No country has voted to repeal its social safety net. Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and Andrea Merkel of Germany are considered to be the most conservative heads of state among our allies.

Neither has expressed any interest or even campaigned on the premise of eliminating the national health care systems in those countries.

There is certainly healthy debate in Germany about how to best pay for their national health care. But the fact is that in Europe, to be conservative is to debate the best way to fund universal care, not get rid of universal care.

And since when is passing something through Congress, considered to be doing it "under the table"?

I do use a lot of links in the things I write. Some people make fun of that. I do it to demonstrate that regardless of what you think about my opinions, I do not make things up. Review the facts for yourselves and disagree with my opinions if the mood suits you. But I will do my best to make sure that the facts that led me to that opinion are readily available.

As I said, I am a pretty intense politics geek and I am aware of no nation that has voted to "change back from socialism", assuming such a fundamental cultural change could be accomplished in a single election.

Even so, it begs the question as to why it is that if it were possible that supporting a candidate or party in a single election indicates a commitment to reverse generations of public policy, then why does not Obama's victory mean the same thing in the United States?

Abortion and school prayer were addressed in a manner prescribed by the US Constitution and has been practiced since the 1803 Supreme Court Case Marbury vs Madison. If following the constitution is "under the table", so be it.

it is the same "under the table" technique used to strike down the laws in Virginia in 1967 that made interracial marriage a felony.

If you have any links citing the three nations you reference, I would love to see them.

Everything I see about the elections in Europe says that the conservative socialists have defeated the leftist socialists.

I would like you to show me the vote count on abortion or removing prayer from schools... THen account for how it can work as a law of the land and yet come from The court in direct opposition to Article I which says " ALL legislative powers herin granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, Which shal consist of a SEnate and a House of Representatives">>>I don't see the court mentioned here.... that my friend is under the table... they could not get a majority vote so it went to the court. Just as the idea a CZAR can pas a regulation for Cap and Trade when it can't pass in the congress.... UNDER THE TABLE IS WHAT IT IS CALLED.. and with the threat of attaching the Health Care bill to an unrelated bill it is still UNDER THE TABLE.... BECAUSE IT FAILED TO GET A MAJORITY VOTE.... CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT( I KNOW YOU WILL HAVE SOME TERM ) BUT IT IS PURE AND SIMPLE A TRICK TO BY PASS THE MAJORITY RULE.... MAJORITY, YOU KNOW LIKE THE ONE YOU CLAIM FOR YOUR VICTORY IN NOVEMBER 2008. BUT SINCE WE COULDN'T GET A MAJORITY MAYBE WE SHOULD GET THE 53% WHO NOW OPPOSE THE AGENDA OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO TAKE IT TO COURT.... THATS WHERE THE REAL ACTION IS....BUT NOT VERY much like the "CONGRESSIONAL approval" you cite for the CZARS but in fact not one CZAR got approval for the POSITION of CZAR

Greece just ousted its conservative leader for a socialist.

Doesn't mean I want to be one, but I'm just responding to your point.

By the way, don't forget that there was a point in this country when the majority thought that slavery was good, womens rights were bad, and African Americans shouldn't play pro baseball.

So I guesss you are saying the days in which we were a respected world power because we stood for the values of our founding fatehers should be thrown out because they are old?????? Ever hear of growing pains??? we as a nation made the corections need in the 1960s SO WHATS SO BAD NOW///??? except SOME want the government to take care of them so they have no worries.. such as those in Detroit who beieve Obama gives them money form HIS account THEY have no clue where the money comes from// WE ARE IN FACT HEADED FOR A NANNY STATE AND YOU WANT IT ALL...... SO YOU WILL GET YOUR WAY...THE DEMOCRATS ARE NOT GOING TO STOP UNTIL THEY GET IT... AND WE WILL LOSE EVERYTHING THIS NATION WAS FOUNDED ON....WE WILL BECOME COPIES OF THE COUNTRIES THAT WE HAD HELPPED OVER THE PAST DECADES.... HELPPED WITH OUR BLOOD AND TAX DOLLARS SO THEY COULD BE ALLOWED TO CHOSE THEIR FUTURE..... NOW WE COPY THEM????

oh BUT i AM SORRY but I don't believe you can come up with any evidence that EVERYONE approved of slavery or dening womens rights or keeping blacks from playing baseball. After all it was whitemen who passed the laws to free slaves... and white men got Jackie Robinson the chance to play pro baseball....So you might be a little off base....

I said "majority," but whatever. I want this country to be a respected world power too, but a whole lot of war, torture, and detention in the last 8 years keeps us from being that.

I'm still waiting for a link to those 3 countries that voted to "turn back to capitalism".

Nothing is being done under the table. Courts have the authority to strike down legislation under the power known as judicial review. That power was established in 1803 in the case of Marbury vs Madison.

Many of the founders were still alive and kicking at that time. If judicial review was contrary to their intent of how our republic should function, they had ample opportunity to correct the problem.

It does not matter if the legislature or the Congress passes a bill unanimously to make it a crime to practice Buddhism. No matter how popular a law is, the courts have the authority to strike down laws that violate the constitution.

Your comments reinforce an opinion of mine as to who really believes in the constitution and who does not. The right pays lip service to the constitution. But when it produces a result they dislike, it is "judicial activism" or doing things "under the table".

As I said, the power of judicial review was established in 1803 by Marbury vs Madiosn. Did the founders amend the constitution to prohibit the court from exercising the ability to strike down lawfully passed legislation? No they did not. It is now what is called "settled law", no different than the presumption of innocence which not written in the constitution, but is a finding of case law based on the constitutional right to a jury trial.

I believe in the constitution. My belief is strong enough so that I do not denigrate the process on those occasions where following the constitution produces a result I disagre with.

I guess you believe Bush brought 9/11 on us so he could use his military might??? I guess you believe that if we just stay to ourselves the world will leave us alone and all will be at peace.. and if anyone does get up in arms after us we should just give in in order to keeP the peace... why should we ever need the military when there are nations like north korea and iran and cuba out there????We should just be understanding and talk... much the way you deal with the school ground bully.... THE FACTS ARE THAT THERE WILL ALWAYS BE THE CHANCE FOR CONFLICT AND ONLY THOSE WHO ARE READY WILL SURVIVE, BUT THEN IF WE ARE GOING TO BE SLAVES TO A GOVERNNMENT, WHO CARES WHICH GOVERNMMENT IT IS??? I KNOW IT JUST A BUNCH OF SCARE TATICS AND WOULD NEVER REALLY HAPPEN.. JUST AS WHEN WILSON WAS PRESIDENT.. YOU KNOW JUST PRIOR TO WWI