Our founding fathers were not conservative

[Gadawg73]

The Founders were radicals of their time.
Conservatives they were not.

No shit.

But measured by the definition we use today, the only ones they could identify with today are conservatives.

For, you see, they did not do all the things they did, including putting their lives on the line and crafting our very form of government just to generate a document that is paid only lip service.

The fundamental notion of limited government is the notion embraced by today's conservatives; it is not embraced at all by the damn liberals of today. In fact, liberals of today are fucking Statists and the Founders and the Framers would reject the political philosophy of today's "liberals" for that reason and for many others.

Limited government means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Abortion was legal in the late 1700s for whites only. Slaves were forbidden to abort.
Today's "conservatives" do not support limited government. They support prohibition, bans on gay military service, gay marriage and abortion.
They are all about government forcing their agenda on society.
Limited government means none of those bans or prohibitions.

 

[Agit8r]

The Founders were radicals of their time.
Conservatives they were not.

No shit.

But measured by the definition we use today, the only ones they could identify with today are conservatives.

For, you see, they did not do all the things they did, including putting their lives on the line and crafting our very form of government just to generate a document that is paid only lip service.

The fundamental notion of limited government is the notion embraced by today's conservatives; it is not embraced at all by the damn liberals of today. In fact, liberals of today are fucking Statists and the Founders and the Framers would reject the political philosophy of today's "liberals" for that reason and for many others.

Limited government means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Abortion was legal in the late 1700s for whites only. Slaves were forbidden to abort.
Today's "conservatives" do not support limited government. They support prohibition, bans on gay military service, gay marriage and abortion.
They are all about government forcing their agenda on society.
Limited government means none of those bans or prohibitions.

let's not forget domestic spying
An idolatry of the wealthy
a toleration of stock-jobbers in the halls of government
Exorbitant military spending
A disdain for the Rule Against Perpetuities
Overthrowing rather than supporting radical governments abroad

need i go on?

 

[Liability]

The Founders were radicals of their time.
Conservatives they were not.

No shit.

But measured by the definition we use today, the only ones they could identify with today are conservatives.

For, you see, they did not do all the things they did, including putting their lives on the line and crafting our very form of government just to generate a document that is paid only lip service.

The fundamental notion of limited government is the notion embraced by today's conservatives; it is not embraced at all by the damn liberals of today. In fact, liberals of today are fucking Statists and the Founders and the Framers would reject the political philosophy of today's "liberals" for that reason and for many others.

Limited government means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Abortion was legal in the late 1700s for whites only. Slaves were forbidden to abort.
Today's "conservatives" do not support limited government. They support prohibition, bans on gay military service, gay marriage and abortion.
They are all about government forcing their agenda on society.
Limited government means none of those bans or prohibitions.

Wrong. Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them.

That's what I support. That's what true conservatives support.

Today's liberals do not even remotely support limiting government to JUST those grants of enumerated powers.

And that's why none of the Founders and Framers would buy into the modern version of "liberalism."

The balance of your post was prattle premised on the fact that you confuse political conservatism with so-called "social" conservatism. There are a number of areas in life in which even conservatives disagree. Naturally, I reject your silly attempts to pigeon-hole all conservatives into the rubric of a liberal talking pointless. But even while many so-called "social" conservatives might not like my views on some of their particular concerns, most conservatives still agree on certain fundamentals.

The grants of enumerated powers spelled out rather carefully in our Constitution are not things to be trifled with or ignored. They are not validly trumped by the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause or snippets taken out of context from the Preamble. That's bullshit lib-"think." They focus on what they call "exceptions" and would have the "exceptions" subsume the entire notion of LIMITED Government. Again, the Founders and Framers would (for the most part) reject that kind of arrogant sophistry.

 

[Agit8r]

' And that's why none of the Founders and Framers would buy into the modern version of "liberalism." '

modern liberalism is too right wing for them

 

[Liability]

' And that's why none of the Founders and Framers would buy into the modern version of "liberalism." '

modern liberalism is too right wing for them

Nope. It's too fucked up for them.

Unlike modern American liberals, the Founders and Framers KNEW enough not to unduly trust government. This is why they crafted it to have various and sundry checks and balances.

