What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[Wry Catcher]

No where in the Constitution does the authority exist for the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review. Are we to throw out Marbury v. Madison and all the landmark cases based on some theory? A theory which seems to have been fostered by Richard Nixon?

 

[francoHFW]

SS is guaranteed; as we saw in October 2008 that ain't so with the financial services industry.

SS is not guaranteed - your benefit can be reduced at any time by any amount as seen fit by Congress.

And PUBS will try it every time. And "SS is going broke" is AARP's "Biggest lie".

"And so, what has The Obama done since taking office?
Continued, if not expanded, just about every one of those policies."

Universal Health care, Financial Regulation, Gay soldiers, leading fom behind, Arab Spring, ACTUALLY getting out of Iraq? You're a real kidder! lol

 

[Intense]

The Tea Party is ridiculously conservative, right off the wall, full of myth, and hate the poor and minorities, even the poor ones. The whole mass of the GOP is misled by greedy rich/corporations...

Funny, I'm Tea Party, and concerning me, you are batting Zero. Next Batter.

Perhaps some electric shock therapy might help...

An Intervention may serve you better. Just walk towards the light.

 

[pegwinn]

That's a tough question.

Let's see, the best I can do is put out a list of things to try and point the way. A definition is surely impossible.

• Government should adhere strictly to the literal word of the Constitution. If the literal word is insufficient, then it is time to amend it.
• Your local city council should garner more space in your local paper than that federal government does.
• Local control in every possible area with the exception of those items enumerated in Art I, sec 8.
• Liberty means that you may do as you please so long as the rights you choose to exercise don't abrogate the rights of someone else.

In other words: You should be free enough to walk down the street butt naked, carrying a sawed off shotgun, smoking a joint, hand-in-hand with your wookie lookin same-sex partner. So long as the community you live in approves and you are not hurting anyone else, then have a wonderful life.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No where in the Constitution does the authority exist for the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review. Are we to throw out Marbury v. Madison and all the landmark cases based on some theory?

If you believe that the government can only legitimately do the things it was given the power to do, then the inescapable answer is 'yes'.

 

[Richard-H]

What do they believe in and why are they so quick to attack other self described conservatives as RINO's?

Postscript: Upon reflection this thread limits conservative to the Republican Party; I know many self defined conservatives see themselves as Independents or Libertarian, so let the question be: What do 21st Century conservaitves believe (and skip the snarky second phrase).

That's a easy one!

21st century conservatives believe in 1st century economics.

That about sums it up!

 

[M14 Shooter]

SS is guaranteed; as we saw in October 2008 that ain't so with the financial services industry.

SS is not guaranteed - your benefit can be reduced at any time by any amount as seen fit by Congress.

And PUBS will try it every time. And "SS is going broke" is AARP's "Biggest lie".

Thank you for agreeing with me that SS is not guaranteed.

"And so, what has The Obama done since taking office?
Continued, if not expanded, just about every one of those policies."

Universal Health care, Financial Regulation, Gay soldiers, leading fom behind, Arab Spring, ACTUALLY getting out of Iraq? You're a real kidder! lol

I note you skipped over the fact that The Obama has indeed continued/expanded nearly all of the GWB policies that, according to Him, made GWB a terrible President. I'll take that as a concession of the point.

 

[francoHFW]

I have a feeling that we generation Xr's are going to be SOL when it comes time to collect SS.

I was born in 1980 so I may be a baby boomer and if not I'm X, one of the first X'ers..

I was born on 1969. I am the cutting edge of Gen X.
I wirte my SS deduction off as a charitable contribution, as I am sure I will see none of it.

Pubcrappe myth, AARP says, and everyone else but A-hole pubs. Their propaganda is so well financed half the country believes it. It's amazing how Pubs use the cynicism about gov't for their greedy goals. See also ACA. Change the channel...

 

[rdean]

SS is not guaranteed - your benefit can be reduced at any time by any amount as seen fit by Congress.

And PUBS will try it every time. And "SS is going broke" is AARP's "Biggest lie".

Thank you for agreeing with me that SS is not guaranteed.

"And so, what has The Obama done since taking office?
Continued, if not expanded, just about every one of those policies."

