1894 was a congressional election year, ftD. 1896 was the McKinley/Bryan realignment.
The outcome of 1894 had even larger significnce for Republicans. It represented what political scientists call a 'realigning'election, in which the electoral landscape of the nation was transformed....This congressional election was one of the most important in the nation's history because it laid the basis for a long period of Republican leglislative dominance (Grand Old Party, Gould, p.119)
Gould's got his dates wrong just like you do. The McKinley-Bryan electoral realignment of 1896 is universally seen by political scientists as the first watershed in the emergence of the two modern political parties.
So, in 1894-1896 what was the Republican Party running on? It was running on a gold standard and high tariffs
No. It was running on RETAINING high tariffs that had more or less been in place since Lincoln save a few slight interuptions. The Gold Standard it ran on was anti-Lincolnian to the core as Lincoln favored centralized bankings and greenbacks.
It did?
Yes ftD. It did. Or have you forgotten Lincoln's arguments used for habeas corpus and the income tax during the war? They were all loose constructionists.
Who was favoring the Dred Scott decision, Republicans or Democrats?
Dred Scott does not fit neatly into either the loose constructionist or strict constructionist category. That is one of the major critiques made by Robert Bork against Harry Jaffa - Jaffa's constitutional philosophy is single-mindedly obsessive around the Dred Scott case to the detriment of all else and naturally lost in the process is the strict/loose construction dispute that has dominated the court since day one.
Who was supporting the expansion of slavery, Democrats or Republicans?
That's a political question, ftD, not a matter of strict versus loose construction.
On some things, like economics, the Democrats can be seen as being more conservative, but in terms of individual liberty, the Republicans were (and that is what Conservatism is suppose to advocate, individual liberty)
Economics is essentially half of what the government does. There cannot be any true liberty if there is not economic liberty, which is what economic conservatism espouses. Whereas Lincoln did advocate some degree of political liberty for some former slaves (albeit often for less than moral purposes) he was also openly hostile to economic liberty and thus has no claim to a monopoly on liberty in even the simplest sense.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have.
Nah. Lincoln would've seen Reagan's tax cuts and bolted. He would've bolted because tax cuts were intolerable to him. He never saw a tax hike he didn't like.
Still do not know where you get the idea that Lincoln was a loose constructionist.
It's called habeas corpus for starters. Whether you adhere to it as valid or dismiss it as junk, it cannot be denied that Lincoln's habeas corpus argument was a loose constructionist view. Same goes for his other stretches of the wartime powers.
As for Reagan, how did his Supreme Court appointments turn out-strict or loose?
One turned out strict (Scalia). A second leans toward strict most of the time (Kennedy, who it should be noted was his third choice after trying to name two bona fide strict constructionists that the Dems would not approve). The third swings between strict and loose (O'Conner). As for Reagan, his own espoused constitutional views were always closer to Scalia.
Well, did the Republicans gain in the Congress or not?
What would you regard 1994 as?
So, in 1894-1896 what was the Republican Party running on? It was running on a gold standard and high tariffs No. It was running on RETAINING high tariffs that had more or less been in place since Lincoln save a few slight interuptions. The Gold Standard it ran on was anti-Lincolnian to the core as Lincoln favored centralized bankings and greenbacks.
The issue was that the Republican Party has traditionally been a high tariff party,so in 1896 there was no switch to free trade.
It did? Yes ftD. It did. Or have you forgotten Lincoln's arguments used for habeas corpus and the income tax during the war? They were all loose constructionists.
They were using emergency powers of the Presidency!
I would not regard that as being 'philosophically loose constructionist!
No more the Jefferson was!
Who was favoring the Dred Scott decision, Republicans or Democrats? Dred Scott does not fit neatly into either the loose constructionist or strict constructionist category. That is one of the major critiques made by Robert Bork against Harry Jaffa - Jaffa's constitutional philosophy is single-mindedly obsessive around the Dred Scott case to the detriment of all else and naturally lost in the process is the strict/loose construction dispute that has dominated the court since day one.
No, Dred Scott showed that the Republicans did not accept a judical tyranny based on a bad reading of the case.
Who was supporting the expansion of slavery, Democrats or Republicans? That's a political question, ftD, not a matter of strict versus loose construction.
It relates to who is the question of which party was the conservative one, one advocating freedom or one advocating slavery.
On some things, like economics, the Democrats can be seen as being more conservative, but in terms of individual liberty, the Republicans were (and that is what Conservatism is suppose to advocate, individual liberty) Economics is essentially half of what the government does. There cannot be any true liberty if there is not economic liberty, which is what economic conservatism espouses. Whereas Lincoln did advocate some degree of political liberty for some former slaves (albeit often for less than moral purposes) he was also openly hostile to economic liberty and thus has no claim to a monopoly on liberty in even the simplest sense.
You see a high tariff (put in legally) as bad as keeping a man in bondage?
I think you have your values out of whack.
The man in bondage has no economic freedom.
He could have easily been in the same political Party as Reagan, just as Ike could have. Nah. Lincoln would've seen Reagan's tax cuts and bolted. He would've bolted because tax cuts were intolerable to him. He never saw a tax hike he didn't like.
Well, he sure would have liked Reagan tax hikes now wouldn't he?
Still do not know where you get the idea that Lincoln was a loose constructionist. It's called habeas corpus for starters. Whether you adhere to it as valid or dismiss it as junk, it cannot be denied that Lincoln's habeas corpus argument was a loose constructionist view. Same goes for his other stretches of the wartime powers.
The operative word is wartime.
Those were taken in an emergency situation, just like Jefferson used his.
That doesn't make Jefferson any less an advocate of narrow interpetation of the Constitution because of the situation he found himself in.
As for Reagan, how did his Supreme Court appointments turn out-strict or loose? One turned out strict (Scalia). A second leans toward strict most of the time (Kennedy, who it should be noted was his third choice after trying to name two bona fide strict constructionists that the Dems would not approve). The third swings between strict and loose (O'Conner). As for Reagan, his own espoused constitutional views were always closer to Scalia. Kennedy and O'Conner?
I am not so sure about Kennedy.
Shall we go through the 8 years of the Reagan administration and see how much he 'stretched' the Constitution?