define conservatism

[rtwngAvngr]

We care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetalism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetalism, and let England have bimetalism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. -WJB

Yes. Making people work for continually devaluing scraps of nothing is better.

Of course we need money. The issue is the unrestrained and unchecked power of printing it at will, manipulating it's value, and the power differential of having access to the fresh supply before the inflationary effect of it's very existence takes hold.

 

[Mr.Conley]

Sorry rtwng, I'm more interested in what Bigmeat has to say. I don't want a debate; I deal with economics enough as it is. I'm just curious.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Sorry rtwng, I'm more interested in what Bigmeat has to say. I don't want a debate; I deal with economics enough as it is. I'm just curious.

In other words, "I know I'm a big globalist evil bastard, but I don't feel like talking about that right now"

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
True, but only as long as enough politicians (and voters) don’t say otherwise by amending the Constitution. And just because the Supreme Court issues a decision, there is no guarantee that the decision is morally or ethically right or that the nation won't be harmed by letting the decision stand.

Takes an awful lot to amend the constitution. It's happened only 27 times in more than 200 years....

Looking at the frequency of amendments, 27 in 227 years, 27 amendments is quite a lot. In the overall scheme of our history we have amended the Constitution once every 8 years (while on average presidents have had a term of only a little under 5.5 years). Amending the Constitution is not really such a rare event.

and other than prohibition (which was repealed) the Constitution was NEVER amended to restrict anyone's rights... only to expand them.

You could argue that the 13th Amendment restricted the rights of slave owners because it deprived them of their property without compensation.

As for the decisions of the high Court... there have been bad decisions... Dred Scott; Plessy, Bakke ... time passes, the Court changes as new Justices take the bench, then the issue gets revisited.

In my lifetime 12 justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans. And yet the GOP controlled Court has not overturned the Roe decision as the Republicans have said it would.

 

[Annie]

Looking at the frequency of amendments, 27 in 227 years, 27 amendments is quite a lot. In the overall scheme of our history we have amended the Constitution once every 8 years (while on average presidents have had a term of only a little under 5.5 years). Amending the Constitution is not really such a rare event.



You could argue that the 13th Amendment restricted the rights of slave owners because it deprived them of their property without compensation.



In my lifetime 12 justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans. And yet the GOP controlled Court has not overturned the Roe decision as the Republicans have said it would.

Ahhh, but look at when those amendments were passed. It wasn't in a vacuum. Several were passed within 10 years of each other. There are long periods of time, considering the age of the Constitution, without any amendments.

All depends on your ox.

 

[flaja]

If you are constitutionally driven, how can you reconcile? The problem wasn't in the 'writing' but in the reasoning.

The legal reasoning behind Roe does not matter, just as it did not matter with Dredd Scott. The problem was the moral reasoning in both cases. Any judge that is not grounded firmly in Judeo-Christian morality (from which our country and our legal system grew via Britain) is bound to make decisions that are detrimental to life, liberty and justice.

 

[jillian]

Looking at the frequency of amendments, 27 in 227 years, 27 amendments is quite a lot. In the overall scheme of our history we have amended the Constitution once every 8 years (while on average presidents have had a term of only a little under 5.5 years). Amending the Constitution is not really such a rare event.

Actually, the first ten were kind of a package deal, weren't they? So that wouldn't count. It's 17 times really.

You could argue that the 13th Amendment restricted the rights of slave owners because it deprived them of their property without compensation.

No. I couldn't argue that. We're talking about human beings who shouldn't have ever been considered "property". I stand by my statement that it was pro freedom. I think you're stretching it by arguing otherwise.

In my lifetime 12 justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans. And yet the GOP controlled Court has not overturned the Roe decision as the Republicans have said it would.

Right. Because those 12 didn't sit together and were balanced by other appointees. You also make an assumption that republican is synonomous with being anti-choice. That's a fairly recent development (and only since they decided that they needed to pander to the radical religious right). I would point out that Souter was Bush I's appointee, and he's voted with the dems as often as not. Sandra Day O'Connor, Reagan's appointee, was a moderate and never would have done away with Roe. So the initial assumption is not necessarily a correct one.

