Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[dblack]

Conservatives have no interest in big government (except in getting rid of it) is of the bigger far right reactionary misconceptions on this Board.

The Mann Act, 1910, was enacted to stop white slavery and vice, including prostitution. Prohibition was similar in using Big Government to change social and cultural behavior through political action. That is what the pro-life and heterosexual marriage supporters advocate from Big Government.

"Progressivism", in other words, has conservative and liberal wings that want Big Government to enact their agendas.

It has taken me two years to get you to see the light.

That post shows that those seedlings are starting to take root.

.

Your statement Conservatives have no interest in big government (except in getting rid of it) is false. My examples show why.

You are a libertarian, not a conservative, and your last post is very confused.

Please stay on track.

The confusion is yours. You seem to have mis-attributed a quote or something. Put down the drink and read again.

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Progressivism", in other words, has conservative and liberal wings that want Big Government to enact their agendas.

I smell a strong odor of "everybody does it" coming out of the leftist lie, diversion, and excuse locker. I thought we sprayed for that, long ago.

Of course, there are no conservatives who want Big Government to enact their agenda. In fact, the conservative agenda is to get rid of big government. Or at least to cut it down to the size the Constitution requires... after which it won't be Big any more.

Liberals (in both parties), on the other hand, are fine with using Big Government to enact whatever agenda comes along.

They have a tendency to paint with the broadest brush possible, as JakeStarkey does here, to pretend they have something in common with conservatives, and try to borrow some of the sheen of legitimacy conservatives have in the body politic.

 

[Bombur]

The nature of a contract is that it's a mutual agreement. If either side fails to abide by it, it's no longer binding. That's not really controversial, is it? Are you really comfortable being bound to a contract that can be modified without your consent?

Theoretically yes.

Realistically no.

You can always just move or vote for change.

What? I don't understand your answer. Which question are you answering?

Theoretically it is not binding anymore.

Realistically it is if the other side has the power to enforce it whether you agree or not.

I would also add that it isn't the Constitution that is really important but the Declaration of Independence as that establishes the basis of government in which the Constitution is built. The Constitution and the US government as it stood in 1789 completely and totally failed to live up to the standards established in the Declaration and anyone would have been morally in the right to over throw that Constitution and that government by the standards set forth in the Declaration.

 

[dblack]

Theoretically yes.

Realistically no.

You can always just move or vote for change.

What? I don't understand your answer. Which question are you answering?

Theoretically it is not binding anymore.

Realistically it is if the other side has the power to enforce it whether you agree or not.

I would also add that it isn't the Constitution that is really important but the Declaration of Independence as that establishes the basis of government in which the Constitution is built. The Constitution and the US government as it stood in 1789 completely and totally failed to live up to the standards established in the Declaration and anyone would have been morally in the right to over throw that Constitution and that government by the standards set forth in the Declaration.

I see now. Thanks for the clarification. Also agree with your follow up. Good post.

The fact that you point out, that realistically we are bound to it, whether we explicitly consent or not, is exactly why I think 'living document' doctrine is so dangerous. Changes should require ALL of the extra consensus required by the amendment process, and not be 'worked around' by creative lawyering.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Your statement Conservatives have no interest in big government (except in getting rid of it) is false.

Actually, it is true.

My examples show why.

My statement shows why your examples are wrong.

You are a libertarian,

Repeating false statements like this, does not make them true.

not a conservative,

"Conservative" is a philosophy.

"Libertarian" is a political party. One that is mostly conservative, but which has a foreign policy outlook so hands-off as to be suicidal in this day and age. This foreign-policy silliness is the biggest reason the Libertarian party remains so small. Only if the reigning leftists become so powerful, and so dangerous to the country, that the Libertarians look good overall in comparison to them (foreign-policy silliness and all), might the Libertarian party start to grow.

Notice they have grown considerable in the last half dozen years.

 

[Bombur]

What? I don't understand your answer. Which question are you answering?

Theoretically it is not binding anymore.

