If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

[EdwardBaiamonte]

1. So what is this modern Republican philosophy?

same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government

2. What was the philosophy of the Republican party of Jefferson and Madison?

same as modern Republicans

3. Where is it written that liberalism is unAmerican?

The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal

4. What definition have political scientists, historians given to the tenants of liberalism?

quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??

Remember same identical philosophy.
I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.

what?????????????????????

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The Constitution does,

of course of it does authorize welfare you would not be so afraid to say where? What does your fear tell you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What place do Democrats have in America?
**************************************
One party rule isn't a...GOOD idea. ; )

Democrats are opposed to America so have no place in America. With them gone the political spectrum would shift in a more American direction. The debate would be between Ron Paul and more mainstream Republlicans. That would be an American debate and you'd have 2 new parties instantly.

 

[tooldtocare]

If Jefferson founded the Republican Party what place do Democrats have in America?

Was Jerfferson Jewish -?

Now chill, I was just asking -

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.

if there is a white wash why be so afraid to say exactly what it was?? What does your fear tell us?

 

[regent]

1. So what is this modern Republican philosophy?

same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government

2. What was the philosophy of the Republican party of Jefferson and Madison?

same as modern Republicans



The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal

4. What definition have political scientists, historians given to the tenants of liberalism?

quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??

Remember same identical philosophy.
I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.

what?????????????????????

That's it! Freedom from big liberal government, that's why we fought the Revolutionary war to be free of the big liberal government of George III? Jefferson sure goofed with all that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff. I guess this is Wicki history?

 

[Pheonixops]

Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.

if there is a white wash why be so afraid to say exactly what it was?? What does your fear tell us?

I have no fear. I asked a question, can you answer it?

 

[code1211]

"The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.

It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.

Please make that citation and demonstrate how this is supported by the actions of the Founders during the Washington Administration.

 

[Dragon]

"The Founders" is a phrase that restricts the conversation to the Federal government.

It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.

Please make that citation

Article I, Section 8, first clause: Congress is authorized to tax (and by implication, spend) to provide for the general welfare of the United States. You were correct above in pointing out that "the general welfare of the United States" is not identical in meaning to what we mean today by "welfare," but wrong to imply that it does not encompass aid to the poor along with many other things.

and demonstrate how this is supported by the actions of the Founders during the Washington Administration.

Why? Is no change in government policy allowed since the turn of the 19th century?

 

[code1211]

Really? How did the conservatives, WHO WANTED TO KEEP THE STATUS QUO (the Blacks as second class citizens) help "them"? What a stupid way to whitewash history.

From a legal stand point, Liberalism is the only device that can strip away rights that are protected by law.

A strict, Conservative interpretation of the law, or of any law that defines the protection of Civl rights, follows the letter of the law. All of the People who are equal before that laws are covered by that ruling.

A Liberal interpretation of any law allows for the authorities to tinker with the meaning and conjure results that include some and exclude others regardless of what the law says.

In this sense, only Liberals can rob a man of rights that are guaranteed under law. It is sometimes justified and sometimes not not based on the justice contained in the law. Dred Scot and Jim Crow come to mind.

However, strip away the layers of this onion, and you will as often find one political party as the other behind the "Liberal" interpretations that embarrass the rest of us looking back at them.

Very recently, it was Democrat appointees who ruled that it is legal and right that the government can strip away the property of one individual and award it to another because the government thinks that this is best.

This is the beginning of the end.

If there are no property rights, there are no rights. Understand clearly that the most personal property one may possess is one's self.

Nice argument, but not really. Take a look at my sig line to see the true definition of Liberal. The Amendment process to the Constitution is a Liberal process. Without that process, the conservative status quo would have remained and there would be not be any 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. "The Thirteenth Amendment (both proposed and ratified in 1865) abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment (proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868) included the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. The Fifteenth Amendment, (proposed in 1869 and ratified in 1870 under the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant) grants voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" There would be no women's suffrage; the 19th Amendment. Conservatives wanted to keep the status quo and have some people remain as second class citizens, the Liberals fought to change that.

You don't understand what you are saying. By making these changes through the Amendment process, this a Conservative process. If these same changes were made by the capricious ruling a judge from a bench absent the act of a legislature, that would be a Liberal process. As in, "A liberal interpretation of that law".

In the case of the notion that a person could be owned, that that person was to be counted as 3/5 of of a person or that a person born into slavery is also a slave, some Liberal court decisions should certainly have been rendered. If a law is not just, that law should be challenged.

It could be argued that the inclusion of these point in the Constitution was a departure from the stated beliefs of the Founders as defined in the Declaration and were therefore expediencies intended only to incent ratification and were therefore Liberal interpretations of the goals of the country.

