CDZ What is a Constitutional Conservative?

[jwoodie]

This term seems to be bandied about as some sort of litmus test without ever defining its actual meaning. While it is true that people are free to use (or misuse) any term they choose, being labeled as a Constitutional Conservative seems to have been particularly significant during this year's Presidential primaries.

Using common language definitions, a Constitutional Conservative is someone who seeks neither to add nor subtract from the powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution. As such this would seem to preclude "social" policies of any kind by the federal government, whether they be regarding Affirmative Action or Abortion, leaving those issues to the States.

Do you agree with this definition? If so, which candidates most closely meet these specifications?

 

[ScienceRocks]

It is pretty much economic libertarianism. Of course in reality it is very much a opinion and doesn't allow for any of the case law the past 225 years. The thing is there isn't really that many limits on the federal government outside of the basic bill of rights...Even the 10th amendment says that the federal government is "Superior" over the states.

This mindset is pretty much a opinion in the same way as one group of people in the 1790's with the federalist papers believed that government should be tiny. It was their opinion that had shown to not work already with the articles before our constitution and many others like Adams disagreed with such. This is pretty much where such stems from.

Think about this, all three branches of our government suppose to be equal and so being so the federal courts(supreme court) has the power of Judaical review. What's that? It is the power to define laws and constitutional meaning of such laws. The founders made this process as to allow our laws to fit with the times. Most laws and legislation is based on case law and what is allowable under such Judaical review. This is not only for the courts, but our congress too as their job is to do the will of the people. We'd have to be the only country on earth in their little world that had a congress that couldn't do the will of the people. Their idea of congress is one that simply does a few things and allows everything else to be done by the states! In reality, where in the constitution do they come up with such? For one it would be anti-democractic as nothing the people ever voted for could ever be done and 2. it wouldn't work within the real world of the 21st century. We got rid of the articles because of the same kind of reasoning.

The united states congress through case laws, judicial review and the constitution has the power to make statutory law and regulations that allow our society to function and do the will of the voters. Constitutional conservativism that lives in 1787 would go against everything are constitution stands for and wouldn't even work in the real world.

 

[jwoodie]

.Even the 10th amendment says that the federal government is "Superior" over the states.

Perhaps you misread the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[Agit8r]

Originally it was someone who wanted the Constitution to spell out all the indisputably legitimate and necessary functions of government:

"the great mass of the articles on which impost is paid are foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of Federal powers. By these operations new channels of communications will be opened between the States, the lines of separation will disappear, their interests will be identified, and their union cemented by new and indissoluble ties."
-- Thomas Jefferson; from 6th Annual Message (Dec. 2, 1806)

 

[ScienceRocks]

But it does effect the 10th amendment none the less

"The Supremacy Clause is a clause within Article VI of the U.S. Constitution which dictates that federal law is the "supreme law of the land". This means that judges in every state must follow the Constitution, laws, and treatises of the federal government in matters which are directly or indirectly within the government's control. Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law." The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption - FindLaw

 

[ScienceRocks]

Moreover, the federal government has broad powers under the Supremacy Clause to create, regulate, and enforce the laws of the United States. The concept of federalism, or that of federal power, has a long-standing history dating back to the late 1700's, during the time in which the nation's founding fathers signed the U.S. Constitution. Among those powers, the federal government has certain express (or "enumerated") powers which are specifically spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, including the right to regulate commerce, declare war, levy taxes, establish immigration and bankruptcy laws, and so on.

Not only does the federal government have express powers under the U.S. Constitution, it also has implied powers, or powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This was the decision in the landmark Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland. For example, the Constitution does not expressly mention the right to privacy, or the right of people to adopt, or seek an abortion, however, these rights can be inferred by the Constitution itself, or from the later amended Bill of Rights.

Whether express or implied, federal law will almost always prevail when it interferes or conflicts with state law, except in circumstances where the federal law is deemed unconstitutional, or where the Supremacy Clause does not apply.

To that end, people living within the U.S. should be aware of the broad powers of the federal government, especially on issues affecting their daily lives, such as bankruptcy issues, discrimination claims, immigration challenges, federal taxation, and many others. A constitutional law attorney can help with the construction and interpretation of a federal law as applied to a particular state law.

The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption - FindLaw

 

[Holos]

I agree. All candidates abide to perfection - thus is my reassured comprehension of the U.S.A. Constitution. My interests are not only protected but fairly promoted in respect to the common interests of my neighbors.

 

[jwoodie]

Moreover, the federal government has broad powers under the Supremacy Clause to create, regulate, and enforce the laws of the United States. The concept of federalism, or that of federal power, has a long-standing history dating back to the late 1700's, during the time in which the nation's founding fathers signed the U.S. Constitution. Among those powers, the federal government has certain express (or "enumerated") powers which are specifically spelled out in the U.S. Constitution, including the right to regulate commerce, declare war, levy taxes, establish immigration and bankruptcy laws, and so on.

Not only does the federal government have express powers under the U.S. Constitution, it also has implied powers, or powers not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. This was the decision in the landmark Supreme Court case of McCulloch v. Maryland. For example, the Constitution does not expressly mention the right to privacy, or the right of people to adopt, or seek an abortion, however, these rights can be inferred by the Constitution itself, or from the later amended Bill of Rights.

Whether express or implied, federal law will almost always prevail when it interferes or conflicts with state law, except in circumstances where the federal law is deemed unconstitutional, or where the Supremacy Clause does not apply.

To that end, people living within the U.S. should be aware of the broad powers of the federal government, especially on issues affecting their daily lives, such as bankruptcy issues, discrimination claims, immigration challenges, federal taxation, and many others. A constitutional law attorney can help with the construction and interpretation of a federal law as applied to a particular state law.

The Supremacy Clause and the Doctrine of Preemption - FindLaw

Obviously not a Constitutional Conservative.

 

[longknife]

I don't think there are many current politicians who can be placed in this category. Certainly NOT Billary or Bernie!!!!

And, while I support him, I don't think The Donald is either.

 

[Picaro]

The short answer is Conservatives in the American sense are advocates of the Original Intent school, and Liberals advocate a broader interpretation of Federal power. They were not even remotely 'Libertarians' in the modern sense of that position; their individual state governments and policies are far different in practice from the restrictions they held the Federal government to, especially re gun control and what businesses and financial institutions were allowed to do. Limited liability for companies and corporations was heavily restricted and regulated, for instance, though corruption and bribery made a lot of those restrictions moot and worthless in practice. there was no 'corporate personhood' concept, and such an idea would have been ridiculous to their minds. State religions are another example of the difference; many states kept theirs, and the Fed had no brief to strike such state government laws and the taxing power of state churches.

 

[Bush92]

Someone who believes that the Constitution is not statutory law and that it protects the people from the government and reserves the bulk of power to the states.