 

[no1tovote4]

Looking at the frequency of amendments, 27 in 227 years, 27 amendments is quite a lot. In the overall scheme of our history we have amended the Constitution once every 8 years (while on average presidents have had a term of only a little under 5.5 years). Amending the Constitution is not really such a rare event.



You could argue that the 13th Amendment restricted the rights of slave owners because it deprived them of their property without compensation.



In my lifetime 12 justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans. And yet the GOP controlled Court has not overturned the Roe decision as the Republicans have said it would.

10 of them were passed very quickly after the Constitution was Ratified, in fact just 4 years afterward in 1791. Seven years after that Amendment 11 was ratified in 1798. Five years after that, 1803, Amendment 12 was Ratified.

All of these were to tweak the constitution. The second-most votes didn't make for a good relationship between the President and VP, and people feared the SCOTUS overstepping its bounds.

13, 14, and 15 were ratified after the Civil War, all in quick succession...

Amazingly Amendment 27, was originally proposed as one of the Bill of Rights, but remained in Constitutional limbo until 1992 when it was finally ratified by the requisite number of states....

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by jillian
The Constitution was always intended to change with time... thus Plessy v. Ferguson being overruled by Brown v Bd of Ed.

Yes, but that is why they included an amendment process. That, plus the fact that the states are free to enact their own legislation, so long as it doesn't violate the amendments in the federal constitution.

That’s also why they gave the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction for both law and fact. The Court can judge the facts, but it can also judge the meaning of the law.

Originally Posted by flaja
If you libs aren’t anarchists, why do so many of you want to do away with things like the FDA, Federal Reserve and SEC? And if you libs have morals, why do so many of you wish to legalize drug use and whordom?

Some libertarians fall into the anarcho-capitalist camp, yes.

Most libs, that I have encountered on the net, do fall into this category.

But you don't have to be anarchist to recognize that government should be limited to preventing violence against people and their property.

When have I said otherwise?

FDA: It used to be that it would certify drugs as safe, which is pretty easy, fast, and cheap to do. Sometime in the 60's however, they changed to "safe and effective".

So you don’t mind people putting snake oil on the market? There is a phenomenon know as asymmetrical information. A producer will always know more about the contents, safety and effectiveness of his product than the consumer can know. Thus, without a disinterested referee the producer can always take advantage of the consumer. The trouble is that the FDA is not always disinterested due to lobbyists.

Now it takes billions of dollars and many years to push a new drug through, driving up the cost and denying life-saving cures to people who are dying.

Wouldn’t sick people end up just as broke and just as dead if they could buy drugs that have not been tested for their effectiveness and prove to be ineffective?

Federal Reserve: It was created by collusion between the government and private banking interests--Rockefeller, JP Morgan, and the Rothschilds.

Pardon me while I break out my violin. This is the standard libertarian story, one for which I have never seen any proof.

BTW: What about the First and Second Banks of the United States?

It enables government to raise money through the printing press instead of taxes.

Something the government has not done since the late 1970s.

BTW: Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value of currency (Constitution, Article I). This power is not something the FED granted Congress. Congress could do it without the FED.

Not surprisingly, we got into a senseless european war a scant 4 years after it's creation

My great-grandfather fought in this war and was wounded in the leg. There was no history of heart disease in his family and his ancestors routinely lived into their 70s and 80s (as far back as 250 years ago). But, he dropped dead of a heart attack when he was only 57. My family has always speculated that a blood clot from his wound broke free causing his heart attack. You have maligned his service to my country. You can go to hell.

 

[flaja]

Yes. Making people work for continually devaluing scraps of nothing is better.

Of course we need money. The issue is the unrestrained and unchecked power of printing it at will, manipulating it's value, and the power differential of having access to the fresh supply before the inflationary effect of it's very existence takes hold.

