What beliefs define a 21st Century American conservative?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Conservatives want government restricted to the Founders' intent in the Constitution.

You rightists keep stating this without citing case law in support; by what authority do you determine the Framers’ intent?

Otherwise this is meaningless, subjective opinion.

Liberals want government to do what the liberals want to happen in all aspects of life.

Again: evidence in support? Or more meaningless, subjective opinion? This also makes no sense.

Liberals advocate the utmost government restriction: government may not violate the right to privacy (Griswold/Roe/Casey), government may not conjoin church and state (Engel v. Vitale, 1962), government may not violate one’s right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963), government may not restrict citizens from its laws (Romer v. Evans, 1996).

In these and scores of other cases, conservatives fought against individual liberty and in an effort to expand government authority into the lives of private citizens.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberals want government to do what the liberals want to happen in all aspects of life.

yes liberals seemingly lack the intelligence to understand how freedom works and to see the evil government does and has done, even in the middle of a huge liberal recession.

A liberal has no idea whatsoever why our Founders gave us freedom from big liberal government. It is just beyond their IQ's so like little children they merely believe in magical government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Conservatives want government restricted to the Founders' intent in the Constitution.

You rightists keep stating this without citing case law in support; by what authority do you determine the Framers’ intent?

Otherwise this is meaningless, subjective opinion.

we know intent by what they wrote, not by what liberals imagine emanates form the penumbras of what they wrote.

Again, liberal, what can't emanate from liberal penumbras in the Constitution??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Liberals advocate the utmost government restriction:

sure if you assume privacy somehow relates to abortion and that a baby can be restricted from living

Again, liberal, what can't emanate from liberal penumbras in the Constitution??

 

[Foxfyre]

Liberals want government to do what the liberals want to happen in all aspects of life.

yes liberals seemingly lack the intelligence to understand how freedom works and to see the evil government does and has done, even in the middle of a huge liberal recession.

A liberal has no idea whatsoever why our Founders gave us freedom from big liberal government. It is just beyond their IQ's so like little children they merely believe in magical government.

And then there are some like C_Clayton_Jones who think stating anecdotal and irrelevent case law somehow changes the stated principles. And then when they realize they cannot refute the principle stated, they declare it meaningless.

The principle is quite simple, but it seems that reasoned concepts are beyond the abilityof some of our young minds full of mush to grasp. In modern America,

Conservatives want government to secure our rights and then leave us alone to organize whatever sort of society we wish to have.

Liberals want government to be the dispenser and agent of rights, property, prosperity, and the society the liberal wants to have.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Conservatives want government restricted to the Founders' intent in the Constitution.

You rightists keep stating this without citing case law in support; by what authority do you determine the Framers’ intent?

Otherwise this is meaningless, subjective opinion.

Liberals want government to do what the liberals want to happen in all aspects of life.

Again: evidence in support? Or more meaningless, subjective opinion? This also makes no sense.

Liberals advocate the utmost government restriction: government may not violate the right to privacy (Griswold/Roe/Casey), government may not conjoin church and state (Engel v. Vitale, 1962), government may not violate one’s right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense (Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963), government may not restrict citizens from its laws (Romer v. Evans, 1996).

In these and scores of other cases, conservatives fought against individual liberty and in an effort to expand government authority into the lives of private citizens.

What side did liberals come down on in regards to DC v Heller and McDonald v Chicago?
Individual liberty or government authority?
Restriction of government of restriction of rights?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no right to an abortion in the Constitution, nor did the Court find such a right. There is a right to privacy, however:

Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment, in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner, is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fifth Amendment, in its Self-Incrimination Clause, enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Griswold v. Connecticut

In the context of the right to privacy the state may not interfere with personal decisions regarding procreation.

Wow, are you deluded or just lying? I would really like to know the answer to that.

Individuals do have a right to privacy, but that right does not create an auxiliary right to keep the government from making regulations about what is, and is not, permitted in medical care. If it did we could go to doctors and get prescriptions for various drugs, like marijuana, and the government could not do anything about it. The fact that the government, and the courts, see no dichotomy between saying a woman has a right to privacy regarding abortion, but that same woman does not have a right to privacy if she also takes medical marijuana, proves that the issue in abortion is not privacy. That means that the court actually created a right to abortion in Roe v Wade.

