The Most Important Issue of the 2012 Election.

Publius1787

Gold Member
Jan 11, 2011
6,211
676
190
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!
 
Last edited:
I agree, except that it proves why Obama should be re-elected. :D

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:
What is a 'Negative liberty'?

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]
 
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.
 
What is a 'Negative liberty'?

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]

In other words God versus man...when it comes to governance.
 
What is a 'Negative liberty'?

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]

In other words God versus man...when it comes to governance.

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.
 
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.

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 wouldn’t mind if it were exterminated.
 
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.

Negative vs Positive liberty - YouTube

In other words God versus man...when it comes to governance.

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.

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.
 
In other words God versus man...when it comes to governance.

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.

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.

Oh, very well. Your response could be taken in either direction. I just wanted to be clear.
 
The Most Important Issue of the 2012 Election.

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.

according to you that would be for every election ... not democracy through governance but despotism by the rulings of 9 appointed individuals.
 
The Most Important Issue of the 2012 Election.

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.

according to you that would be for every election ... not democracy through governance but despotism by the rulings of 9 appointed individuals.

You claim lacks the thought process of how you came to such a concludsion. To reply to it is to make assumptions. I dont like to make assumptions when avoidable. In other words, my question is "How so?"
 
According to the link, the prediction is

1) pure "speculation"
2) premised on Obama being president in 2015

In other words, a Supreme Court expert said that he thinks Ginsberg will probably resign if Obama wins a second term.
 
Religious organizations forced to furnish birth control to employees? It isn't my choice but it seems that Obama fans might like the slogan "a condom in every wallet".
 
Thank god we will have Obama making those selections.

It looks like we wont get a Republican President till at least 2020. That should give the Dems a chance to properly appoint the court

Clarence Thomas?
 
What is a 'Negative liberty'?

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.

Even unalienable individual rights don't exist without government. There's nothing natural about them at all. In the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat your kill in the hope that I'll leave you some scraps. Without something to enforce additonal rights, we usually call it government, they're ephemeral at best.
 
What is a 'Negative liberty'?

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.

Even unalienable individual rights don't exist without government. There's nothing natural about them at all. In the natural world, if I'm stronger than you, your only right is to sit meekly by while I eat your kill in the hope that I'll leave you some scraps. Without something to enforce additonal rights, we usually call it government, they're ephemeral at best.

Individual rights exist whether a government does or not. It is the government’s role to recognize those rights and defend them. This is a negative view of liberty. A positive view of liberty would be that government has the right to take away your individual liberty in order to give you rights that are outside your natural rights. Housing, healthcare, food, income equality, free electric, wic, education are a few examples of rights that can only come about by sacrificing natural negative liberties.
 

Forum List

Back
Top