What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Foxfyre]

Flag burning does not affect anybody other than emotionally or aesthetically and, while it can be socially condemned, does not belong in the constitution.

A responsible and ethical use of the people's treasury however goes to the very heart of personal freedom and unalienable rights and that is why a balanced budget amendment DOES belong in the Constitution along with restraints on the government's ability to confiscate property from the people purely to have a bigger budget to spend.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If I may, the answer depends on which government. In 1906 San Francisco had a massive earthquake followed by a fire. The US government was able to muster every tent in their arsenal and get them to The City within days. The Bush Administration never did get those trailers on line after Katrina.

Somethings require a massive influx of men, material and money. The few Americans who control massive amounts of money aren't going to part with it out of the goodness of their hearts. At times it will require the resources of the Federal Government.

The huge bureaucracy which is the Federal Government developed over the years to fix problems not fixable by the private sector. I want my meat and produce inspected by a bureaucrat, not an employee of those who profit in meat and produce sales.

I want my water supply maintained and inspected by those who are not paid by those who profit from its sale.

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts. When the clowns and fools running for the Republican Nomination learn that leadership is not placing blame on others, saying over and over "ain't it awful' and making promises in the wind, maybe there will be something to debate.

As for now there is nothing in the words of Libertarians or conservatives or Republicans but an ideological argument based on assumptions not proved or proven as failures.

If it depends on which government then it is pretty obvious that the government is not the best at responding, doesn't? The most interesting part of your post was that you chose to portray the way the government handled the 1906 response to the San Francisco earthquake as an example of the good that government can do. Apparently you think that a general instituting a dictatorship in a disaster area, without authority from his superiors, ignoring the constitution, and summarily executing hundreds of people, is a good thing.

I happen to disagree.

The Great Quake: 1906-2006 / As with Katrina, federal role caused discord - SFGate

As for the huge bureaucracy fixing problems not fixable by the private sector, can I point out that WalMart was able to get food and supplies to the affected area faster than the feds? It seems that, because their supply chain is extremely flexible, and they effectively have no bureaucracy, they can do a better job in responding to disasters than the agencies that are supposed to do the job because the private sector can't possibly respond.

Wal-Mart Way in Disaster Preparedness/Response: Policy Implications

Since my challenge to Nic, which you accepted, was specifically about proving the federal government is the best way to take care of people, and the two examples you provided are so completely wrong, I see no reason to even address the stawman arguments you threw up in an attempt to obfuscate the fact that you have no hope of proving your side of the challenge. I will also point out that, despite the fact that you assumed all I could provide were ideological arguments that have already been debunked, what I actually provided were facts and analysis to prove that my points are based on reality.

Fell free to continue to make my point for me though, it saves me actually having to do anything myself.

You wouldn't know a straw man if it tickled you on the tummy, so don't use terms you don't understand.

"In the straw man fallacy, the arguer sets up a weak version of the opponent's position and tries to score points by knocking it down."

That said I, as usual offered an opinion without lying. You on the other hand offer this, "Apparently you think that a general instituting a dictatorship in a disaster area, without authority from his superiors, ignoring the constitution, and summarily executing hundreds of people, is a good thing."

Some lotters were shot on sight, hundreds of people executed is utter bull shit.

As aftershocks jarred and fires spread on the morning of April 18, 1906, an increasingly unnerved population started to panic. Hundreds massed at the Ferry Building in an attempt to escape the city. The tense disarray and lack of order stirred the growing crowds. In anticipation of the looting, violence, and disorder that would come, Brigadier General Frederick Funston, acting commander of the of the Pacific Division, immediately ordered Presidio troops into San Francisco. With this military presence came a bold proclamation from Mayor Eugene Schmitz:

"The Federal Troops, the members of the Regular Police Force and all Special Police Officers have been authorized by me to KILL any and all persons found engaged in Looting or in the Commission of Any Other Crime."

