Which is why we need to elect constitutional conservatives who will appoint constitutionalist judges who will interpret the Constitution as it is written, not how they would like it to be written. Electing Arnold would be a step away from that goal.
And secondly, narrow interpritations of the Constitution work in favor of conservatives on some issues. Just as courts have been able to say that the Constitutional right to bear arms is not a blanket right for any individual to bears any type of arms he chooses
The 1st Amendment allows just about any kind of speech, except for that which causes direct harm, such as yelling "fire" in a movie theater. But when it comes to the 2nd A, folks such as you would ban ownership of certain guns, not the abuse of weapons. That is incrementalism against a right - namely that preconditions can be set, not back-end prohibitions against abuse.
so is the Constitutional protection of abortion not a blanket right for anyone to have an abortion at any time, such as during the 3rd trimester.
Isn't that special - the courts create a right to kill fetuses from thin air, but then allow that right to kill fetuses to be restricted.
Picking and choosing the powers of judicial review based on your own personal feelings on the issue is what liberals do, not conservatives.
I make one choice - namely that the Constitution should be interpreted as written, not as wished. It's absolutely astounding that you would try to equate Constitutional literalism with liberals, as the two concepts are diameterically opposed. But, then again, you are bitching about the last election when you didn't even vote, so I don't expect you to grasp your own contradictions.
I recognize that there are some things that stand as law that I may not agree with in my own personal life and practices.
So vote for the guy who will do nothing to change that?
I recognize that my own beliefs do not change the legal realities on the matter. I also recognize that should I act in a way that I personally believe the law SHOULD be, rather than in the way that the law is actually interprited as, then I would risk going to jail.
Unjust laws are often best challenged by standing up to them.
People need to learn to seperate their own personal feelings and tastes from their political and policy positions.
That, quite frankly, is the most asinine thing I've seen in a long, long, LONG time. So if I'm a devout Christian (which I am not), I should vote for someone antithical to my views? That's rich.
For example, you not have to be a homosexual to believe that sodomy should not be criminal, nor should you have to be an atheist to recognize that the Government has no place endorsing religion.
However, if homosexual sodomy has been shown to be a serious health problem (which it is), then does the government have some kind of compelling interest in limiting or criminalizing such? After all, drunk drivers usually make it home without harming anyone - but in the minority of times that they cause an accident, the damage is serious enough to criminalize all acts of drunken driving.
And, above and beyond that, under the 10th Amendment, does the federal government have the power to overrule the State of Texas when homosexuality is not an enumerated Constitutional right? In earlier times, the feds had no such powers, but they've usurped them because no one stands up to them and voters are more interested in electing a name than in electing principles. As you are.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with Arnold Schwarzenegger agreeing with the established interpritations of the Constitution.
He has every right to do such. And I have every right to say he's full of crap and should not be deserving of the vote of conservatives. That is what political debate is about. And your views are little more than jello.
Eating red meat has also been shown to create serious health problems.
Do you want the government to impose vegetarianism on you?
That, quite frankly, is the most asinine thing I've seen in a long, long, LONG time. So if I'm a devout Christian (which I am not), I should vote for someone antithical to my views? That's rich.
Do you then believe that the right thing for people who choose vegetarianism in their personal lives to do is to support policies that makes vegetarianism mandatory for all?
Do you believe this is the best way for a civil society to behave?
Or do you now see why I believe people need to seperate the personal from the political?