Realistically it is if the other side has the power to enforce it whether you agree or not.

I would also add that it isn't the Constitution that is really important but the Declaration of Independence as that establishes the basis of government in which the Constitution is built. The Constitution and the US government as it stood in 1789 completely and totally failed to live up to the standards established in the Declaration and anyone would have been morally in the right to over throw that Constitution and that government by the standards set forth in the Declaration.

I see now. Thanks for the clarification. Also agree with your follow up. Good post.

The fact that you point out, that realistically we are bound to it, whether we explicitly consent or not, is exactly why I think 'living document' doctrine is so dangerous. Changes should require ALL of the extra consensus required by the amendment process, and not be 'worked around' by creative lawyering.

I think Congress would have amended it a long time ago if they were ever so limited. But they were never limited to such a degree so it is kind of a dead issue at this point.

It can always be amended to be more limited. LOL

 

[dblack]

Your statement Conservatives have no interest in big government (except in getting rid of it) is false.

Actually, it is true.

My examples show why.

My statement shows why your examples are wrong.

You are a libertarian,

Repeating false statements like this, does not make them true.

not a conservative,

"Conservative" is a philosophy.

"Libertarian" is a political party. One that is mostly conservative, but which had a foreign policy outlook so hands-off as to be suicidal in this day and age.

You're just wrangling definitions. All kinds of people claim to be "conservative" (as well as "libertarian", "progressive", "liberal") etc... So it's fairly pointless to say "Conservatives believe X", because there will always be examples of self labeled "Conservatives" who contradict the statement. All we can really do is express our beliefs and intent in using the terms we use.

 

[Contumacious]

Of course, there are no conservatives who want Big Government to enact their agenda. In fact, the conservative agenda is to get rid of big government..

BULLSHIT.

The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism


Conservatives, Buckley wrote, were duty-bound to promote "the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy," as well as the "large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington."


As for most of the leaders of the so-called Christian Right and the "moral majority," they simply desire the replacement of the current, left-liberal elite in charge of national education by another one, i.e., themselves. "From Burke on," Robert Nisbet has criticized this posture, "it has been a conservative precept and a sociological principle since Auguste Comte that the surest way of weakening the family, or any vital social group, is for the government to assume, and then monopolize, the family's historic functions."

.

 

[Mustang]

"Progressivism", in other words, has conservative and liberal wings that want Big Government to enact their agendas.

I smell a strong odor of "everybody does it" coming out of the leftist lie, diversion, and excuse locker. I thought we sprayed for that, long ago.

Of course, there are no conservatives who want Big Government to enact their agenda. In fact, the conservative agenda is to get rid of big government. Or at least to cut it down to the size the Constitution requires... after which it won't be Big any more.

Liberals (in both parties), on the other hand, are fine with using Big Government to enact whatever agenda comes along.

They have a tendency to paint with the broadest brush possible, as JakeStarkey does here, to pretend they have something in common with conservatives, and try to borrow some of the sheen of legitimacy conservatives have in the body politic.

Nonsense.

Washington DC is full of Republicans AND conservative Republicans in the form of lobbyists and special interest groups who are there SPECIFICALLY:

A. to get as big a piece of the federal pie as they can and

B. to get big gov't support in order to enact their agenda

 

[boilermaker55]

You are not even of comedic value anymore.
They are coming to take you away one day.

I think the OP would blow a gasket if (s)he read Scalia's authoring of the decision in Employment Division v. Smith




>>>>

Between you & me, I think the OP has long since proven any gaskets he may have are ones that are malfunctioning.

You're a numskull without the slightest grasp of reality, so why would anyone care what you think?

 

[dblack]

Looks like a few people here are making the common error of mistaking Republicans for conservatives.

Naw.. they're just making the (accurate) observation that plenty of people who call themselves conservatives don't espouse the values you cited (our own [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION], for example).

 

[Erand7899]

Looks like a few people here are making the common error of mistaking Republicans for conservatives.