I would love to see you explain that one, except I know you can't, and will not even try, because it would take an actual brain to even attempt to rationalize it.

The Court has found no ‘right to make everyone buy health insurance,’ nor is there any legislation being so considered. The issue of the ACA concerns Congress’ Commerce Clause authority to regulate healthcare, having nothing to do with ‘rights.’

Except it does, unless you are a nincompoop who thinks that the courts write the constitution.

Oops, I keep forgetting, you are a nincompoop.

Such as the right to self-defense and to own a handgun, neither of which are 'found' in the Constitution.

Funny how the Supreme Court disagrees with you, which means that, by your repeated logic, they are actually in the constitution. Are you saying you were wrong and that the courts actually do not write the constitution, or ar you just so stupid you do not even realize you are contradicting yourself?

On the contrary, the right to privacy, the right to due process, the right to equal protection of the law, all act to restrict government excess; the Court’s role in this regard for the last 74 years has been vital in ensuring individual liberty.

What right to privacy? If we actually have a right to privacy why is medical marijuana illegal? Why is it illegal for someone to prescription shop? Why is it illegal for doctors to prescribe pain killers for patients that are in chronic, debilitating pain?

No answer?

This makes no sense, given the fact liberals have done more to protect individual liberty and restrict government excess for almost half a century – from Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 to Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, liberals have fought to protect civil rights from state and local governments’ unwarranted intrusions into citizens’ private lives.

Liberals back the war on drugs, which has done more to erode civil liberties and give government more power since they started the war on drugs because it is good for you.

By the way, how come you never mention the Log Cabin Republicans?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In the context of the right to privacy the state may not interfere with personal decisions regarding procreation.

This is, of course, false.
The state has all kinds of power in this regard, especially after the 1st trimester.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Have a wonderful evening. I hope you return to this issue, you are one of the few on your side who challenges me.

This is a joke; you tell those who actually -do- challnge you to FO.

No I don't. I prefaced my statement to you with a big FU, not because of your argument but because of your snarky comments and attitude. You should feel good that I don't consider you a fool, you have strong opinions and are able to back them up. I simply disagree with your premises.

Life is too short to put up with fools and assholes, and I call them as I see them. Keep the snarky comments out of your posts and I may reconsider (not that I expect you to care, but I will) and move you from the set of assholes to the set of non jerks, a step away from the honorable opposition.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I don't know what's wrong with the quote function today, but the above quotation attributed to me is not anything I wrote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a joke; you tell those who actually -do- challnge you to FO.

No I don't. I prefaced my statement to you with a big FU, not because of your argument but because of your snarky comments and attitude. You should feel good that I don't consider you a fool, you have strong opinions and are able to back them up. I simply disagree with your premises.

Blah blah blah.
Fact of the matter is that you want to impose your morality on others while taking exception to those that want to do the same to you - and you react like a spoiled pre-pubescent it when someone takes you to task for your hypocrisy.

Sorry that the truth bothers you so much -- but there's nothing -I- can do about that.

 

[bripat9643]

When the people's unalienable rights are secured, which was the intent of the Founders, there can be no legal mob rule.

Even if that were true, we don't have that. The federal government routinely violates our rights. Politicians in Washington wipe their ass with the Constitution. The fact is we have an unlimited democracy - mob rule, in other words.

So your choice is social contract in which the people themselves are free to organize themselves into the society they want and the government does the bidding of the people, or an authoritarian government who decides what sort of society they may have and gives them no coioce in the matter.

Whenever you say "the people" you mean the majority, and often it's not even a real majority. Democracy is not a "social contract." Democracy is where the majority imposes its will on the minority. End of story.

There's no such thing as the social contract. It's a myth. It doesn't matter how many times you insist it exists.

If you have a very wise and benevolent king, choice #2 sometimes looks good. If you get a greedy, self serving ruler, however, choice #2 is a very dangerous thing. And in either case, Choice #2 takes away individual liberties from the people.

You didn't number your choices, so I have no idea what #1 and #2 refer to. But it doesn't make any difference because it's irrelevant to the issue of the social contract.

