The Unmaking of Conservatism

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030424.shtml ^

[viaveritasvita]

>>"We're supposed to continue to elect these RINOs under the promise that when they get all they need, that all our troubles will go away, that our taxes will be lower, and we'll somehow have the freedoms intended when this nation of states was established. Sorry, no can do. I don't vote for CINOs at any level, no matter their party affiliation."<<

Someone had the nerve to tell me, in essence, that it was all some sort of secret strategy. Apparently, this strategy will result in a huge and sudden turn back to smaller government, traditional conservatism, and traditional Republican ideology! I voted for the RINO senator here in NC, but I can assure you it was the last time. I don't want to be subjugated by anyone, 'Rat or Republican, thankyouverymuch.

[Cacophonous]

Nicely said...welcome to Big Government Conservatism, which brought us the Patriot Act.

[B. A. Conservative]

Drop dead. If FreeRepublic is not going to permit genuine topics for discussion and that are in real need of genuine discussion, then FreeRepublic no longer represents the principles embodied in the Constitution and is unworthy of its name. Free speech is at the very heart of freedom. And so is revolution. You may not feel comfortable discussing revolution and it may not fit within the permitted activities of a tyrannical government like the one we currently have, but it is part and parcel of freedom. Tyrannies do not often go quietly into the night.

Has FreeRepublic become a part of the tyranny in America now that the Republicans are in control of the reigns of power?

[Admin Moderator]

You have all the freedom of speech you want.

What you do not have is a right to whatever platform or audience your whims desire. Those who wish to destroy the United States, dissolve the union, are not welcome here.

Now feel free to practice your free speech rights in your home, or in your town, or on your own website.

[philosofy123]

Sorry

[inquest]

So the author's mentioning of Israel meant black people, not Jews, right?

It meant government, not a particular ethnic group. Just as mentioning England doesn't mean commenting on Anglo-Saxons.

Your creative confusion on this speaks volumes, and confirms the exact point I was making.

[Courier]

Spoke to Mom. She warned me not to respond to idiots who believe that any tax cut is a Democrat agenda.

Mom knows best.

[iconoclast]

Very good post.

My only quarrel of any consequence with you would concern Mr. Gingrich (a shallow, self-serving, windbag IMHO).

[iconoclast]

So the author's mentioning of Israel meant black people, not Jews, right?

We could make a giant leap forward to rational discussion if this false equivalence of Jews and Israel could be put behind us.

[iconoclast]

The discussions about "neocons" and "paleocons" or any other "con" is distracting BS and diverts the attention of people who need to focus on FREEDOM.

I agree with most all of that which I see you post. But, do not be wrong, perhaps tragically, on this issue. The neo-cons are in no way conservative. They are as false as the fur on Jacob's arm.

The libertarians are an entirely different question. The differences between conservatives and libertarians are, pragmatically speaking, insignificant, IMO.

If we were ever to get to the point where libertarian and conservative differences were important, we would be in conservative Elysium.

[sparkydragon]

No law is unconstitutional until it is declared to be so. All laws on the books have to be obeyed, and enforced at a cost, even if they are "unconstitutional", until repealed or declared unconstitutional.

Not precisely true.

"No law is unconstitutional until it is declared to be so. All laws on the books have to be obeyed, and enforced at a cost, even if they are "unconstitutional", until repealed or declared unconstitutional."(100 U.S. 371(1879) Ex parte Siebold)

If a law were Constitutional until the moment it was declared to not be so then the convictions and sentences would stand because the convictions and sentences were Constitutional at the time they were imposed. When a law is taken off the books by an act of Congress or other legislative body all persons convicted of the crime described are not automatically set free because what they did is no longer a crime. They must still receive a pardon in order to be released prematurely because their conviction and sentence were valid; however, in the case of an unConstitutional law, the law is unConstitutional from the moment it is enacted and thus all convictions and sentences resulting therefrom are invalid.

[Consort]

...in the case of an unConstitutional law, the law is unConstitutional from the moment it is enacted and thus all convictions and sentences resulting therefrom are invalid.

No new law or retroactive law or repeal of a law or any thing else can undo any prison time served or executions carried out or reputations tarnished or lives destroyed under a law that was duly passed by a valid legislature, even if it's later repealed or declared unConstitutional. If the law was unConstitutional from day one, then the repeal or removal would not have to be done retroactively.

[sparkydragon]

So you are saying that all innocent persons convicted of a crime are in fact guilty of the crime for which they've been convicted before someone else confesses. Just because a truth is not upheld doesn't make it any less true.

[Consort]

If you are innocent but are still suffering the full consequences of a guilty person, then what does truth do for you? Is a killer a murderer? Does it matter to the victim or the victim's family?

[sparkydragon]

I think I see where you are coming from. Tell me, are you willing to fight for what you believe in? Or are you only willing to fight with the certainty that you will gain no matter the outcome? Or are you unwilling to take any side in a fight for fear that you will lose something?

[Consort]

I'm interested in real people who live on the operational level day by day. You seem to be more concerned with legal, constitutional, and more esoteric matters that make life more difficult in many instances.

[sparkydragon]

I, also, am interested in real people. I do not feel that people are benefited by being told they deserve to be treated as guilty just because they have been. I do feel people are benefited by being told "it was wrong from the beginning," rather than your version of "I changed my mind." A changing of mind is not what happened. An appraisal of fact is.

Your comments indicate that you would consider someone guilty of a crime because they had been convicted even if you, personally, knew that they had not commited the crime of which they were accused. And that you would consider yourself guilty of a crime you never committed because you had been convicted. What does it matter that you know someone to be innocent when they have been punished?

[sparkydragon]

Also, how do one challenge a law on the grounds that it is un Consitutional if it is Constitutional until it has been overturned? According to your logic no law could be legitimately challenged because the fact that it had not been overturned would be proof positive that the law was Constitutional.

[Consort]

Of course innocent people don't deserve to be treated as if giulty and no, I don't consider them to be guilty. The law and the constitution, however, consider innocent people to be guilty if they were found guilty in a trial or tribunal or any other such body. The law trumps the truth. The law, etc also treat the innocent as guilty in those circumstances. While you and I may know a person is innocent, the person is still "guilty" in those not so uncommon scenarios.

[sparkydragon]

The law trumps the truth.

If the law did trump truth then those the law declared to be guilty would truly be guilty. If you truly believe that law trumps truth I would like to ask about your religious persuasion, but you are, of course, free to ignore that request.

The quote I pointed you to indicated that the Constitution does not consider people guilty of breaking an invalid law. The point of the appeals process is to force the lower courts to accept this already existing truth. If this truth were not alreday existing then a person would not be eligible from release when the law he violated was declared unConstitutional because it would have been valid when s/he was convicted, rather than erroneously considered valid as it actually is.

It seems to me that you consider effect more imortant than intent or circumstances. Would you convict someone who takes a life in self defense of murder because the end result is the same? Would you consider them as guilty as the person who maliciously intended to take a life?