Universal Health care, Financial Regulation, Gay soldiers, leading fom behind, Arab Spring, ACTUALLY getting out of Iraq? You're a real kidder! lol

I note you skipped over the fact that The Obama has indeed continued/expanded nearly all of the GWB policies that, according to Him, made GWB a terrible President. I'll take that as a concession of the point.

Umm, which policy are you talking about?

 

[Intense]

Interesting reading, but once again not relevant.

Actually, yes it is. So was the Magna Carta, and so were the Articles Of Confederation, which protected the Right to bear arms, which the Constitution extended from in principle. The concept of Self Defense is an Unalienable Right. Statist Progressives want the Masses disarmed because it makes control easier. That is the reality Wry Catcher. If you ever decide to step back and see your fellow Citizens equal to you, at least in the Right of Self Defense, Self Preservation, it might sink in. Power is Power, Money is Power, maybe, in some ways that insulates the ruling class from the rest of us. Bottom line is that No One has the means or competence to insure safety, 24/7 cradle to grave. The Courts may play with Gun Rights, they may even Steal them away temporarily, the lie here is claiming that they are serving Justice.

I agree in principle but they are all irrelvant. Remember, only a literal reading of the Constitution is relevant. Not my rule, I believe the law and our Constitution are living documents.

In the United States, the law is derived from four sources:

1. Constitutional Law

2. statutory law

3. administrative regulations

4. the common law (which includes case law).


No law may contradict the Constitution.

Agreed, in part. The literal reading you refer to has been abused, evidenced by reversals in time. The designed catalyst for true change was and is Constitutional Amendment which is empowered by the support of the Super Majority, 3/4 Approval. Unjust Interpretations tend to be a thorn in the side of the controlling authority, until rectified. I do support Judicial Review when backed up in principle, not construction based on imagined Powers or imagination, or utter fantasy. There are Limits to All Powers on Earth. There are checks and balances here. Remember, the Constitution says what it does say, it purposely left certain things ambiguous. Maybe Hamilton played a part in that. Still there is No Authority past the tolerance of the Governed here. For that reason it is best to not abuse Authority. Current Events around the World give example of what happens when the confidence of the People are lost. Establishing, maintaining, and Serving Justice is the Foundation Our Nation was built on. Impartial Justice is Equal Justice for One and All, no Mechanism formed by Us is of More Importance than It's Purpose for being. We should not throw Principle under the bus. I support the Right to Bear Arms. I support Reasonable Legislation to Govern the terms, within reason.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.” Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” p. 262.

The Fallacy of Originalism:
What Philosophy of Language and Law Says About
“Original Meanings”


The resurgence of the new “originalism” among conservative American law professors is
an intellectual movement that fundamentally misunderstands philosophy of language and law.The central problem is that most constitutional words are what Wittgenstein called “family resemblance ideas.” This means that they consist only of a cluster of ideas that can be carried forth or implemented in numerous ways and formats. For example, what “cruel punishment” means linguistically are those choices, X, selected from an array of options, any combination of which bears a family resemblance to each other, had they been X. When generations make these choices to assemble their cruel-punishment “products,” they are making “protocol choices.” The central mistake of the new originalism is that it equates the protocol choices made by the framing generation with the meaning of the words in the constitution that necessitated the protocol election in the first place. This is a language fallacy. The meaning of language is always its use within the language culture, not the election of its cluster protocol. Hence, all that the framing generation ever gives us by way of their specific policy choices are illustrations of constitutional
ideas. They do not give us the meaning of those words. Therefore, any generation that
implements a legal rule containing a family-resemblance idea can only provide subsequent generations with suggestive guidance on how to carry out the rule. The new generation is always free to construct its own family protocol, so long as what it chooses belongs linguistically to the word’s family-resemblance. What this means is that more than one culture across time can follow the same law differently, with each being obedient to its “original meaning.” Also, unless law specifically says so, it never enacts any generation’s cultural protocol. This is because the purpose of law is to regulate culture, not to sanctify it. Hence, culture is free to evolve and create new protocol that does not violate the grammar of the constitution.

http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5226K.pdf

As illustrated and eloquently noted by Justice Kennedy in his majority opinion in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mind if I add something here?

Article I, section 8...the enumerated powers.

"There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied (un-enumerated) powers."

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Interesting reading, but once again not relevant.

True.

Telling the right’s propensity to ignore 208 years of Constitutional case law, including Marbury.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And PUBS will try it every time. And "SS is going broke" is AARP's "Biggest lie".