 

[Foxfyre]

When the people's unalienable rights are secured, which was the intent of the Founders, there can be no legal mob rule.

Even if that were true, we don't have that. The federal government routinely violates our rights. Politicians in Washington wipe their ass with the Constitution. The fact is we have an unlimited democracy - mob rule, in other words.

So your choice is social contract in which the people themselves are free to organize themselves into the society they want and the government does the bidding of the people, or an authoritarian government who decides what sort of society they may have and gives them no coioce in the matter.

Whenever you say "the people" you mean the majority, and often it's not even a real majority. Democracy is not a "social contract." Democracy is where the majority imposes its will on the minority. End of story.

There's no such thing as the social contract. It's a myth. It doesn't matter how many times you insist it exists.

If you have a very wise and benevolent king, choice #2 sometimes looks good. If you get a greedy, self serving ruler, however, choice #2 is a very dangerous thing. And in either case, Choice #2 takes away individual liberties from the people.

You didn't number your choices, so I have no idea what #1 and #2 refer to. But it doesn't make any difference because it's irrelevant to the issue of the social contract.

Again you either don't read well or you are intentionally avoiding the points made. I am not discussing conditions that exist outside of the stated principles. The thread asked for beliefs that define a 21st Century American conservative. I am focusing on that. The fact that government and/or people in it don't embrace those beliefs does not change them in the least.

I wonder if it is possible for a liberal to focus on a concept or principle apart from blame, accusations, complaints, and perceived misconduct?

Again, social contract is the system and/or society and/or principles by which a majority of the people choose to organize themselves and live. The only alternatives to that are anarchy in which all social contract and government is rejected . . . or . . . an authoritarian government that assigns us our rights and dictates what we may have and how we must live. If you cannot conceive of a principle of self governance apart from the fact that some people, maybe people like you, reject the concept and do your best to disallow it, I can't do much for you.

I am guessing that the conservatives on this forum are understanding what I am saying here. I am guessing the liberals are incapable of understanding the concept.

 

[bripat9643]

Again you either don't read well or you are intentionally avoiding the points made. I am not discussing conditions that exist outside of the stated principles. The thread asked for beliefs that define a 21st Century American conservative. I am focusing on that. The fact that government and/or people in it don't embrace those beliefs does not change them in the least.

I wonder if it is possible for a liberal to focus on a concept or principle apart from blame, accusations, complaints, and perceived misconduct?

You'll probably find this hard to believe, but I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. The liberals in this forum hate my guts because I tear into them so hard.

I haven't heard many conservatives express a belief in the social contract. When they do it's because they are ignorant of what it really is. Once I explain it, most of them quickly come to understand that they have been suckered. The "social contract" is just a left-wing scam to convince people that they are obligated to pay taxes and comply with government regulations, that they have agreed to these things. The reality is that no one ever agreed to them except the politicians who voted "yeah" on them.

Again, social contract is the system and/or society and/or principles by which a majority of the people choose to organize themselves and live.

No, that's democracy - mob rule, in other words. I never agreed to be ruled by the mob.

The only alternatives to that are anarchy in which all social contract and government is rejected . . . or . . . an authoritarian government that assigns us our rights and dictates what we may have and how we must live.

There are other alternatives, but that is irrelevant. The fact that there may be no alternative doesn't allow anyone to invent some fiction that we all agreed to be ruled by the majority when we clearly didn't. That's the kind of logic used to defend religion. It has no place in a political discussion.

If you cannot conceive of a principle of self governance apart from the fact that some people, maybe people like you, reject the concept and do your best to disallow it, I can't do much for you.

This statement is meaningless babble. I reject concepts because they are fault. I don't believe some claim is true because it makes me feel better to believe it's true. I'm not asking you to do anything for me. I'm pointing out the illogic in your delusion about the so-called "social contract." so others are not sucked in by it.

I am guessing that the conservatives on this forum are understanding what I am saying here. I am guessing the liberals are incapable of understanding the concept.

Again, I'm not a liberal, and I'm guessing the conservatives in this forum are understanding what you are saying. That's why they reject it.

