Posted on 09/24/2004 12:33:11 PM PDT by NCSteve
My definition of a "true" conservative is pretty simple:
A political conservative is someone who believes that the least government is the best government. A political conservative believes the only valid function of the US Federal government is to provide for the common defense and to regulate interstate trade. A political conservative believes that anything more than this leads to tyranny and must be resisted at all costs.
A political conservative also believes that the sovereignty of the US is sacrosanct because it was purchased with the blood of her children. A political conservative believes that treaties and trade agreements that violate that sovereignty are anathema and those who support them are treasonous.
A social conservative believes that the US was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian values. A social conservative believes that personal responsibility is second only to fealty to God in importance as a personality trait. A social conservative believes that the traditional family is the most important social construct and is fundamental to the survival of our society.
A fiscal conservative believes that you have first rights to the fruits of your own labor. A fiscal conservative believes that just as we all must live within our means, so must the government. A fiscal conservative believes that it is immoral for the government to confiscate the wealth of its citizens in order to redistribute it, no matter what the reason.
A "true" conservative is a political, a social, and a fiscal conservative. Simple as that.
Gotta run for now, but it's been a most enjoyable discussion.
Whoa. I am merely saying that your faith that everything will come out OK in the free market of ideas is tantamount to believing in the tooth fairy. It's a typical libertarian fantasy that just does not work.
That doesn't mean I believe in using force. I believe that the government should primarily be limited from getting in the way of the existing cultural strengths.
I like that.
If you want to get rid of 'gay marraige', all you have to do is run ads on TV saying, "Please vote for gay marriage and help lower the national debt. Why should heterosexual couples be the only ones hit with tax penalties for being married?"
One glaring omission in your piece is a reference to the unalienable, God-given right to life.
I have learned from experience that the so-called conservatism of those who are not pro-life is questionable at best.
If an individual is so unprincipled as to sell out the most primary interest of the innocent unborn, I submit that, given enough pressure, they will sell out any principle.
You can't be pro-abortion and rightfully lay claim to being a conservative.
This is the core moral question of our day, and the truest litmus test we have available to us.
The Federal Government was set up with very important functional roles, relating to Commerce, avoidance of problems between the States, and protecting all of them from foreign dangers, etc.. The day to day interaction of Government with respect to questions of health, safety and morals--the Police Power--was left to the States; or better put, not delegated to the Federal Government. In short, moral rule setting was never intended to be a Federal function.
The Fourteenth Amendment has been the avenue by which the Federal Courts have interfered with the exercise of State Police powers, where someone claimed, on one of various rationales, that they were unfair. The problem is that the Fourteenth Amendment has been the vehicle to apply restrictions originally put on the Federal Government, which was not supposed to act in certain fields, to the States, which from time immemorial have had the role to act in those very fields.
In this application, the enemies of our traditions have achieved a certain societal anarchy. While some, around here, have mistakenly confused this with Libertarianism, it actually flies in the face of the rights of a free people to protect themselves from societal anarchy (the very opposite of the Libertarianism of the Fathers). What the ACLU and other groups have succeeded in doing, via the Fourteenth Amendment, is to do away with the right of self-Government, with respect to promoting religion, protecting babies, dealing with certain forms of criminal activity, and protecting the family, educating children, etc..
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
To: killjoyNo one with a brain can deny that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, even if they don't believe in God themselves.
I'm not so sure that most libertarians believe that we were founded on Judeo-Christian values, though they themselves could probably answer that better than I. I do know for certain that the Libertarian party doesn't ..."
# 25 by jpl
**********************************
There is no such thing as a libertarian who can't think, so all libertarians know that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. :)
By the way, the Libertarian Party is an organization that does not include all libertarians, or even "real" libertarians, any more than all Republicans are conservative or all Democrats are liberals. Political parties do not define the beliefs of their members.
There were libertarians before the "Libertarian" Party stole the label; in fact, our Founders were libertarian.
I agree, but the usurpation of state police powers by the federal government is no exclusive to Fourteenth Amendment issues.
"I write separately only to express my view that the very notion of a "substantial effects" test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress' powers and with this Court's early Commerce Clause cases. By continuing to apply this rootless and malleable standard, however circumscribed, the Court has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits. Until this Court replaces its existing Commerce Clause jurisprudence with a standard more consistent with the original understanding, we will continue to see Congress appropriating state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce."
-Justice Clarence Thomas
And exactly where is "promoting the religion of the majority" found as a power listed under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution?
I take the de minimis view of things like "under God" and "In God We Trust," but it sounded like you're going beyond that to things like Judge Roy Moore's 10 Commandments pillar and whatnot.
This depends completely on intent. I do not think Moses was carved into the Supreme Court with the idea of offending anyone. I do not know the original intent but I assume it was to show the historical figures that helped form the basis for our laws. If others such as Jesus, Mohammed, or any other historical or pseudo-historical figure also appears, I have no problem with that either.
On the other hand, "In God We Trust" was added to our currency, 100 years after the founding of the country, in order to designate the USA as recognizing only one religion. This is wrong since it is being used to specifically isolate individuals. I don't see how this can be justified based on the original intent of the founding fathers.
The thread is about defining Conservatives. I do not consider those one or two issue folk--those who have a particular issue on which they are very Conservative--to be Conservative by definition. They are enthusiasts on a particular issue, but that does not equate with someone who means to preserve the traditional values of his society.
Don't get me wrong. I am happy to have allies on an ad hoc basis, to help with the fights on those individual issues. I just do not have any illusions as to where those one issue "Conservatives" stand on the overall battle for America.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Well put.
That's not how the Constitution works.
All powers not specifically ennumerated belong to the states and the people.
To: killjoyThat's not so, jpl.
"... I do know for certain that the Libertarian party doesn't believe in true American sovereignty, as their official platform calls for the elimination of all immigration restrictions, which is basically tantamount to saying that we're not really a country."
# 25 by jpl
**********************************
Borders are nothing more than the limit of our ownership, our land. If I decide, as an individual, to let people come onto my property any time they want, it's my Right to do so. I personally know people who do that very thing, allowing the unrestricted use of their homes to people they barely know.
If we decide, as a nation, to allow people from other countries to come here without specific permission in each separate case, it isn't a "trespass" situation, because we gave permission beforehand.
It's not about being one-issue.
It's conflict among those who put a greater emphasis on either political conservativism, social conservatism or fiscal conservatism across all issues.
Of course, you are right. I was concentrating on issues of where the Federal Courts have nullified the States' in the exercise of their Police Powers. The Commerce Clause has been the vehicle by which the Federal Government has sought to impose its own moral judgments in place of those of Americans on an individual, local or State basis. The one approach has wrought havoc on local defenses of community values; the other has imposed a virulent Socialist ethos in their place.
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.