Schmitz's infamous edict authorized the U.S. Army to maintain order in the streets; however, the Mayor was not authorized to permit the shooting of civilians. Nevertheless, army troops worked amidst the chaos to maintain law and order, close saloons, and evacuate residents. By the second day, Army and Navy forces were joined by the police and the California National Guard—as well as bands of armed civilians—in an effort to quell violence in the city. The presence of military within the city both enforced and undermined the city government's authority. Neither Mayor Schmitz nor General Funston advocated martial law, but without an organized center of control, the various groups issued and followed contrasting orders.

Presidio of San Francisco - 1906 Earthquake: Law Enforcement (U.S. National Park Service)

I am not the one who is using words I do not understand. I asked for evidence, you responded to the challenge with what you thought was evidence, and I used those examples to prove my point.

As for you not using strawman, let us examine what you said.

I want my water supply maintained and inspected by those who are not paid by those who profit from its sale.

The entire anti-government, anti-regulation, anti-this and anti-that crowd is nuts. When the clowns and fools running for the Republican Nomination learn that leadership is not placing blame on others, saying over and over "ain't it awful' and making promises in the wind, maybe there will be something to debate.

I call bullshit, that is either a strawman, or everything I ever learned in logic is a lie. You misrepresented my position, which is that the government is not the best way to help people in need, and proceeded to refute that position. You won that argument by burning a strawman and kicking it around the thread. Now you are trying to argue that you did not use a strawman because, instead of offering facts, you offered opinions, and thus did not lie.

That is another logical fallacy, since I did not accuse you of lying.

By the way, thanks for finding another article that points out how the federal response to the 1906 earthquake was a total fuckup, despite the fact that you tried to point to it as an example of how the government gets things right.

 

[The T]

Flag burning does not affect anybody other than emotionally or aesthetically and, while it can be socially condemned, does not belong in the constitution.

A responsible and ethical use of the people's treasury however goes to the very heart of personal freedom and unalienable rights and that is why a balanced budget amendment DOES belong in the Constitution along with restraints on the government's ability to confiscate property from the people purely to have a bigger budget to spend.

It is a form of speech that is morally repugnant...but speech none the less...

*I* wouldn't recommend it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. Do you want a 'king' or 'central authoritarian government' to rule society?
2. Or do you want your rights secured and govern yourself?

And therein is the core difference between liberalism and conservatism in America today.

Conservatives say that, then undermine it by deciding that when government is controlling what we put in our bodies, who we have sex with, if we decide to gamble with our money, whether a woman can have an abortion it's something they want. When government uses the military to be policeman to the world and make everyone's enemies our own it's good. And finally they decide that those things are more important to them then the economic freedom that you refer to. In the end, conservatives don't do much for freedom, do they?

In the end, you are not talking about conservatives, you are talking about Republicans who pander to conservatives. I can point out plenty of conservatives who are just as vocal about Republicans not sticking to their promises as I can liberals who get upset about Democrats breaking theirs. If you were not posting like a partisan hack you would know this without someone actually having to explain it to you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Flag burning does not affect anybody other than emotionally or aesthetically and, while it can be socially condemned, does not belong in the constitution.

A responsible and ethical use of the people's treasury however goes to the very heart of personal freedom and unalienable rights and that is why a balanced budget amendment DOES belong in the Constitution along with restraints on the government's ability to confiscate property from the people purely to have a bigger budget to spend.

It is a form of speech that is morally repugnant...but speech none the less...

*I* wouldn't recommend it.

You're speaking of the flag burning part I presume. I agree because somebody burning a flag will offend me highly, but takes away none of my rights or liberties. I would, however, retain the right to refuse to hire or associate with somebody who burned a flag as a political or social statement. I don't want to be around people like that. But if anybody can convince me I'm wrong about that, I will listen.

But would you object to a constitutional amendment that would restrict how much the federal government has to spend and requires them to balance the people's budget? I think a conservative would support that. I think a liberal would not.