You don't help the cause of conservatives by jabbering about the "social contract." That's an idea designed to promote the liberal agenda, not the conservative agenda.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again you either don't read well or you are intentionally avoiding the points made. I am not discussing conditions that exist outside of the stated principles. The thread asked for beliefs that define a 21st Century American conservative. I am focusing on that. The fact that government and/or people in it don't embrace those beliefs does not change them in the least.

I wonder if it is possible for a liberal to focus on a concept or principle apart from blame, accusations, complaints, and perceived misconduct?

You'll probably find this hard to believe, but I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. The liberals in this forum hate my guts because I tear into them so hard.

I haven't heard many conservatives express a belief in the social contract. When they do it's because they are ignorant of what it really is. Once I explain it, most of them quickly come to understand that they have been suckered. The "social contract" is just a left-wing scam to convince people that they are obligated to pay taxes and comply with government regulations, that they have agreed to these things. The reality is that no one ever agreed to them except the politicians who voted "yeah" on them.

Again, social contract is the system and/or society and/or principles by which a majority of the people choose to organize themselves and live.

No, that's democracy - mob rule, in other words. I never agreed to be ruled by the mob.



There are other alternatives, but that is irrelevant. The fact that there may be no alternative doesn't allow anyone to invent some fiction that we all agreed to be ruled by the majority when we clearly didn't. That's the kind of logic used to defend religion. It has no place in a political discussion.

If you cannot conceive of a principle of self governance apart from the fact that some people, maybe people like you, reject the concept and do your best to disallow it, I can't do much for you.

This statement is meaningless babble. I reject concepts because they are fault. I don't believe some claim is true because it makes me feel better to believe it's true. I'm not asking you to do anything for me. I'm pointing out the illogic in your delusion about the so-called "social contract." so others are not sucked in by it.

I am guessing that the conservatives on this forum are understanding what I am saying here. I am guessing the liberals are incapable of understanding the concept.

Again, I'm not a liberal, and I'm guessing the conservatives in this forum are understanding what you are saying. That's why they reject it.

You don't help the cause of conservatives by jabbering about the "social contract." That's an idea designed to promote the liberal agenda, not the conservative agenda.

Well at least I know what social contract is. You obviously don't have a clue.

Nor are you libertarian no matter how much you profess to be. Our Founders were all libertarians (little "L") with a very strong sense of social contract and wrote a Constitution for a central government that would secure the rights of the people and then leave them alone to form whatever sort of society they wished to have.

You don't help the cause of libertarianism or conservatism by attempting to reject that concept. If the wishes of the majority in how the community is organized is 'mob rule' in your eyes, then logically so is your demand for anarchy and ability to reject everybody else's preferences. At least under social contract the people can choose to live in peace, tranquility, and harmony. Under your apparent preferred system, nobody's rights are inviolate and mob rule can absolutely prevail.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Again you either don't read well or you are intentionally avoiding the points made. I am not discussing conditions that exist outside of the stated principles. The thread asked for beliefs that define a 21st Century American conservative. I am focusing on that. The fact that government and/or people in it don't embrace those beliefs does not change them in the least.

I wonder if it is possible for a liberal to focus on a concept or principle apart from blame, accusations, complaints, and perceived misconduct?

You'll probably find this hard to believe, but I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. The liberals in this forum hate my guts because I tear into them so hard.

I haven't heard many conservatives express a belief in the social contract. When they do it's because they are ignorant of what it really is. Once I explain it, most of them quickly come to understand that they have been suckered. The "social contract" is just a left-wing scam to convince people that they are obligated to pay taxes and comply with government regulations, that they have agreed to these things. The reality is that no one ever agreed to them except the politicians who voted "yeah" on them.

Again, social contract is the system and/or society and/or principles by which a majority of the people choose to organize themselves and live.

No, that's democracy - mob rule, in other words. I never agreed to be ruled by the mob.



There are other alternatives, but that is irrelevant. The fact that there may be no alternative doesn't allow anyone to invent some fiction that we all agreed to be ruled by the majority when we clearly didn't. That's the kind of logic used to defend religion. It has no place in a political discussion.

If you cannot conceive of a principle of self governance apart from the fact that some people, maybe people like you, reject the concept and do your best to disallow it, I can't do much for you.