Naw.. they're just making the (accurate) observation that plenty of people who call themselves conservatives don't espouse the values you cited (our own [MENTION=45665]protectionist[/MENTION], for example).

There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal/social conservatives. Fiscal conservatives are pretty well united in their desire for a smaller and more efficient federal government, limited to the functions assigned by the Constitution. Social conservatives do not always agree with fiscal restraint. And, fiscal conservatives are often very liberal on social issues. The point is that when you say "conservative's believe" you need to indicate which conservatives you are talking about.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[/B][/SIZE]

It has taken me two years to get you to see the light.

That post shows that those seedlings are starting to take root.

.

Your statement Conservatives have no interest in big government (except in getting rid of it) is false. My examples show why.

You are a libertarian, not a conservative, and your last post is very confused.

Please stay on track.

The confusion is yours. You seem to have mis-attributed a quote or something. Put down the drink and read again.

Shut up if you can't confront my examples above with clear and precise examples.

Modern American conservatism is progressive and believes in Big Government to resolve issues.

Modern American libertarianism does believe in small government and little regulation of business.

Please offer a clear, concise, and exemplified system. Pay attention.

 

[Little-Acorn]

There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal/social conservatives.

Those are the ones I was talking about: The ones who innocently make the mistake, because they don't know what an actual conservative is.

A conservative is someone who doesn't want government interfering with any part of his life, unless (a) interference is absolutely necessary, and (b) government is the ONLY one who can successfully do it. True for fiscal situations and social situations alike.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberals (in both parties), on the other hand, are fine with using Big Government to enact whatever agenda comes along.

They have a tendency to paint with the broadest brush possible, as JakeStarkey does here, to pretend they have something in common with conservatives, and try to borrow some of the sheen of legitimacy conservatives have in the body politic.

No, you are not a conservative, simply a reactionary libertarian in conservative clothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You're just wrangling definitions. All kinds of people claim to be "conservative" (as well as "libertarian", "progressive", "liberal") etc... So it's fairly pointless to say "Conservatives believe X", because there will always be examples of self labeled "Conservatives" who contradict the statement. All we can really do is express our beliefs and intent in using the terms we use.

In other words, far right reactionaries as well as libertarians are confused.

 

[Contumacious]

Looks like a few people here are making the common error of mistaking Republicans for conservatives.

Some might make this mistake innocently, simply from not knowing what conservatism is, and how it differs from Republicans sometimes do.

Others do it for the purpose of concealing what conservatism is... since the Constitution is a fundamentally conservative document, and it opposes the big-government agenda of most liberals (in both parties). Their attempts to pretend that conservatives have a big-government agenda, .

The Constitution is a LIBERTARIAN DOCUMENT

Rights are secured by NATURE's god

No authority was granted to invade every country on the face of mother earth

no authority was granted to meddle in the internal affairs of other nations

no authority was granted to prevent Americans from self medicating, from buying poontang, from buying liquor on Sundays, etc, etc, etc

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal/social conservatives.

Those are the ones I was talking about: The ones who innocently make the mistake, because they don't know what an actual conservative is.

A conservative is someone who doesn't want government interfering with any part of his life, unless (a) interference is absolutely necessary, and (b) government is the ONLY one who can successfully do it. True for fiscal situations and social situations alike.

Sonny, you just described libertarianism.

 

[Yurt]

reactionary, reactionary, reactionary, reactionary, reactionary

 

[Little-Acorn]

There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, and fiscal/social conservatives.

Those are the ones I was talking about: The ones who innocently make the mistake, because they don't know what an actual conservative is.

A conservative is someone who doesn't want government interfering with any part of his life, unless (a) interference is absolutely necessary, and (b) government is the ONLY one who can successfully do it. True for fiscal situations and social situations alike.

Sonny, you just described libertarianism.

Probably so. Libertarians are conservatives. They just have kooky ideas on foreign policy, which pretty much keep them from ever gaining most public offices.