 

[The T]

Flag burning does not affect anybody other than emotionally or aesthetically and, while it can be socially condemned, does not belong in the constitution.

A responsible and ethical use of the people's treasury however goes to the very heart of personal freedom and unalienable rights and that is why a balanced budget amendment DOES belong in the Constitution along with restraints on the government's ability to confiscate property from the people purely to have a bigger budget to spend.

It is a form of speech that is morally repugnant...but speech none the less...

*I* wouldn't recommend it.

You're speaking of the flag burning part I presume. I agree because somebody burning a flag will offend me highly, but takes away none of my rights or liberties. I would, however, retain the right to refuse to hire or associate with somebody who burned a flag as a political or social statement. I don't want to be around people like that. But if anybody can convince me I'm wrong about that, I will listen.

But would you object to a constitutional amendment that would restrict how much the federal government has to spend and requires them to balance the people's budget? I think a conservative would support that. I think a liberal would not.

Yes, and NO.

Brevity and all of that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservatives say that, then undermine it by deciding that when government is controlling what we put in our bodies, who we have sex with, if we decide to gamble with our money, whether a woman can have an abortion it's something they want. When government uses the military to be policeman to the world and make everyone's enemies our own it's good. And finally they decide that those things are more important to them then the economic freedom that you refer to. In the end, conservatives don't do much for freedom, do they?

It is important to distinguish between conservatism and liberalism, i.e. WHO makes the choices for society, and what choices are made.

For example, both liberals and conservatives may decide that they do not want a bar or adult bookstore or strip club across the street from or next door to the elementary school or, at times, at any other place in the community. That is a reasonable choice for reasonable people of whatever ideology. So the local community, via referendum, vote, or whatever means, establishes a social contract based on the majority sense of morality or values re a policy that no bars, adult bookstores, or strip clubs be located near schools. That is a conservative concept of a social contract.

The conservative looks to the people to establish that social contract and the people order the government to enforce it. The people can indeed be on personal moral convictions oppose abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc. If the majority want a community free of those things, the people can vote to ban them and remain entirely conservative. Or the community can decide that such is not a detriment to the community and elect to allow them. Either is a conservative position IF it is the PEOPLE who decide and not an authoritarian government. The Founders knew that if the PEOPLE do not have freedom to order the society they want, then we revert to a monarchal/dictatorship/totalitarian form of government. Further a conservative social policy does not prevent a person from choosing to seek elsewhere what is banned in his/her own community.

The liberal will look to the government to establish the rule whether or not a majority of the people support the policy and sometimes to demand that the rule be applied to all everywhere. That is not social contract but deference to an authoritarian government to order society.

It is not how people define themselves but their attitude about liberty and social contract that determines whether they are liberal or conservative in modern America.

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Just like those who claim to support civil liberties yet vote for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs aren't really liberals.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on all of this insofar as you're saying the government shouldn't take these actions, but I have a problem with the debating tactic of declaring something unconstitutional when it's really not.

The problem with the ‘tactic’ is it’s factually wrong. Laws enacted by Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise:

It is but a decent respect to the wisdom, integrity, and patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity, until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ogden v. Saunders (1827)

And reaffirmed by the Court:

Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577—578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress’ power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution.

United States v. Morrison (2000)

Does that mean that if Congress passed a law saying that due process only applied to rich Asians you would say it is Constitutional? Or does it actually mean you want to obfuscate the issue by throwing around things you do not really understand in an attempt to look intelligent?

I realize this sounds backhanded, but I honestly don't mean it that way. At least since you don't support Constitutional limits on things you support, you're trying to be even handed with things you don't. But the better answer is that if you want it and it's not in the Constitution, change the Constitution via the way it was written to be changed, which is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9 or a vote of 535 people.

The Constitution should be amended as little as possible, and amendments should either address non-partisan issues of procedure – such as the 22nd Amendment – or ensure fundamental rights of Americans - such as the 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments.