I love it when many modern American liberals confuse that concept with the notion that they intended to make government essentially unworkable. No. They didn't. They crafted it to be no more powerful than is necessary to accomplish its legitimate (limited) objectives. But they did not thereby seek to create some neutered ineffectual runt.

Thus, for example, the STATES also got limited. THEY cannot legitimately wage wars, for instance. THAT authority and power resides entirely with the Federal Government. And to the extent that the Constitution granted that power and authority to the Federal Government, the Founders and Framers (not being idiots) clearly had no intention of making the Federal government ineffectual.

The whole thing is a very delicate balance and it requires lots of constant attention and care. Good. That's as it should be. Keep a wary eye on it.

But to say that modern American liberalism is too right wing for the Founders is just patently stupid.

 

[Agit8r]

They obviously weren't conservative. They were revolutionaries, which makes them radicals.

Revolutionaries during the revolution, conservatives when they framed the constitution and bill of rights. Don't let the professors convince you that the founders where radicals when they where not.

The Founders fought for what they used to have before the King and parliament started to screw with them - they fought for their rights as Englishmen. This is the essence of conservative - to preserve what you have always had.

That is what artisans displaced by industrial mechanization fought for too... when they formed unions

 

[Bern80]

The Founders were radicals of their time.
Conservatives they were not.

No shit.

But measured by the definition we use today, the only ones they could identify with today are conservatives.

For, you see, they did not do all the things they did, including putting their lives on the line and crafting our very form of government just to generate a document that is paid only lip service.

The fundamental notion of limited government is the notion embraced by today's conservatives; it is not embraced at all by the damn liberals of today. In fact, liberals of today are fucking Statists and the Founders and the Framers would reject the political philosophy of today's "liberals" for that reason and for many others.

Limited government means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Abortion was legal in the late 1700s for whites only. Slaves were forbidden to abort.
Today's "conservatives" do not support limited government. They support prohibition, bans on gay military service, gay marriage and abortion.
They are all about government forcing their agenda on society.
Limited government means none of those bans or prohibitions.

SOCIAL conservatives do, yes. If there's any group that the framers would have something in common with today it might be libertarians, who I think are generally socially liberal, and favor the limited governement principles of the framers and strict adherence to the constitution.

 

[Agit8r]

[/QUOTE]But to say that modern American liberalism is too right wing for the Founders is just patently stupid.[/QUOTE]

I challenge you to read the Articles that Madison wrote for the National Gazette--These being the public face of the Democratic Republican movement--and tell me that these were written by a conservative

Online Library of Liberty - james madison Essays for the National Gazette 1792 - Liberty and Order: The First American Party Struggle

Who Are the Best Keepers of the People’s Liberties by James Madison

 

[Liability]

But to say that modern American liberalism is too right wing for the Founders is just patently stupid.

I challenge you to read the Articles that Madison wrote for the National Gazette--These being the public face of the Democratic Republican movement--and tell me that these were written by a conservative

Online Library of Liberty - james madison Essays for the National Gazette 1792 - Liberty and Order: The First American Party Struggle

Who Are the Best Keepers of the People’s Liberties by James Madison

I challenge YOU to stop your quibbling.

Fact or not? The modern American version of "liberal" embraces "government" as a fucking panacea. In the view of such "liberals," it is THE go-to tool for solving all manner of problems.

The correct answer to the above inquiry is: "True."

The lengths to which modern American "liberals" go to get the "government" to act in that manner tramples upon the very precepts of a specifically-enumerated-powers LIMITED government.

Since that is the case, and since conservatives are the ones who place stock and value in LIMITING government to the channels and bounds set out for it in the Constitution, the modern American conservative is more akin to the Founders and Framers than the modern American "liberal" is.

You also urgently need to figure out how to use the relatively simple quote function. [I had to "alter" your nested quotes to make it read correctly.]

 

[kaz]

Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them

Please, most conservatives support drug laws, which have no Constitutional authority at all and the war on drugs and intrusion into our privacy committed in the name of the war on drugs in it's name. They support the undeclared wars in the middle east which are unconstitutional both because they were not declared and because the Constitution only authorizes military to be used in defense of the US. They are neither.

