The Most Important Issue of the 2012 Election.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Publius1787, Mar 23, 2012.

  1. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    The Most Important Issue of the 2012 Election.

    Normally I wouldn’t care if Obama won the election. There is not a Republican candidate who can properly articulate conservatism, and like George Bush, they’re likely to embarrass true conservative ideals and set us back politically. Another plus, if Obama won the 2012 election, is that he will no doubt continue to run America in a way that proves that liberalism doesn’t work. This will create a conservative resurgence that would last for years to come, and with a higher likelihood that we could have a truly conservative president with a congress to boot.

    However, this story changes all of that! Evidently, liberal hero, Supreme Court Justice, and former head of the ACLU women’s rights department, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is stepping down in 2015 at the age of 82. Not to mention that. Mr. living ever changing constitution himself, Justice Breyer is getting old as well!

    The next president will certainly have at least one opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court justice. He is likely, however, to appoint two. In other words, this is our chance to have 6 solid strict constitutionalist conservatives on the Supreme Court with one moderate. So when it comes to the 2012 election, as conservatives, we all should support whatever dumbfounded Republican candidate that happens to end up on the ballot. This is not an election for teaching a lesson to those Republicans who fail to articulate and abide by true conservatism. This is an election for the spirit of our Constitution. This election is a fight over whether our Constitution is a charter of negative individual liberties and limited enumerated government, or positive collective liberties and further opportunity’s to lead the country in to a system of heavy handed socialism. This is an election to determin if the Constitution means what it says or means whatever liberals want it to. It’s Locke vs. Rousseau, Jefferson/Madison vs. Hamilton, and liberty vs. tyranny all over again. If you take in to consideration Obama's past Supreme Court nominees, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, it is by far the most important issue of the 2012 election!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  2. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,571
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,674
    I agree, except that it proves why Obama should be re-elected. :D
     
  3. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    Oh, that goes without saying. There are always liberals, and conservatives to a much lesser and more social extent, who want to use the courts to justify congressional powers where there are none. I would just ask that if you don’t like the fact that the Constitution was written with this principle in mind (Read the Last 4 Paragraphs), then it should be amended, not ignored or purposely/ignorantly misinterpreted.
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2012
  4. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    What is a 'Negative liberty'?
     
  5. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    Its currently a legal and ideological term. Negative liberties are with respect to the unaleinable individual natural rights while positive liberties include rights that can only be granted by government for the collective at the expense of individual liberty. This video will help.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84wJlDC8--o]Negative vs Positive liberty - YouTube[/ame]
     
  6. Ernie S.
    Offline

    Ernie S. Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2010
    Messages:
    33,694
    Thanks Received:
    7,731
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Ratings:
    +12,498
    The 2 justices you mention are both liberals so replacing them in kind, won't effect the Court that much. While I would like to see a Conservative President and the SCOTUS 6/3 or even 7/2, if the GOP wins the Senate, they, in effect, get to choose judges.
    GOP control of both houses would force obama to the right, as it did Clinton. All things considered, we did pretty well from '94 through '07.
     
  7. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    In other words God versus man...when it comes to governance.
     
  8. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    God vs. Man? Well if your making a reference of natural law, then yes, your right. If your making a reference of theocracy, no your wrong.
     
  9. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,398
    That depends on who is doing the replacing. Furthermore, a Republican in place of Obama could tilt the court back toward the pre FDR & Warren Court madness. Liberal constitutional interpretation is exceptionally young. I wouldnÂ’t mind if it were exterminated.
     
  10. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502
    Not speaking of theocracy or ever thought about it. Natural law, YES. The Founders addressed it in the DOI, and codified it in The Constitution.

    It's that simple. Liberty is God-given and not for any man, or man's Government to take away unless law was broken. And ours was based on God's Law... and NOT to be confused with a theocracy.
     

Share This Page