Cluttering the Constitution with inane, partisan amendments addressing such petty issues as flag burning or balanced budgets, will only cheapen the Founding Document and render it worthless. The constitutionality of such political issues must be addressed by the courts alone per the doctrines of judicial review and the rule of law.

[/quote]

Does that mean you oppose the current attempt to over rule the Citizen's United decision by amending the constitution?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is important to distinguish between conservatism and liberalism, i.e. WHO makes the choices for society, and what choices are made.

For example, both liberals and conservatives may decide that they do not want a bar or adult bookstore or strip club across the street from or next door to the elementary school or, at times, at any other place in the community. That is a reasonable choice for reasonable people of whatever ideology. So the local community, via referendum, vote, or whatever means, establishes a social contract based on the majority sense of morality or values re a policy that no bars, adult bookstores, or strip clubs be located near schools. That is a conservative concept of a social contract.

The conservative looks to the people to establish that social contract and the people order the government to enforce it. The people can indeed be on personal moral convictions oppose abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc. If the majority want a community free of those things, the people can vote to ban them and remain entirely conservative. Or the community can decide that such is not a detriment to the community and elect to allow them. Either is a conservative position IF it is the PEOPLE who decide and not an authoritarian government. The Founders knew that if the PEOPLE do not have freedom to order the society they want, then we revert to a monarchal/dictatorship/totalitarian form of government. Further a conservative social policy does not prevent a person from choosing to seek elsewhere what is banned in his/her own community.

The liberal will look to the government to establish the rule whether or not a majority of the people support the policy and sometimes to demand that the rule be applied to all everywhere. That is not social contract but deference to an authoritarian government to order society.

It is not how people define themselves but their attitude about liberty and social contract that determines whether they are liberal or conservative in modern America.

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Just like those who claim to support civil liberties yet vote for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs aren't really liberals.

They can be if they want government to control that part of the system and defer to the 'king' in such matters as never wrong. Just as conservatives can and many do object to the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs as indefensible restrictions on civil liberties. Others support both as necessary actions to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The debate rages on.

No true conservative would object to the local community or state employing legal means to establish marriage-like unions between same sex couples. The same conservative might feel just as strongly that the social contract must defend traditional marriage to strengthen that institution as the bedrock of stable communities and the best situation for children. A true conservative would support a social contract providing protections and rights for same sex persons and others who need such protections and rights but wanting the social contract to define that differently from traditional marriage. In other words you can quite logically defend DOMA while supporting civil partnerships for everybody else.

A conservative DOMA does not prevent civil unions. It was to give the people the right to define marriage as they choose for whatever reasons and hopes for those reasons to be the right ones.

 

[The T]

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Just like those who claim to support civil liberties yet vote for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs aren't really liberals.

They can be if they want government to control that part of the system and defer to the 'king' in such matters as never wrong. Just as conservatives can and many do object to the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs as indefensible restrictions on civil liberties. Others support both as necessary actions to protect our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The debate rages on.

No true conservative would object to the local community or state employing legal means to establish marriage-like unions between same sex couples. The same conservative might feel just as strongly that the social contract must defend traditional marriage to strengthen that institution as the bedrock of stable communities and the best situation for children. A true conservative would support a social contract providing protections and rights for same sex persons and others who need such protections and rights but wanting the social contract to define that differently from traditional marriage. In other words you can quite logically defend DOMA while supporting civil partnerships for everybody else.

A conservative DOMA does not prevent civil unions. It was to give the people the right to define marriage as they choose for whatever reasons and hopes for those reasons to be the right ones.

Individualism as Guaranteed by the Constitution...not so much anymore but the rights of other individuals to foist thier liberty over mine seems to be all the rage...

[Just an obnservation mind you]

 

[Dragon]

I'm going to go with the most flagrantly obvious one. Um...the war on drugs... Clearly Unconstitutional and a massive violation of our privacy. Look at the entire way it's fought and there is zero constitutional authority for what is done in the name of a war that doesn't even work.