Conservatives vote for endless programs like social security, welfare and a myriad of other Federal programs which have no Constitutional Authority. The most evil of which are earmarks, which is just flat out armed robbery where government confiscates money from one citizen and gives it to another. Conservatives have not fully followed the second amendment either finding justification to limit gun ownership. Just a few, but Conservatives routinely ignore Constitutional Authority and there is no reasonable way to view it otherwise.

Most conservatives limit the government to the Constitution my ass.

 

[Liability]

Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them

Please, most conservatives support drug laws, which have no Constitutional authority at all and the war on drugs and intrusion into our privacy committed in the name of the war on drugs in it's name. They support the undeclared wars in the middle east which are unconstitutional both because they were not declared and because the Constitution only authorizes military to be used in defense of the US. They are neither.

Conservatives vote for endless programs like social security, welfare and a myriad of other Federal programs which have no Constitutional Authority. The most evil of which are earmarks, which is just flat out armed robbery where government confiscates money from one citizen and gives it to another. Conservatives have not fully followed the second amendment either finding justification to limit gun ownership. Just a few, but Conservatives routinely ignore Constitutional Authority and there is no reasonable way to view it otherwise.

Most conservatives limit the government to the Constitution my ass.

No.

MOST conservatives do place HUGE value on limiting our Federal Government to JUST those things which are carved out for the Federal Government.

You and I can quibble about whether or not there is a valid Constitutional basis for a "war on drugs." It may gripe you, and you might even be partly corect. In my view, the FEDERAL Role in "law enforcement" is supposed to be limited. That is not to say it is non-existent. Indeed, it's silly to believe that the Federal Government has no proper role in Law Enforcement. And if you concede even that much (as you should if you are being honest and reasonable) then how far that role goes is a more limited question.

As for you usual blather about "declared" wars, you are trite and you are wrong. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to authorize the use of our nation's military might. It does not set forth a particular magic incantation or a prescribed manner of HOW they shall do that. But Congress absolutely DID specifically -- on two major occasions -- authorize the use of our nation's military might in those middle east wars.

And war is within the purview of the grant of LIMITED pwoers given to the Federal Government, so you attempt at making a "point" is doubly defective. It fell flat.

Nothing you posted has any bearing on the correctness of my assertion. LIBS love statism. Conservatives value enumerated powers and LIMITED government. You and your ass have nothing to do with that.

 

[Bern80]

Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them

Please, most conservatives support drug laws, which have no Constitutional authority at all and the war on drugs and intrusion into our privacy committed in the name of the war on drugs in it's name. They support the undeclared wars in the middle east which are unconstitutional both because they were not declared and because the Constitution only authorizes military to be used in defense of the US. They are neither.

Conservatives vote for endless programs like social security, welfare and a myriad of other Federal programs which have no Constitutional Authority. The most evil of which are earmarks, which is just flat out armed robbery where government confiscates money from one citizen and gives it to another. Conservatives have not fully followed the second amendment either finding justification to limit gun ownership. Just a few, but Conservatives routinely ignore Constitutional Authority and there is no reasonable way to view it otherwise.

Most conservatives limit the government to the Constitution my ass.

I think when todays conservatives talk about limited government they really seem to just mean a government that doesn't spend exhorbitant amounts of money. You're right about today's conservatives which is why i really don't prescribe to that philosophy anymore. Claiming to be defenders of the constitution and pushing socially conservative issues at the same time just doesn't mix.

 

[Gadawg73]

No shit.

But measured by the definition we use today, the only ones they could identify with today are conservatives.

For, you see, they did not do all the things they did, including putting their lives on the line and crafting our very form of government just to generate a document that is paid only lip service.

The fundamental notion of limited government is the notion embraced by today's conservatives; it is not embraced at all by the damn liberals of today. In fact, liberals of today are fucking Statists and the Founders and the Framers would reject the political philosophy of today's "liberals" for that reason and for many others.