Having lived through the Carter Administration (15% inflation), Bryan is the person in history, whom I would have most feared. He would have been more dangerous that a George III, a Robert E. Lee, a Kaiser or a Hitler.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Having lived through the Carter Administration (15% inflation), Bryan is the person in history, whom I would have most feared. He would have been more dangerous that a George III, a Robert E. Lee, a Kaiser or a Hitler.

I fear betty boop. Just the power of her sexuality scares me.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

So you don’t mind people putting snake oil on the market? There is a phenomenon know as asymmetrical information. A producer will always know more about the contents, safety and effectiveness of his product than the consumer can know. Thus, without a disinterested referee the producer can always take advantage of the consumer. The trouble is that the FDA is not always disinterested due to lobbyists.

I think that drug companies should be required to abide by basic rules against fraud. If you claim that your drug is harmless and all-natural, and it isn't, then you face prosecution. If you claim that studies have shown your drug to cure cancer, and it doesn't, then you pay fines or go to jail.

And let's not forget about private certification companies. There's obviously a great demand by the public to buy safe drugs, and private companies can and do fill that need. UL certifies electrical devices for example. ASE certifies mechanics. Patients might not have the time or ability to access volumes of information on new drugs, but doctors would certainly be able to keep tabs on the latest findings from SafeDrug Laboratories latest reports.

At the very least, people should be able to sign a waiver and try out experimental drugs if they wish.

Pardon me while I break out my violin. This is the standard libertarian story, one for which I have never seen any proof.

BTW: What about the First and Second Banks of the United States?

For proof, there are a gazillion articles about the Fed at lewrockwell.com

The History of Money and Banking in the United States:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/historyofmoney.pdf

If you want a hardcopy book that explores the "conspiracy" angle more, the best place to start is The Creature From Jekyll Island. I wouldn't really call it a conspiracy, however. NASA faking the moon landings is a conspiracy theory; rich bankers buying influence and getting what they want is just politics.

Something the government has not done since the late 1970s.

Sorry but that's not true. Maybe you are thinking that we haven't had inflation well into the double digits, which is true (although inflation has been badly underreported by creative government statistics for a while now) You can check the Federal Reserve stats for M1, M2, and M3 money supply, or just do a google image search. There have been short periods where they've created it relatively slowly, in the early 90's for instance, but overall it took off like a rocket ever since 1971. That's why prices continually go up over time. Normally under a gold standard you'd expect gradually falling prices.



Notice how it takes off really hard around 1996, during Greenspan's disingenious "irrational exhuberance" speech. That's what set off the dot-com boom, and later on the housing boom.

BTW: Congress has the power to coin money and regulate the value of currency (Constitution, Article I). This power is not something the FED granted Congress. Congress could do it without the FED.

True. And I wish they would, if it were done in the meaning of how the original wording was meant. The word "coin" back then meant to literally cast a specific amount of a specific purity of metal into a uniform token. Dollars, Franks, Marks, Pounds...these were all originally scientific units of weight. A dollar is supposed to be 371.25 grains of silver. The government back then was only acting to insure quality money. You brought in your metal, and got it melted down into uniform slugs so that people knew it was real. The founders knew the horrors of unbacked fiat paper because of it's abuse during the revolutionary war--thus the old saying "not worth a continental" (the paper money of the day).

Note: this does not mean that we have to resort to going everywhere with weighty metal tokens in our pockets. Paper certainly has it's uses when it's backed by something, it's just that you can't trust government to base it on nothing and not abuse the power.

My great-grandfather fought in this war and was wounded in the leg. There was no history of heart disease in his family and his ancestors routinely lived into their 70s and 80s (as far back as 250 years ago). But, he dropped dead of a heart attack when he was only 57. My family has always speculated that a blood clot from his wound broke free causing his heart attack. You have maligned his service to my country. You can go to hell.