Since they were included in the founding document of law in this country, Conservative rulings would have supported them and Liberal rulings would have struck them down.

Liberalism and Conservatism can be equally applied to the same actual thing and the only difference is the timing as before or after the stated date to begin the consideration.

If the law authorizes slavery, a Conservative ruling supports slavery.

If the law proscribes slavery, a Conservative ruling strikes it down.

 

[code1211]

Really? Then why did central government increase under Reagan and Bush?

You're right the two parties we are currently saddled with are Communist lite and Communist a little bit liter.

Every time the Government takes away a right and makes it a privilege, that right ceases to exist.

Our current government is changing the definition of entitlements to mean rights. Find for me healthcare or transportation or any of the New deal "rights" in the Bill of Rights or the Enumerated Powers.

Welfare is not welfare as understood by the Founders. It's charity. That does not particularly make it either bad or wrong. It's just not a part of the Founder's understanding of what a government is charged to do.

LOL, good points. It's nice to find some people here (you) who don't turn a debate into a "fuck you" contest.

I agree with your points above and respect your POV.

I appreciate your understanding. I grew up in a house where a raised voice was authorization to leave the room. There are a few opinions that are injurious on their face, but most are simply different.

If it costs me nothing for you to hold a belief and your belief injures nobody, go ahead.

I may try to show a better way and i may find your way to be better. If I stop listening, I learn nothing.

 

[Dragon]

By making these changes through the Amendment process, this a Conservative process. If these same changes were made by the capricious ruling a judge from a bench absent the act of a legislature, that would be a Liberal process.

That has to be the most nonsensical set of definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that I have ever seen, and that's saying something. Seriously.

FYI, there is no such thing as a "liberal process," with the possible exception of voting in elections. Liberalism is a goal or set of goals, not a process or method of getting there. Freeing the slaves was a liberal end; guaranteeing equal rights likewise; and so on. That the amendment process was used to get there means absolutely nothing except that it was available and could be used, and therefore was.

 

[code1211]

1. So what is this modern Republican philosophy?

same as Jefferson, freedom from big liberal government




same as modern Republicans



The Constitution. It is designed to strictly limit Federal governemnt to a few enumerated powers. Liberals are 100% opposed so should be made illegal



quasi sociialism!! why do you think the liberals spied for Stalin
and the CPUSA in fact supports BO??

Remember same identical philosophy.
I know what's coming, the results of the 1936 presidential election. Instead of trying to answer all four questions maybe just pick one, go to Wicki and get back to me.

what?????????????????????

That's it! Freedom from big liberal government, that's why we fought the Revolutionary war to be free of the big liberal government of George III? Jefferson sure goofed with all that life, liberty and pursuit of happiness stuff. I guess this is Wicki history?

Stay calm and try to think about this.

The revolutionaries wanted to bring the government rule closer to home and that meant out of London and onto our continent.

Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.

Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.

How is that goal of the modern Conservative different from that goal of the American Revolutionary?

 

[Dragon]

Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.

Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.

These are both false statements.

 

[code1211]

It actually doesn't matter one way or the other. That the federal government stayed out of providing aid to the poor for so long was purely a function of custom and lack of perceived need, not because the Constitution doesn't authorize it. The Constitution does, and there has never been any serious controversy in court about that at all.

Please make that citation

Article I, Section 8, first clause: Congress is authorized to tax (and by implication, spend) to provide for the general welfare of the United States. You were correct above in pointing out that "the general welfare of the United States" is not identical in meaning to what we mean today by "welfare," but wrong to imply that it does not encompass aid to the poor along with many other things.

and demonstrate how this is supported by the actions of the Founders during the Washington Administration.

Why? Is no change in government policy allowed since the turn of the 19th century?

Any change can be good or bad and the structure of the Constitution seems to encourage change.

That said, you implied above that that the Constitution authorizes aid to the poor. It does not. Assuming that perhaps The Founders did believe that it did, we could find support for that in their actions. We cannot.

This was not a consideration of the Founders as a responsibility of the Federal Government.

 

[code1211]

Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.

Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.

These are both false statements.

Demonstrate what you say with an example.

 

[Dragon]

That said, you implied above that that the Constitution authorizes aid to the poor. It does not.

Yes, it does. I showed where it does, too.

Assuming that perhaps The Founders did believe that it did, we could find support for that in their actions. We cannot.

False reasoning. There has to be a perceived need for the government to do something before it is done, regardless of whether or not it is authorized to do so.

Another example would be the creation of a powerful standing army. No need was perceived to do this prior to the end of World War II and onset of the Cold War, so it was never done before that. Large armies were created in times of war and then disbanded, retaining only a small cadre, between major wars.