Limited government means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Abortion was legal in the late 1700s for whites only. Slaves were forbidden to abort.
Today's "conservatives" do not support limited government. They support prohibition, bans on gay military service, gay marriage and abortion.
They are all about government forcing their agenda on society.
Limited government means none of those bans or prohibitions.

Wrong. Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them.

That's what I support. That's what true conservatives support.

Today's liberals do not even remotely support limiting government to JUST those grants of enumerated powers.

And that's why none of the Founders and Framers would buy into the modern version of "liberalism."

The balance of your post was prattle premised on the fact that you confuse political conservatism with so-called "social" conservatism. There are a number of areas in life in which even conservatives disagree. Naturally, I reject your silly attempts to pigeon-hole all conservatives into the rubric of a liberal talking pointless. But even while many so-called "social" conservatives might not like my views on some of their particular concerns, most conservatives still agree on certain fundamentals.

The grants of enumerated powers spelled out rather carefully in our Constitution are not things to be trifled with or ignored. They are not validly trumped by the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause or snippets taken out of context from the Preamble. That's bullshit lib-"think." They focus on what they call "exceptions" and would have the "exceptions" subsume the entire notion of LIMITED Government. Again, the Founders and Framers would (for the most part) reject that kind of arrogant sophistry.

Blah, blah, blah. "Fundamentals" Like what Moe? And where are they written in stone?
Rush Limbaugh variety?
A true conservative stands for limited government and even if they are against abortion (which I am), gay marriage (could care less), gays in the military and for prohibitions, they would NEVER want government involved in banning them
So are you a conservative or not? Are you in favor of a Constitutional Amendment, since you are speaking of that document, to ban gay marriage?
A document FOUNDED ON LIMITED GOVERNMENT that many modern day so called wannahbe "conservatives" want to use to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. Are you in favor of that distortion orare you a conservative?
Do you want to use The United States Constitution, a document THAT IS DEDICATED TO the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO?
Which is it Moe? Do you favor limited government or not and do not want the government involved in gay marriage? A simple YES or NO. No more blah blah blah.

 

[Bern80]

Limited government means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Abortion was legal in the late 1700s for whites only. Slaves were forbidden to abort.
Today's "conservatives" do not support limited government. They support prohibition, bans on gay military service, gay marriage and abortion.
They are all about government forcing their agenda on society.
Limited government means none of those bans or prohibitions.

Wrong. Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them.

That's what I support. That's what true conservatives support.

Today's liberals do not even remotely support limiting government to JUST those grants of enumerated powers.

And that's why none of the Founders and Framers would buy into the modern version of "liberalism."

The balance of your post was prattle premised on the fact that you confuse political conservatism with so-called "social" conservatism. There are a number of areas in life in which even conservatives disagree. Naturally, I reject your silly attempts to pigeon-hole all conservatives into the rubric of a liberal talking pointless. But even while many so-called "social" conservatives might not like my views on some of their particular concerns, most conservatives still agree on certain fundamentals.

The grants of enumerated powers spelled out rather carefully in our Constitution are not things to be trifled with or ignored. They are not validly trumped by the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause or snippets taken out of context from the Preamble. That's bullshit lib-"think." They focus on what they call "exceptions" and would have the "exceptions" subsume the entire notion of LIMITED Government. Again, the Founders and Framers would (for the most part) reject that kind of arrogant sophistry.

Blah, blah, blah. "Fundamentals" Like what Moe? And where are they written in stone?
Rush Limbaugh variety?
A true conservative stands for limited government and even if they are against abortion (which I am), gay marriage (could care less), gays in the military and for prohibitions, they would NEVER want government involved in banning them
So are you a conservative or not? Are you in favor of a Constitutional Amendment, since you are speaking of that document, to ban gay marriage?
A document FOUNDED ON LIMITED GOVERNMENT that many modern day so called wannahbe "conservatives" want to use to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. Are you in favor of that distortion orare you a conservative?
Do you want to use The United States Constitution, a document THAT IS DEDICATED TO the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO?
Which is it Moe? Do you favor limited government or not and do not want the government involved in gay marriage? A simple YES or NO. No more blah blah blah.