As much as I DETEST the war on drugs, the constitutional authority for it is clear in the authorization of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. That includes banning commerce in certain products. It's miserably stupid, counterproductive, fails any reasonable cost-benefit analysis, and should be abandoned the day before yesterday, but it's not unconstitutional.

But you ignored the major part of my argument that the Federal government only has power to defend the United States and clearly war after war were not doing that.

That's just not the case. What are you referring to here, the provision in Article I, Section 8, clause 1 that limits taxing/spending to providing for the common defense and general welfare, and makes no provision for spending for offense? But there's a separate authorization for Congress to create an army and navy, and no restrictions on how it's used by the executive except for that "declare war" thingy. There just isn't anything in the Constitution that forbids the waging of aggressive war by the United States. Maybe there should be, but there isn't.

At least since you don't support Constitutional limits on things you support, you're trying to be even handed with things you don't. But the better answer is that if you want it and it's not in the Constitution, change the Constitution via the way it was written to be changed, which is 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4, not 5/9 or a vote of 535 people.

Look, I keep saying this but apparently it's falling on deaf ears. I'm not talking about what the Constitution SHOULD be, I'm talking about what it IS. And it just plain ISN'T a document that sets up a limited government along libertarian lines. It sets up a hugely powerful central government. Why do you think it was so controversial at the time? Sure, it's a government of enumerated powers, but those powers (two of them in particular) are so broad that this almost doesn't matter. Just to cite one obvious example, look at the taxation clause of Article I:8.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

What limits does this place on taxation? Well, all taxes have to be for the common defense and/or general welfare of the U.S., but those are pretty vague phrases that can mean damned near anything. And all of those three specific types of taxes have to be uniform, e.g. the government can't impose a duty on goods coming into New York without imposing the same duty on goods coming into Los Angeles. Otherwise, there are no limits at all! As I noted elsewhere, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the government from imposing a 100% income tax on everybody. (Something in common sense, yes, but in the Constitution, no.)

Now add in the regulation of commerce clause, and -- to pose another extreme hypothetical -- the government could convert us to a full-on socialist economy. How? By levying taxes on corporations equal to their stock value and earmarking the revenues to purchase all of the companies so taxed (or just allowing the tax to be paid in stock rather than money). (The government can't just nationalize the companies without compensation because of the 5th Amendment, but this procedure would amount to the same thing.)

This is what I mean when I speak of the Founding Fathers as not being all liberals, all conservatives, or all libertarians (at that time liberal and libertarian were identical). A lot of this language I'm convinced came from Hamilton. He was definitely a strong-government advocate as we can see from the suggestions of his that didn't make it into the final document, like a lifetime presidency with an override-proof veto.

Anyway, the Constitution doesn't create a government of unlimited powers, but it does create one of very broad powers. To this date, the government has never come close to exerting the full breadth of authority that the document grants it, even though it has expanded quite a lot over the time of its existence. Really, if you want to complain about big government, certain of the Founding Fathers are the ones you should bitch at.

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is important to distinguish between conservatism and liberalism, i.e. WHO makes the choices for society, and what choices are made.

For example, both liberals and conservatives may decide that they do not want a bar or adult bookstore or strip club across the street from or next door to the elementary school or, at times, at any other place in the community. That is a reasonable choice for reasonable people of whatever ideology. So the local community, via referendum, vote, or whatever means, establishes a social contract based on the majority sense of morality or values re a policy that no bars, adult bookstores, or strip clubs be located near schools. That is a conservative concept of a social contract.

The conservative looks to the people to establish that social contract and the people order the government to enforce it. The people can indeed be on personal moral convictions oppose abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc. If the majority want a community free of those things, the people can vote to ban them and remain entirely conservative. Or the community can decide that such is not a detriment to the community and elect to allow them. Either is a conservative position IF it is the PEOPLE who decide and not an authoritarian government. The Founders knew that if the PEOPLE do not have freedom to order the society they want, then we revert to a monarchal/dictatorship/totalitarian form of government. Further a conservative social policy does not prevent a person from choosing to seek elsewhere what is banned in his/her own community.