Whoa, hang on there man. I do not mean in any way to insult the veterans of WWI, nor do I want to make light of their tremendous sacrifices. I am only pointing out that WWI was a gigantic setback for western civilization, and the US government had no business getting us into that senseless war. Not only that, but our entry allowed Britain and France to exact a vengeful peace, which led to both fascism in Germany and communism in Russia. Many historians and authors argue that without america's entry into the war, the war would have ground itself into a stalemate, with neither side able to negotiate something as punitive as the Versailles treaty.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

We care not upon what lines the battle is fought. If they say bimetalism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply that, instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetalism, and let England have bimetalism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for a gold standard by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns, you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold. -WJB

I'm not terribly familiar with WJB, I think the issue was basically that indebted farmers saw more money as a solution to their debts. I think maybe this was a later 1800's generation who were too far removed from memories of inflation. Getting your debts wiped clean sounds awesome until the supplies you buy cost more. I also remember reading somewhere that even though he wanted bimetalism or a silver standard, WJB insisted that his idea was not fiat currency and that such an idea would be horrible. He did vote for the Federal Reserve act, but when he later found out who was behind it, regretted it as one of the worst votes in his life.

But yes I was wrong, famers did not always support hard money.

 

[glockmail]

...
As I've already said the Framers did not leave a complete record of their intent and their intent was not always the same.

In that case simply take their written words- the Consitution- as plainly written language, which it is. It's not a lengthy document, as they did not mince words.

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
Looking at the frequency of amendments, 27 in 227 years, 27 amendments is quite a lot. In the overall scheme of our history we have amended the Constitution once every 8 years (while on average presidents have had a term of only a little under 5.5 years). Amending the Constitution is not really such a rare event.

Actually, the first ten were kind of a package deal, weren't they? So that wouldn't count. It's 17 times really.

Not really. The first 10 to be ratified were really 3-12 of the first 12 to be proposed. There was no guarantee that any of these 12 would be ratified. And note the 2nd (I think) to be proposed is now actually the last to be ratified- the amendment saying Congress cannot get a pay raise until after the next election, which was finally ratified in 1992.

You could argue that the 13th Amendment restricted the rights of slave owners because it deprived them of their property without compensation.

No. I couldn't argue that. We're talking about human beings who shouldn't have ever been considered "property". I stand by my statement that it was pro freedom. I think you're stretching it by arguing otherwise.

Morally they shouldn’t have been, but legally they were. The same is pretty much true with abortion. Morally the unborn are still living human beings, but legally they are not.

In my lifetime 12 justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court by Republicans. And yet the GOP controlled Court has not overturned the Roe decision as the Republicans have said it would.

Right. Because those 12 didn't sit together and were balanced by other appointees.

How do you figure this? The Court has only 9 justices, so the Republicans have had ample opportunity to appoint a pro-life majority to the Court.

Note the make-up of the Court that issued the Roe decision:

Warren Burger, appointed by Republican Richard Nixon.
William J. Brennan, appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Potter Stewart, appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower.
Harry Blackmun, appointed by Republican Richard Nixon.
Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr., appointed by Republican Richard Nixon.
William Rehnquist, appointed by Republican Richard Nixon.
Warren O. Douglas, appointed by Democrat Franklin Roosevelt.
Byron White, appointed by Democrat John F. Kennedy.
Thurgood Marshall, appointed by Democrat Lyndon Johnson.

So the Court that issued the Roe decision had a GOP majority- and one of the 2 dissenters in the Roe case, Byron White, was appointed by a Democrat.

Since the Roe decision:

Gerald Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to take Douglas’ seat (a Republican to replace a Democrat)
Reagan appointed O’Connor to take Stewart’s seat (a Republican to replace a Republican).
Reagan appointed Kennedy to take Powell’s seat (a Republican to replace a Republican)
Reagan appointed Scalia to take Burger’s seat (a Republican to replace a Republican)
GHWB appointed Souter to take Brennan’s seat (a Republican to replace a Republican).
GHWB appointed Thomas to take Marshall’s seat (a Republican to replace a Democrat).
Clinton appointed Breyer to take Blackmun’s seat (a Democrat to replace a Republican).
Clinton appointed Ginsburg to take White’s seat (a Democrat to replace a Democrat).
GW appointed Roberts to take Rehnquist’s seat (a Republican to replace a Republican).
GW appointed Alito to take O’Connor’s seat (a Republican to replace a Republican)

So, Reagan and both Bushes, who all campaigned on a pro-life platform have appointed 7 of the current 9 justices. So when will the Roe decision be overturned?