That's the thing dawg. Maybe those things really are what it means to be a conservative. Maybe that's the difference between a conservative and a libertarian. socially conservative vs. socially liberal. Maybe what are termed libertarians today had to simply make up a new ideology that espoused true freedom rather than what the religous right conservatives do.

Personally I don't feel the need to 'take back' the term conservative so that it fits my beliefs. Conservative i think is technically accurate as defining someone anti- gay marriage, anti-abortion, pro-war on drugs etc,. Those positions are the defintion of the word conservative. I finally said fuck 'em you can have 'em. I'd rather be a libertarian.

 

[Gadawg73]

Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them

Please, most conservatives support drug laws, which have no Constitutional authority at all and the war on drugs and intrusion into our privacy committed in the name of the war on drugs in it's name. They support the undeclared wars in the middle east which are unconstitutional both because they were not declared and because the Constitution only authorizes military to be used in defense of the US. They are neither.

Conservatives vote for endless programs like social security, welfare and a myriad of other Federal programs which have no Constitutional Authority. The most evil of which are earmarks, which is just flat out armed robbery where government confiscates money from one citizen and gives it to another. Conservatives have not fully followed the second amendment either finding justification to limit gun ownership. Just a few, but Conservatives routinely ignore Constitutional Authority and there is no reasonable way to view it otherwise.

Most conservatives limit the government to the Constitution my ass.

No.

MOST conservatives do place HUGE value on limiting our Federal Government to JUST those things which are carved out for the Federal Government.

You and I can quibble about whether or not there is a valid Constitutional basis for a "war on drugs." It may gripe you, and you might even be partly corect. In my view, the FEDERAL Role in "law enforcement" is supposed to be limited. That is not to say it is non-existent. Indeed, it's silly to believe that the Federal Government has no proper role in Law Enforcement. And if you concede even that much (as you should if you are being honest and reasonable) then how far that role goes is a more limited question.

As for you usual blather about "declared" wars, you are trite and you are wrong. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to authorize the use of our nation's military might. It does not set forth a particular magic incantation or a prescribed manner of HOW they shall do that. But Congress absolutely DID specifically -- on two major occasions -- authorize the use of our nation's military might in those middle east wars.

And war is within the purview of the grant of LIMITED pwoers given to the Federal Government, so you attempt at making a "point" is doubly defective. It fell flat.

Nothing you posted has any bearing on the correctness of my assertion. LIBS love statism. Conservatives value enumerated powers and LIMITED government. You and your ass have nothing to do with that.

Man, you are the one that is confused and VERY at that.
If you believe the Federal government has a "limited" role in the drug war you need to wake up.
More than 60% OF ALL Federal Corrections dollars goes for drug cases, mandatory sentences. Add in all of the social costs to the families involved and it is the SINGLE BIGGEST expenditure the Judicial system has.
Just last year the DEA added a few dozen NEW drugs to their list.
The war on drugs is A HEALTH PROBLEM made into a law enforcement role BY STATUTE ONLY. The Founders DIDN'T DO THAT. Per capita drug and alcohol use was at all time "highs" (no pun intended) during those years.
Limited government means NO drug war. PERIOD.

 

[Brutus]

Cecilie: we have let corporations take over the government and run the country

Brutus: that is perhaps the stupidest thing a human being could be brain washed to believe. How can perhaps 50 million corporations all around the globe, competing with each other, control our government? In fact, corporations are our slaves. If they are not the best in the world at the lowest price we drive them into bankruptcy.

 

[Liability]

Limited government means LIMITED GOVERNMENT.
Abortion was legal in the late 1700s for whites only. Slaves were forbidden to abort.
Today's "conservatives" do not support limited government. They support prohibition, bans on gay military service, gay marriage and abortion.
They are all about government forcing their agenda on society.
Limited government means none of those bans or prohibitions.

Wrong. Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them.

That's what I support. That's what true conservatives support.

Today's liberals do not even remotely support limiting government to JUST those grants of enumerated powers.

And that's why none of the Founders and Framers would buy into the modern version of "liberalism."

The balance of your post was prattle premised on the fact that you confuse political conservatism with so-called "social" conservatism. There are a number of areas in life in which even conservatives disagree. Naturally, I reject your silly attempts to pigeon-hole all conservatives into the rubric of a liberal talking pointless. But even while many so-called "social" conservatives might not like my views on some of their particular concerns, most conservatives still agree on certain fundamentals.