Thank you for agreeing with me that SS is not guaranteed.

Universal Health care, Financial Regulation, Gay soldiers, leading fom behind, Arab Spring, ACTUALLY getting out of Iraq? You're a real kidder! lol

I note you skipped over the fact that The Obama has indeed continued/expanded nearly all of the GWB policies that, according to Him, made GWB a terrible President. I'll take that as a concession of the point.

Umm, which policy are you talking about?

Here's three:

-Gitmo
-Tax cuts for the rich
-Warantless wiretaps

You may now dodge the issue, as per the norm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Mind if I add something here?

Article I, section 8...the enumerated powers.

"There is nothing in the Constitution which excludes incidental or implied (un-enumerated) powers."

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Citing a little more of the text gives the proper context and perspective:

There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States similar to the Articles of Confederation, which exclude incidental or implied powers.

If the end be legitimate, and within the scope of the Constitution, all the means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, and which are not prohibited, may constitutionally be employed to carry it into effect.

The power of establishing a corporation is not a distinct sovereign power or end of Government, but only the means of carrying into effect other powers which are sovereign. Whenever it becomes an appropriate means of exercising any of the powers given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union, it may be exercised by that Government.

If a certain means to carry into effect of any of the powers expressly given by the Constitution to the Government of the Union be an appropriate measure, not prohibited by the Constitution, the degree of its necessity is a question of legislative discretion, not of judicial cognizance.

To argue that this cases creates a fundation for the idea that the givernment is not actually limited in its powers by those powers given to it in the Constitution is, at best, dishonest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives are, for the most part, reactionaries, adherents to political dogma rather than facts.

Much of it is naïve fantasy: ‘end Social Security and its taxes and Americans can save and have more money for retirement.’ This naivete fails to take into consideration the disability aspect of Social Security for those who become ill or injured, benefits for minor surviving children, and others who would be forced to spend any ‘savings’ to make ends meet or address emergencies, given the fact of static wages over the last 30 years, while costs continue to increase.

Consequently millions of hard-working, middle income (‘paycheck to paycheck’) Americans would be destitute by retirement age, through no fault of their own.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's understandable why Republicans find it so easy to start wars. They are 90% white and mostly Christian so they don't really care for a "different perspective". In fact, "diversity" is bad when your group is so monolithic.

Have you been watching the news? Your messiah is close to starting another war, with Iran, and he just signed a law that says he can go after terrorists anywhere in the world, including inside the US.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting reading, but once again not relevant.

Actually, yes it is. So was the Magna Carta, and so were the Articles Of Confederation, which protected the Right to bear arms, which the Constitution extended from in principle. The concept of Self Defense is an Unalienable Right. Statist Progressives want the Masses disarmed because it makes control easier. That is the reality Wry Catcher. If you ever decide to step back and see your fellow Citizens equal to you, at least in the Right of Self Defense, Self Preservation, it might sink in. Power is Power, Money is Power, maybe, in some ways that insulates the ruling class from the rest of us. Bottom line is that No One has the means or competence to insure safety, 24/7 cradle to grave. The Courts may play with Gun Rights, they may even Steal them away temporarily, the lie here is claiming that they are serving Justice.

I agree in principle but they are all irrelvant. Remember, only a literal reading of the Constitution is relevant. Not my rule, I believe the law and our Constitution are living documents.

In the United States, the law is derived from four sources:

1. Constitutional Law

2. statutory law

3. administrative regulations

4. the common law (which includes case law).


No law may contradict the Constitution.

Explain the NDAA. Failing that, explain why you left out the fact that treaties are aloso a part of US law, and it is actually possible for a treaty to totally disregard the Constitution, and even contradict it, and that laws based on that treaty will be accepted by the courts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No where in the Constitution does the authority exist for the Supreme Court to exercise judicial review. Are we to throw out Marbury v. Madison and all the landmark cases based on some theory? A theory which seems to have been fostered by Richard Nixon?

Are we free to do that? Yes, any idiot knows that, the question that you should be asking is should we.

 

[candycorn]

If ignorance were energy this one thread would power Cleveland for a month.

You could power it for a year.

STFU, Mary

My my...so bitter....so unimportant.

Is Perry still in the race?

 

[candycorn]

What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

Right now, I would say anger. There seems to be a lot of unhappy campers around here.