Posted on 01/09/2012 8:29:48 PM PST by hocndoc
In light of the divisions on this Board, food for thought.
Did I do right?
There is a distinct lack of stones between two of those legs in the Conservative branch (whithered and sickly as it is) of the Republican party.
Either Wickard v Filburn is a constitutional atrocity and everything based on it is an usurpation and abuse of power, or the drug war is a legitimate exercise of the the Commerce power.
I don't see any other alternative. You can't have a national government that opertates within the scope of it's enumerated powers according to the original intent of the Constitution and also have agencies like the DEA operating on nothing more than a claim of "finding a substantial effect on interstate commerce". Clarence Thomas gets it. How do we get everyone reading off of that page?
Since the recreational use of drugs tends toward the “pursuit of happiness,” what business does the federal government have in regulating the same?
Oops! Just knocked that ol’ lid off the can of worms again. Sorry. Hey. Maybe I’m not happy unless I can wield power over other people.
I smell trouble.
Source: Gov. Rick Perry: America Needs New Leadership (Full Text of Announcement Speech)
How true. We're subjects of entertainment, food, and wealth who count on government to keep it all rolling in. The purpose and limits of government could stand a good overhaul these days.
That’s a State issue, in both my opinion and in Governor Perry’s. From “Fed Up!”:
“The statists believe in a powerful, activist central government that advances a radical secular agenda in the name of compassion. They hide behind misguided notions of empathy and push token talking points about fighting for the little guy, all the while empowering the federal government to coercively and blatantly undermine state-, local-, and self-governance.” p.13
“So, do states matter? The Founders clearly thought so. The Constitution guaranteed a federal government of enumerated powers while leaving states with governments of residual and plenary power. States have the prerogative to legislate on any topic public health, morals and so forth while the new federal government was designed to be of limited functions.” p. 22
Perry, Rick. Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington. Little, Brown and Company. Kindle Edition.
If a drug is processed and transported across National borders and/or State lines there might be a Federal issue. Otherwise, see post 9, above.
Understood. But it’s going to be hard to say that’s a “unified theory” if half the people you encounter that call themselves “conservative” disagree with it.
If there was a bill in the US Congress to ban same sex marriage, what would be the conservative position?
One outcome satisfies the social aspect. One satisfies the limited government aspect.
My position is that you can’t ban something that doesn’t exist.
There is no such thing as “gay marriage”. Any law purporting to create it is a bogus law (and an attempt to create something in law that doesn’t exist in fact).
Banning something that doesn’t exist is pointless. Trying to force people to recognize something that doesn’t exist using the law is an abuse of power.
This is a great thread! Thanks you so much for helping us focus on our main goals.
For example, the MSM wants to divert our attention by asking Conservatives what their position is on every topic on Earth.
What does the topic of Global Warming have to do with anything but junk science? The MSM loves the distraction, because is has nothing to do with Conserving what little is left of our Constitution.
Threads such as this help us to focus on the most important aspects of being a Conservative.
I’m trying to explain to those who disagree.
Talk about a true Statist position: forcing Texas to accept what we don’t recognize as “marriage” would be real big government, especially when we see how “consequential” the recognition has become in some States. Churches, charities, private businesses have all been forced to act based on laws that redefine marriage.
If the States were required to recognize “same sex marriage” ok’d by another State, then it would be a Federal issue, right?
Unfortunately, the Federal courts may make it necessary for us to pass the DOMA as an Amendment.
If an Amendment passes under the Constitutional guidelines, then it’s Constitutional (even if it’s not moral or ethical).
Thank you!
The MSM wants to embarrass us and make us go away like we’ve done it in the past.
Cute!
I guess I didn’t emphasize enough that I’m drawing on the the Reagan coalition definition that Conservatives built on social issues, national security and fiscal responsibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.