The grants of enumerated powers spelled out rather carefully in our Constitution are not things to be trifled with or ignored. They are not validly trumped by the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause or snippets taken out of context from the Preamble. That's bullshit lib-"think." They focus on what they call "exceptions" and would have the "exceptions" subsume the entire notion of LIMITED Government. Again, the Founders and Framers would (for the most part) reject that kind of arrogant sophistry.

Blah, blah, blah. "Fundamentals" Like what Moe? And where are they written in stone?
Rush Limbaugh variety?
A true conservative stands for limited government and even if they are against abortion (which I am), gay marriage (could care less), gays in the military and for prohibitions, they would NEVER want government involved in banning them
So are you a conservative or not? Are you in favor of a Constitutional Amendment, since you are speaking of that document, to ban gay marriage?
A document FOUNDED ON LIMITED GOVERNMENT that many modern day so called wannahbe "conservatives" want to use to pass an amendment banning gay marriage. Are you in favor of that distortion orare you a conservative?
Do you want to use The United States Constitution, a document THAT IS DEDICATED TO the preservation of our inalienable rights, to tell a certain group of people WHAT THEY CAN NOT DO, rather than TELL THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IT CAN NOT DO?
Which is it Moe? Do you favor limited government or not and do not want the government involved in gay marriage? A simple YES or NO. No more blah blah blah.

Your "blah blah blah" bullshit is the closest you come to making any sense. Listen up, Chumpley: The fact that you are incapable of grasping simple concepts cannot be ascribed by a dork such as you to conservatives.

Limited government is the key concept of our Constitution. If you really cannot get your tiny little mind wrapped around the notion of "enumerated powers," then you can't be helped.

The powers are enumerated IN the Constitution. This isn't exactly a startling revelation, dork.

You revert to your prattling bullshit, immediately upon evading what was actually said. Look, dufus. I get that you don't want to have an actual discussion focusing on tall the points your diminutive pinhead peabrain cannot handle. It's casual. But I'm still not discussing the notion of "social" conservatives with you, ya simpleton dickweed.

 

[Agit8r]

Fact or not? The modern American version of "liberal" embraces "government" as a fucking panacea. In the view of such "liberals," it is THE go-to tool for solving all manner of problems.

Hmmm... let's examine.

The people needed to be enlightened to carry out republican government. What mechanism did the promoters of limited government look to? Publicly funded education

Communication over distances? Publicly funded post offices and post roads

Inequality of wealth? Abolition of the laws of entail and primogeniture + the Rule Against Perpetuity

Corporations not serving the common good of the community? "The idea that institutions, established for the use of the nation, cannot be touched nor modified, even to make them answer their end, because of the rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may, perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but it is most absurd against the nation itself"
-- Jefferson; letter to William Plumer (July 21, 1916)

just sayin'

 

[Liability]

Fact or not? The modern American version of "liberal" embraces "government" as a fucking panacea. In the view of such "liberals," it is THE go-to tool for solving all manner of problems.

Hmmm... let's examine.

Good idea. But when you do it, do it accurately, honestly and present viable cites and link, m'kay?

The people needed to be enlightened to carry out republican government.

It does work better that way ... And?

What mechanism did the promoters of limited government look to? Publicly funded education

Really? Back that shit up.*

Communication over distances? Publicly funded post offices and post roads

So? A fair argument can be had that since such "roads" necessarily crossed state lines and furthered the Federal (valid) objective of promoting interstate commerce for the General Welfare of the American people, federal roads and post offices fit nicely within the enumerated powers. And even if that point is subject to rational debate, it is not settled in your favor.

Inequality of wealth? Abolition of the laws of entail and primogeniture + the Rule Against Perpetuity

You actually believe that they were addressing inequity of wealth? Bwahahaha.