The liberal will look to the government to establish the rule whether or not a majority of the people support the policy and sometimes to demand that the rule be applied to all everywhere. That is not social contract but deference to an authoritarian government to order society.

It is not how people define themselves but their attitude about liberty and social contract that determines whether they are liberal or conservative in modern America.

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other.

So support for the tyranny of the majority is a conservative value; with the corollary being those who support individual liberties enforced/protected by the government are liberals.

Got it. Thanks.

 

[The T]

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other.

So support for the tyranny of the majority is a conservative value; with the corollary being those who support individual liberties enforced/protected by the government are liberals.

Got it. Thanks.

Conservative support Tyranny? Really Gracie?

 

[Foxfyre]

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other.

So support for the tyranny of the majority is a conservative value; with the corollary being those who support individual liberties enforced/protected by the government are liberals.

Got it. Thanks.

Again, you aren't reading. The intent of the Constitution was to SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE---again for the reading dysfunctional--the U.S. Constitution SECURES THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE and then was intended to leave them alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

When the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE are SECURED, there can be no tyranny of the majority. But it is the majority who should then otherwise write and implement the social contract rather than a small few with special interests, prejudices, or motives.

If you want a brothel on Main Street\, you should have that. But if the majority of those who share Main Street with you do not want that, they should be able to zone their community to satisfy the wishes of the majority. Would you agree or disagree with that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

It is important to distinguish between conservatism and liberalism, i.e. WHO makes the choices for society, and what choices are made.

For example, both liberals and conservatives may decide that they do not want a bar or adult bookstore or strip club across the street from or next door to the elementary school or, at times, at any other place in the community. That is a reasonable choice for reasonable people of whatever ideology. So the local community, via referendum, vote, or whatever means, establishes a social contract based on the majority sense of morality or values re a policy that no bars, adult bookstores, or strip clubs be located near schools. That is a conservative concept of a social contract.

The conservative looks to the people to establish that social contract and the people order the government to enforce it. The people can indeed be on personal moral convictions oppose abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc. If the majority want a community free of those things, the people can vote to ban them and remain entirely conservative. Or the community can decide that such is not a detriment to the community and elect to allow them. Either is a conservative position IF it is the PEOPLE who decide and not an authoritarian government. The Founders knew that if the PEOPLE do not have freedom to order the society they want, then we revert to a monarchal/dictatorship/totalitarian form of government. Further a conservative social policy does not prevent a person from choosing to seek elsewhere what is banned in his/her own community.

The liberal will look to the government to establish the rule whether or not a majority of the people support the policy and sometimes to demand that the rule be applied to all everywhere. That is not social contract but deference to an authoritarian government to order society.

It is not how people define themselves but their attitude about liberty and social contract that determines whether they are liberal or conservative in modern America.

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Just like those who claim to support civil liberties yet vote for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs aren't really liberals.

If you're speaking of member of congress one must remember that most of them put ideological purity way behind the pragmatic decision always first in the mind of the elected official, "How will this (vote, action, etc.) effect ME!"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Cluttering the Constitution with inane, partisan amendments addressing such petty issues as flag burning or balanced budgets...

This says it all folks...
If you ever thought you had no reason to take CCJ seriously, here's your proof.

 

[The T]

It is important to distinguish between conservatism and liberalism, i.e. WHO makes the choices for society, and what choices are made.

For example, both liberals and conservatives may decide that they do not want a bar or adult bookstore or strip club across the street from or next door to the elementary school or, at times, at any other place in the community. That is a reasonable choice for reasonable people of whatever ideology. So the local community, via referendum, vote, or whatever means, establishes a social contract based on the majority sense of morality or values re a policy that no bars, adult bookstores, or strip clubs be located near schools. That is a conservative concept of a social contract.