This statement is meaningless babble. I reject concepts because they are fault. I don't believe some claim is true because it makes me feel better to believe it's true. I'm not asking you to do anything for me. I'm pointing out the illogic in your delusion about the so-called "social contract." so others are not sucked in by it.

I am guessing that the conservatives on this forum are understanding what I am saying here. I am guessing the liberals are incapable of understanding the concept.

Again, I'm not a liberal, and I'm guessing the conservatives in this forum are understanding what you are saying. That's why they reject it.

You don't help the cause of conservatives by jabbering about the "social contract." That's an idea designed to promote the liberal agenda, not the conservative agenda.

Please keep posting. The 'knowledge' you impart is critical in helping those on the fence decide which way to vote. I'm sure many right leaning conservatives consider you to be their mentor and a role model for all conservatives. Keep on recruiting, it helps more than you know.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again you either don't read well or you are intentionally avoiding the points made. I am not discussing conditions that exist outside of the stated principles. The thread asked for beliefs that define a 21st Century American conservative. I am focusing on that. The fact that government and/or people in it don't embrace those beliefs does not change them in the least.

I wonder if it is possible for a liberal to focus on a concept or principle apart from blame, accusations, complaints, and perceived misconduct?

You'll probably find this hard to believe, but I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. The liberals in this forum hate my guts because I tear into them so hard.

I haven't heard many conservatives express a belief in the social contract. When they do it's because they are ignorant of what it really is. Once I explain it, most of them quickly come to understand that they have been suckered. The "social contract" is just a left-wing scam to convince people that they are obligated to pay taxes and comply with government regulations, that they have agreed to these things. The reality is that no one ever agreed to them except the politicians who voted "yeah" on them.



No, that's democracy - mob rule, in other words. I never agreed to be ruled by the mob.



There are other alternatives, but that is irrelevant. The fact that there may be no alternative doesn't allow anyone to invent some fiction that we all agreed to be ruled by the majority when we clearly didn't. That's the kind of logic used to defend religion. It has no place in a political discussion.



This statement is meaningless babble. I reject concepts because they are fault. I don't believe some claim is true because it makes me feel better to believe it's true. I'm not asking you to do anything for me. I'm pointing out the illogic in your delusion about the so-called "social contract." so others are not sucked in by it.

I am guessing that the conservatives on this forum are understanding what I am saying here. I am guessing the liberals are incapable of understanding the concept.

Again, I'm not a liberal, and I'm guessing the conservatives in this forum are understanding what you are saying. That's why they reject it.

You don't help the cause of conservatives by jabbering about the "social contract." That's an idea designed to promote the liberal agenda, not the conservative agenda.

Please keep posting. The 'knowledge' you impart is critical in helping those on the fence decide which way to vote. I'm sure many right leaning conservatives consider you to be their mentor and a role model for all conservatives. Keep on recruiting, it helps more than you know.

Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.

I think all true modern American conservatives pretty much share the same ideals, principles, and concepts at least at the center core. But until you actually formulate a definition for what the center core is, it is difficult to unify in a cause or principle or acheive any success in effective positive change.

For me the center core is the mantra I keep hammering into the discussion:
The modern American conservative (MAC for short) essentially wants the federal government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any individual or targeted group), and secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Liberals don't get that either as a concept or a principle. Modern American conservatives do.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You'll probably find this hard to believe, but I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian. The liberals in this forum hate my guts because I tear into them so hard.

I haven't heard many conservatives express a belief in the social contract. When they do it's because they are ignorant of what it really is. Once I explain it, most of them quickly come to understand that they have been suckered. The "social contract" is just a left-wing scam to convince people that they are obligated to pay taxes and comply with government regulations, that they have agreed to these things. The reality is that no one ever agreed to them except the politicians who voted "yeah" on them.



No, that's democracy - mob rule, in other words. I never agreed to be ruled by the mob.



There are other alternatives, but that is irrelevant. The fact that there may be no alternative doesn't allow anyone to invent some fiction that we all agreed to be ruled by the majority when we clearly didn't. That's the kind of logic used to defend religion. It has no place in a political discussion.