Corporations not serving the common good of the community? "The idea that institutions, established for the use of the nation, cannot be touched nor modified, even to make them answer their end, because of the rights gratuitously supposed in those employed to manage them in trust for the public, may, perhaps be a salutary provision against the abuses of a monarch, but it is most absurd against the nation itself"
-- Jefferson; letter to William Plumer (July 21, 1916)

just sayin'

It sure sounds like you don't grasp that Jefferson was talking about PUBLIC entities, not private companies. But then again, you seem to have a track record of not quite grasping the things you point to as support for you irrational positions. Just noting the obvious.

____________________
* Even ED.gov recognizes that the Constitution leaves the responsibility for public education (they reference grades K - 12) TO THE STATES.

The U.S. Constitution leaves the responsibility for public K-12 education with the states.

The responsibility for K-12 education rests with the states under the Constitution. * * * *

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html

 

[kaz]

Today's conservatives mostly certainly do support limited government.

Perhaps part of the problem you are obviously having comprehending this is that the word "limited" confuses you.

LIMITED government means that the government is LIMITED TO those powers and authorities which are carved out for them

Please, most conservatives support drug laws, which have no Constitutional authority at all and the war on drugs and intrusion into our privacy committed in the name of the war on drugs in it's name. They support the undeclared wars in the middle east which are unconstitutional both because they were not declared and because the Constitution only authorizes military to be used in defense of the US. They are neither.

Conservatives vote for endless programs like social security, welfare and a myriad of other Federal programs which have no Constitutional Authority. The most evil of which are earmarks, which is just flat out armed robbery where government confiscates money from one citizen and gives it to another. Conservatives have not fully followed the second amendment either finding justification to limit gun ownership. Just a few, but Conservatives routinely ignore Constitutional Authority and there is no reasonable way to view it otherwise.

Most conservatives limit the government to the Constitution my ass.

No.

MOST conservatives do place HUGE value on limiting our Federal Government to JUST those things which are carved out for the Federal Government.

You and I can quibble about whether or not there is a valid Constitutional basis for a "war on drugs." It may gripe you, and you might even be partly corect. In my view, the FEDERAL Role in "law enforcement" is supposed to be limited. That is not to say it is non-existent. Indeed, it's silly to believe that the Federal Government has no proper role in Law Enforcement. And if you concede even that much (as you should if you are being honest and reasonable) then how far that role goes is a more limited question.

This is exactly my point. Quibble, please. The War on Drugs is based on completely Unconstitutional Federal Law and is massive intrusion into our privacy. The Federal Government has no Constitutaionl authority to say ANYTHING about drugs. Therefore, the war is a crime on the American people. Which you refer to as "quibbling." When conservatives want government, somehow it's magically Constitutional. Talk about spin, the war on drugs is legal because it's law enforcement. So basically, the Federal government can make any law it wants and then enforce it as long as it calls it law enforcement even if there is no Constitutional authority for the the law itself. Putting aside the incredible intrusion into our privacy in the name of the war on drugs, which you really need to learn something about, answer step 1.

What is the Constitutional Authority for the Federal government to make drugs illegal? You're going to have to admit it's not there or go to your magic cube for this one.

As for you usual blather about "declared" wars, you are trite and you are wrong. The Constitution grants to Congress the power to authorize the use of our nation's military might. It does not set forth a particular magic incantation or a prescribed manner of HOW they shall do that. But Congress absolutely DID specifically -- on two major occasions -- authorize the use of our nation's military might in those middle east wars.

And war is within the purview of the grant of LIMITED pwoers given to the Federal Government, so you attempt at making a "point" is doubly defective. It fell flat.

"Section. 8.

Clause 1: "provide for the common Defence."

Clause 11: "To declare War..."

I don't see authorize military action there and I don't see securing oil supplies.

Nothing you posted has any bearing on the correctness of my assertion. LIBS love statism. Conservatives value enumerated powers and LIMITED government. You and your ass have nothing to do with that.

Right, nothing convinced you because as I pointed out in the beginning, when Conservatives want government suddenly it's Constitutional. Viola. Amazing.

The right doesn't hesitate to wipe it's ass on the constitution for anything it wants. Remember the Federal attack by Ashcroft on Oregon's Euthanasia law? Enforcing morality is not in the Constitution no matter how many drugs you're on...