "training" so as to be "sensitive" when running against women or seeking their votes.

House Speaker John Boehner, responding to reports that the Republican Party is now giving "sensitivity training" to male candidates, explained this week that Republican men in Congress "aren't as sensitive as they ought to be" when running against women.

"We're trying to get them to be a little more sensitive," Boehner told reporters. "You look around the Congress, there are a lot more females in the Democratic caucus than there are in the Republican caucus. And some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be."

This is how not to run against women, and how not to win the votes of women. Do what Boehner is doing. Insult them by suggesting that it isn't policy that matters, but sensitivity.

This is why the Republican Party runs the risk of becoming a party of angry white males at a time when there aren't enough angry white males to win a majority.

The way to run against women is the same way that you run against men: by focusing on qualifications, experience and policy.


What got Republicans into trouble in the 2012 elections was not insensitivity, but stupidity. The two most notorious examples were Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, done in by comments about "legitimate rape," and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who said that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen." Akin lost to a woman; Mourdock, to a man. In both cases, their problems went far beyond sensitivity.

The same is true in addressing women voters. The fact that women are somewhat more likely to support Democrats than Republicans has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with policy. The gender gap is grounded in issues: the economy (where women tend to earn less), education (where women tend to care more and are more likely to be the primary or sole parent) and health care (ditto). Sure, there are many women who are pro-gun and anti-choice, but there are even more who support reasonable restrictions on gun sales and who believe that they — not the government — should decide whether and when to have children.

"A little bit more sensitive"? Americans, men and women, are disgusted with Boehner's Congress for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with his failure, and that of his members, to act like grownups, to put people's needs ahead of partisan gamesmanship, to address problems rather than just rant and rave. Shutting down the government in protest over Obamacare — after we had an election in which Obamacare was front and center and the Republicans lost — isn't an issue for sensitivity training. You don't win votes by patronizing voters, and you don't run against women candidates by focusing on their gender rather than their positions.

How dumb does Boehner think women are?

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
Susan Estrich

 

[Listening]

I don't see how it's possible for anyone to believe that libertarianism or certainly anarchy has ever been mainstream or even ever put into practice here.

When you get away from your handbook of labels and get a breath of fresh air I hope you won't be to embarrassed by the silliness of these posts.

Never heard of the Free State Project. Mainstream does not have to apply to all 320,000,000 of us. Only enough that control a small local segment. You can see it in neighborhoods where I live.

What is unAmerican about you is that you constantly seek to homogonize society when the country was designed to allow maximum latitude.

You know nothing about how the country was designed except for media propaganda.

You are a sucker, and that's a minority condition.

My mistake.

That fact that the Federalists papers were penned, in part, by James Madison (including 45 which was part of 44, 45, and 46...all of which support my contention) has no bearing on anything (for you...if you want to think of them as propaganda....I guess you'll just have to be at odds with Thomas Jefferson who I quoted earlier on the subject).

Or was Federalist 45 written by Fox News ?

That the 10th amendment says clearly what it means and because (in spite of the blathering of Jone's article which is bullshyt) there is plenty of historical evidence to support my claims (including FDR's court packing scheme)...and because you've provided nothing contrary except your own opinions....

I am afraid I'll just have to trust to my own judgement as to who knows more about how the country was designed.

When you want to debate, let me know.

 

[Intense]

How do you run against a woman candidate?

It's a question I've been asked since 1984, when I worked for Geraldine Ferraro.

In those days, it wasn't uncommon to see men who were running against women making subtle (and not so subtle) appeals to toughness, using national security and crime issues as a way to raise questions about whether their female opponents had what it takes.

Maybe that's why my favorite ad from 2008 was Hillary Clinton's red phone ad. Twenty years ago, that was precisely the kind of ad you'd run against a woman. In the 21st century, it was a very strong and tough woman who ran the ad. Times have changed — at least on the Democratic side.

Not so, it appears, for Republicans, who are getting special "training" so as to be "sensitive" when running against women or seeking their votes.

House Speaker John Boehner, responding to reports that the Republican Party is now giving "sensitivity training" to male candidates, explained this week that Republican men in Congress "aren't as sensitive as they ought to be" when running against women.

"We're trying to get them to be a little more sensitive," Boehner told reporters. "You look around the Congress, there are a lot more females in the Democratic caucus than there are in the Republican caucus. And some of our members just aren't as sensitive as they ought to be."

This is how not to run against women, and how not to win the votes of women. Do what Boehner is doing. Insult them by suggesting that it isn't policy that matters, but sensitivity.

This is why the Republican Party runs the risk of becoming a party of angry white males at a time when there aren't enough angry white males to win a majority.

The way to run against women is the same way that you run against men: by focusing on qualifications, experience and policy.


What got Republicans into trouble in the 2012 elections was not insensitivity, but stupidity. The two most notorious examples were Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, done in by comments about "legitimate rape," and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who said that "even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, it is something that God intended to happen." Akin lost to a woman; Mourdock, to a man. In both cases, their problems went far beyond sensitivity.

The same is true in addressing women voters. The fact that women are somewhat more likely to support Democrats than Republicans has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with policy. The gender gap is grounded in issues: the economy (where women tend to earn less), education (where women tend to care more and are more likely to be the primary or sole parent) and health care (ditto). Sure, there are many women who are pro-gun and anti-choice, but there are even more who support reasonable restrictions on gun sales and who believe that they — not the government — should decide whether and when to have children.

"A little bit more sensitive"? Americans, men and women, are disgusted with Boehner's Congress for reasons having absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity and everything to do with his failure, and that of his members, to act like grownups, to put people's needs ahead of partisan gamesmanship, to address problems rather than just rant and rave. Shutting down the government in protest over Obamacare — after we had an election in which Obamacare was front and center and the Republicans lost — isn't an issue for sensitivity training. You don't win votes by patronizing voters, and you don't run against women candidates by focusing on their gender rather than their positions.

How dumb does Boehner think women are?

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at Creators.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM
Susan Estrich

How do you run against a woman candidate?

Got to give credit to Hillary... That Late Nite Phone Call to the White House Add was great. The way she handled Lazio in the Fatal Debate changed the tide, it raised the Ocean Levels. If she only had Ethics....

How do you run against a woman candidate?

Wevy carefully.