The Court has only 1 Democrat fewer today than it did for the Roe case, so Republican appointees have not been offset by Democrats.

Anyone who honestly believes the Republican Party will end abortion by appointing justices to the Supreme Court, is an absolute fool.

 

[glockmail]

....Anyone who honestly believes the Republican Party will end abortion by appointing justices to the Supreme Court, is an absolute fool.

Not really. If we can just get our GOP presidents to stop nominating RINOs for judges.

 

[flaja]

In that case simply take their written words- the Consitution- as plainly written language, which it is. It's not a lengthy document, as they did not mince words.

Not necessarily. The Constitution says that no religious test shall be required to hold office, but anyone who holds office under the Constitution must be under oath to uphold the Constitution. And the last article of the Constitution to be written in Philadelphia concludes with a reference to Jesus Christ. So how does having to take an oath to recognize Jesus Christ square with the no religious test clause?

Also, saying that judges hold their office for the term of good behavior has been traditionally interpreted as life-time tenure as long as a judge does not violate statutory law. But, some libertarians and right-wing fruitcakes say good behavior means only as long as the judge doesn't make a ruling they disagree with.

And then you have the impeachment provision. Treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors are listed as impeachable offenses, but only treason is expressly defined by the Constitution. And note how Clinton and the Democrats said that the Constitution does not say someone convicted of impeachment has to be removed from office.

The plain language of the Constitution is not all that plain, when politicians are involved.

Relying on the plain words of the Constitution only works as long as we all agree on what these plain words mean.

 

[glockmail]

[1]Not necessarily. The Constitution says that no religious test shall be required to hold office, but anyone who holds office under the Constitution must be under oath to uphold the Constitution. And the last article of the Constitution to be written in Philadelphia concludes with a reference to Jesus Christ. So how does having to take an oath to recognize Jesus Christ square with the no religious test clause?

[2]Also, saying that judges hold their office for the term of good behavior has been traditionally interpreted as life-time tenure as long as a judge does not violate statutory law. But, some libertarians and right-wing fruitcakes say good behavior means only as long as the judge doesn't make a ruling they disagree with.

[3]And then you have the impeachment provision. Treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors are listed as impeachable offenses, but only treason is expressly defined by the Constitution. And note how Clinton and the Democrats said that the Constitution does not say someone convicted of impeachment has to be removed from office…..

1. As far right Christian whack job, I would love to be able to argue that “the year of our Lord” is a direct and binding reference to Christianity. But unfortunately, it is merely a reference to the Christian calendar.
2. You yourself use the term “fruitcakes” to describe extremists. “Plain language” obviously refers to a main stream interpretation.
3. “Impeachment” merely means “formerly accused”. Clinton was not convicted. If he had been, he would have been removed from office as clearly mandated.

 

[Annie]

1. As far right Christian whack job, I would love to be able to argue that “the year of our Lord” is a direct and binding reference to Christianity. But unfortunately, it is merely a reference to the Christian calendar.
2. You yourself use the term “fruitcakes” to describe extremists. “Plain language” obviously refers to a main stream interpretation.
3. “Impeachment” merely means “formerly accused”. Clinton was not convicted. If he had been, he would have been removed from office as clearly mandated.

I agree with nearly all, think the problem in replying is that the poster is pretending to be conservative, while spinning all over the place? Either they will realize we give a fair hearing or they'll end up being a cast off. Lying/disinformation doesn't fly or sail.

 

[flaja]

1. As far right Christian whack job, I would love to be able to argue that “the year of our Lord” is a direct and binding reference to Christianity. But unfortunately, it is merely a reference to the Christian calendar.[/qutoe]

Wouldn't simply saying 1787 have been sufficient? What other calendar could the delegates to the Constitutional Convention have been thinking of?