But the authorization exists in the language: "Congress shall have the Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

(Article I, Section 8, 12th clause.) Nothing in this language denies Congress the power to maintain a standing army by appropriating its funding every two years (or every single year, as is the actual practice -- every two years is what the Constitution mandates, minimum). So why didn't the Washington administration, or for that matter any administration from Washington through Franklin Roosevelt, do so? Obviously, because there was no need, and so it would have been a waste of money.

Same with aid to the poor. There was no perceived need prior to the Great Depression, so the matter was left to the states. That's the reason it was done, and the ONLY reason.

 

[Dragon]

Conservatives, this does not particularly include Republicans, want to devolve the power of government from washington to much more local levels and reduce the power of Washington over the lives of the people.

Liberals in both parties strive mightily to increase the power and the intrusive reach of the government at the national level and remove the access to the seats of power from the common people.

These are both false statements.

Demonstrate what you say with an example.

Conservatives advocated the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which centralized many police functions and increased the power of the federal government.

Liberals are in favor of allowing states to set their own rules w/r/t marijuana, e.g. allowing California to permit widespread use of marijuana for "medical" reasons.

Of course, examples may also be found going the other direction. Neither conservatives nor liberals favor or oppose a strong federal government or state authority across the board, as an end in itself -- only as a means to an end, and that may go either way, depending on specifics.

 

[code1211]

By making these changes through the Amendment process, this a Conservative process. If these same changes were made by the capricious ruling a judge from a bench absent the act of a legislature, that would be a Liberal process.

That has to be the most nonsensical set of definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" that I have ever seen, and that's saying something. Seriously.

FYI, there is no such thing as a "liberal process," with the possible exception of voting in elections. Liberalism is a goal or set of goals, not a process or method of getting there. Freeing the slaves was a liberal end; guaranteeing equal rights likewise; and so on. That the amendment process was used to get there means absolutely nothing except that it was available and could be used, and therefore was.

A Liberal feels charged with the responsibility to do the right thing and will do so in violation of the law. A problem in dealing with a Liberal is that a liberal feels that the action at hand is the best action and the previous considerations of that are either wrong or irrelevant.

If that Liberal is super wise and in possession of all of the data, he may be right. If not, he is likely wrong. So, in a legal sense, if a law is wrong or unjust or out moded, the legislature should repeal it and replace it.

That is the Conservative process and deals with the prescribed method to make this change.

If the same law is ruled to be wrong by a judge and the prescribed process is ignored, that is a Liberal process.

One is expedient and the other is time consuming and requires the paid liars in the legislature to abandon their positionless drive to gain more bribes and actually take a stand. Both methods can arrive at a good outcome.


Liberal Interpretation Law & Legal Definition
Liberal interpretation means interpretation agreeing to what the reader believes the author reasonably intended. But, a liberal interpretation does not necessarily mean an interpretation that would accomplish a change in former practice. Further, a liberal interpretation does necessarily involve a reasonable interpretation. The word 'liberal' is not synonymous with change. It does encompass the idea of reasonableness. It does involve a willingness to make changes, but only when changes are based upon reason.

In re K.M., 274 Ill. App. 3d 189 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995), the court observed that “The term "liberal," in the context of statutory construction and interpretation, is often used to signify an interpretation which produces broader coverage or more inclusive application of statutory concepts. What is called a liberal construction is ordinarily one which makes a statute apply to more things or in more situations than would be the case under strict construction.”

 

[code1211]

That said, you implied above that that the Constitution authorizes aid to the poor. It does not.

Yes, it does. I showed where it does, too.

Assuming that perhaps The Founders did believe that it did, we could find support for that in their actions. We cannot.

False reasoning. There has to be a perceived need for the government to do something before it is done, regardless of whether or not it is authorized to do so.

Another example would be the creation of a powerful standing army. No need was perceived to do this prior to the end of World War II and onset of the Cold War, so it was never done before that. Large armies were created in times of war and then disbanded, retaining only a small cadre, between major wars.

But the authorization exists in the language: "Congress shall have the Power . . . To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

(Article I, Section 8, 12th clause.) Nothing in this language denies Congress the power to maintain a standing army by appropriating its funding every two years (or every single year, as is the actual practice -- every two years is what the Constitution mandates, minimum). So why didn't the Washington administration, or for that matter any administration from Washington through Franklin Roosevelt, do so? Obviously, because there was no need, and so it would have been a waste of money.

Same with aid to the poor. There was no perceived need prior to the Great Depression, so the matter was left to the states. That's the reason it was done, and the ONLY reason.

The difference is that the authorization for a standing army, as you note, is in the Constitution.