The conservative looks to the people to establish that social contract and the people order the government to enforce it. The people can indeed be on personal moral convictions oppose abortion, gambling, prostitution, etc. If the majority want a community free of those things, the people can vote to ban them and remain entirely conservative. Or the community can decide that such is not a detriment to the community and elect to allow them. Either is a conservative position IF it is the PEOPLE who decide and not an authoritarian government. The Founders knew that if the PEOPLE do not have freedom to order the society they want, then we revert to a monarchal/dictatorship/totalitarian form of government. Further a conservative social policy does not prevent a person from choosing to seek elsewhere what is banned in his/her own community.

The liberal will look to the government to establish the rule whether or not a majority of the people support the policy and sometimes to demand that the rule be applied to all everywhere. That is not social contract but deference to an authoritarian government to order society.

It is not how people define themselves but their attitude about liberty and social contract that determines whether they are liberal or conservative in modern America.

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other. [/QUOTE]


What you describe was obliterated by Maubury v. Madison...early on.

To some/ Courts can DO what they will..and the other two branches can't say boo about it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Does that mean that if Congress passed a law saying that due process only applied to rich Asians you would say it is Constitutional? Or does it actually mean you want to obfuscate the issue by throwing around things you do not really understand in an attempt to look intelligent?

Nearly without exception, liberals will:
-Argue that laws they liike are not unconstitutional unit a court says so.
-Argue that laws they do not like are prima fascie unconstitutional and that any court that doesn't rule as such is either legislating from the bench, activist, filled with partisan hacks, or all of the above.

Double standard from the left? Say it ain't so.

 

[The T]

So, those, for example, who support DOMA and advocate denying the right to marry by gay/lesbian couples and claim to be conservatives aren't really conservatives though they claim to be?

Just like those who claim to support civil liberties yet vote for the PATRIOT Act and the War on Drugs aren't really liberals.

If you're speaking of member of congress one must remember that most of them put ideological purity way behind the pragmatic decision always first in the mind of the elected official, "How will this (vote, action, etc.) effect ME!"

In other words? YOU advocate PARTY over Country...

*JackAss*

 

[Wry Catcher]

Those who want the matter left to the people to decide, whichever way they decide, and the government then enforces the peoples' bidding, are conservative.

Those who want the government to dictate it whichever way it is dictated are thel liberals.

A constitutional amendment that would define the issue is absolutely the way to go to protect the individual liberties of the people and the right of the states to decide the matter as they choose. It would prevent the couirts from having the ability to make the choice one way or the other.

So support for the tyranny of the majority is a conservative value; with the corollary being those who support individual liberties enforced/protected by the government are liberals.

Got it. Thanks.

Again, you aren't reading. The intent of the Constitution was to SECURE THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE---again for the reading dysfunctional--the U.S. Constitution SECURES THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE and then was intended to leave them alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

When the RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE are SECURED, there can be no tyranny of the majority. But it is the majority who should then otherwise write and implement the social contract rather than a small few with special interests, prejudices, or motives.

If you want a brothel on Main Street\, you should have that. But if the majority of those who share Main Street with you do not want that, they should be able to zone their community to satisfy the wishes of the majority. Would you agree or disagree with that?

I fully agree with your point on the brothel; and on the post you made yesterday where I thanked you. I don't agree that there can be no tyranny of the majority, one need only look to see what happened in Germany last century.

On local matters, sure, I don't want a brothel or a fish monger opening shop next door; but I don't want the majority of citizens to decided that the autistic child next door is really a witch and needs to be tried for blasphemy. There needs to be a legitimate authority to interview and as we have seen (examples a plenty from the civil rights movement in the middle of the last century) local officials either don't have the balls to protect all citizens or are too weak to do so.

The idea that the law, and therefore our Constitution is not a living document is absurd. It's a fabrication of the right used to convince others of the righteousness of the New Right, and the Reactionary forces which have overtaken the Republican Party, IMHO.