I see Santorum as being more a national activist than a constitutional conservative. Some might even call him a statist when it comes to his ideas about what is right and wrong. Being more a national activist than a constitutional conservative means Santorum is willing to impose his one size fits all ideals upon the whole country through the national government regardless of what the Constitution says.  Here’s an example of Santorum’s very unconservative view of the Constitution:

Luntz: Should the states be able to say no to Washington?

Santorum: I’m a very strong supporter of the 10^th amendment […], but the idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong.

Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong.  As Abraham Lincoln said, states do not have the right to do wrong.  And so there are folks, here who said states can do this and I won’t get involved in that.

 I will get involved in that because the states, as a president I will get involved because the states don’t have a right to undermine the basic fundamental values that hold this country together.  America is an ideal. It’s not just a constitution, it is an ideal. It’s a set of morals and principles that were established in that declaration, and states don’t have the right, just like they didn’t have the right to do slavery.

I have to ask, am I the only one that wonders if Santorum has actually ever read the 10 amenmdment?

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.

Prior to the 13^th Amendment, the states did have a right to allow slavery to exist in their territory, and it is only that amendment that denied them that right. I wonder is Santorum trying to revise history too?  For him to suggest that there is some other shadowy list of natural principles or ideals that actually prevented states from allowing slavery, sets us all on a slippery slope where the Constitution’s meaning is based less on its historic textual meaning, and instead is more open to arbitrary interpretations and revisions inspite of and contrary to the text. If we disregard our written Constitution in favor of unwritten natural law, then the future of our rights will be even less certain, and establishing what is or isn’t our (natural) rights will be increasingly determined by (as in cases of establishing the terms of verbal contracts)  judges rather than the people.

I believe Santorum would be perfectly fine with activist federal judges who legislated from the bench so long as they were his judges and their judicial legislation advanced his opinions and rules. I’m sure there are a lot of folks (who call themselves Conservative and complain about activist judges and unconstitutional federal usurpations) today who would, just like Santorum, look the other way if these judges and federal intrusions only violated the constitution in ways that imposed their rules upon the nation, rather than those of their political rivals. I for one can’t stomach such hypocrisy.

This unprincipled hypocrisy is shortsighted and foolish because the pattern of demographic change over the last 40 years in this nation does not bode well for Santorum’s slice of America, and looking the other way when the federal government rides rough shot over the Constitution because his faction is in the saddle, will only work against his ideals later, when in the shifting demographics makes the prospect that his faction holding national power even less likely.