This statement is meaningless babble. I reject concepts because they are fault. I don't believe some claim is true because it makes me feel better to believe it's true. I'm not asking you to do anything for me. I'm pointing out the illogic in your delusion about the so-called "social contract." so others are not sucked in by it.



Again, I'm not a liberal, and I'm guessing the conservatives in this forum are understanding what you are saying. That's why they reject it.

You don't help the cause of conservatives by jabbering about the "social contract." That's an idea designed to promote the liberal agenda, not the conservative agenda.

Please keep posting. The 'knowledge' you impart is critical in helping those on the fence decide which way to vote. I'm sure many right leaning conservatives consider you to be their mentor and a role model for all conservatives. Keep on recruiting, it helps more than you know.

Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.

I think all true modern American conservatives pretty much share the same ideals, principles, and concepts at least at the center core. But until you actually formulate a definition for what the center core is, it is difficult to unify in a cause or principle or acheive any success in effective positive change.

For me the center core is the mantra I keep hammering into the discussion:
The modern American conservative (MAC for short) essentially wants the federal government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any individual or targeted group), and secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Liberals don't get that either as a concept or a principle. Modern American conservatives do.

Ujm...I need to learn how to use the quote function properly. My comment was entirely sarcastic and directed at bripat. Sorry for creating the confusion.

I do think you are a good role model. However, I disagree with you and other originalists. I believe our Constitution is a living document.

 

[Foxfyre]

Please keep posting. The 'knowledge' you impart is critical in helping those on the fence decide which way to vote. I'm sure many right leaning conservatives consider you to be their mentor and a role model for all conservatives. Keep on recruiting, it helps more than you know.

Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.

I think all true modern American conservatives pretty much share the same ideals, principles, and concepts at least at the center core. But until you actually formulate a definition for what the center core is, it is difficult to unify in a cause or principle or acheive any success in effective positive change.

For me the center core is the mantra I keep hammering into the discussion:
The modern American conservative (MAC for short) essentially wants the federal government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any individual or targeted group), and secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Liberals don't get that either as a concept or a principle. Modern American conservatives do.

Ujm...I need to learn how to use the quote function properly. My comment was entirely sarcastic and directed at bripat. Sorry for creating the confusion.

I do think you are a good role model. However, I disagree with you and other originalists. I believe our Constitution is a living document.

Which makes you more of a liberal than a conservative. I should have realized you were addressing Bripat, however.

The problem with the 'living document' concept is that it gives too much leeway for a President or Congress or the Courts to interpret it to their own benefit and purpose rather than adhere to the core principles it was intended to protect. If the Constitution is not interpreted as the Founders interpreted it and intended it, it becomes too fluid to have much ability to protect anything of value to any of us.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well thanks, but I have no illusions about being anybody's role model or mentor or having any more influence than anybody else. Being a bit of a wordsmith, however, I do like to assign names or labels to concepts and principles held by many but which have become poorly defined in modern vernacular. Terms like 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'social contract' or 'original intent'.

I think all true modern American conservatives pretty much share the same ideals, principles, and concepts at least at the center core. But until you actually formulate a definition for what the center core is, it is difficult to unify in a cause or principle or acheive any success in effective positive change.

For me the center core is the mantra I keep hammering into the discussion:
The modern American conservative (MAC for short) essentially wants the federal government to provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare and not any individual or targeted group), and secure the unalienable rights of the people, and then leave the people alone to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.

Liberals don't get that either as a concept or a principle. Modern American conservatives do.

Ujm...I need to learn how to use the quote function properly. My comment was entirely sarcastic and directed at bripat. Sorry for creating the confusion.

I do think you are a good role model. However, I disagree with you and other originalists. I believe our Constitution is a living document.

Which makes you more of a liberal than a conservative. I should have realized you were addressing Bripat, however.

The problem with the 'living document' concept is that it gives too much leeway for a President or Congress or the Courts to interpret it to their own benefit and purpose rather than adhere to the core principles it was intended to protect. If the Constitution is not interpreted as the Founders interpreted it and intended it, it becomes too fluid to have much ability to protect anything of value to any of us.

Yet the founders gave us checks to such abuse of power, every two years we can change our leadership by the vote and Americans have never been shy about doing so.