Replies

ME: "The federal government is the final protector of individual rights and that is its reason for being, period. There is no conflict between conservatism and individual rights, none at all."

You: "Be careful with that one, as you may incur the wrath of those who believe in capital punishment, prohibitions against gay unions/marriage, and a host of other laws either created by the federal government to "protect" individual rights or of the judiciary essentially doing the same thing."

Be careful with what? My statement is factual, not whimsy or wishful thinking.

Why would I incur the wrath of those who believe in capital punishment? I believe in capital punishment. I also believe in the Great Writ. You see those two as conflicting?

What does gay "marriage" have to do with anything? I oppose it but under the current Constitution of the United States, states have the power to give special rights to homosexuals. But the Constitution certainly doesn't speak to special rights for homosexuals. What's your point?

I see your problem , I think. You have an expansive view of what individual "rights" are. I don't. Life is an individual right guaranteed constitutionally, a Cadillac in your driveway or Irving wedding Sam is not.

If your state sentences you to death will you be forfeiting your Habeas Rights?

"The federal government is the final protector of individual rights and that is its reason for being, period. There is no conflict between conservatism and individual rights, none at all."

I don't see that anywhere. Individual rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution do not identify the federal government itself as its final protector. If so, then the federal government should intervene in every case where it feels that "individual rights" may be in jeopardy.

you may incur the wrath of those who believe in capital punishment, prohibitions against gay unions/marriage, and a host of other laws either created by the federal government to "protect" individual rights or of the judiciary essentially doing the same thing."

My mistake, I meant who do not believe in capital punishment. But the point is still valid. Or is it only those rights you approve of, not those approved of by the left?

But the Constitution certainly doesn't speak to special rights for homosexuals. What's your point?

You want the federal government to be the final guarantor of individual rights. But yet any of those "rights" I mentioned are not on your list.

Which Amendment or article guarantees life?

But then life is only one of an assortment of individual rights. Again, is your list the only operable one?

The judiciary is the branch in both federal and state cases to handle such individual issues, not the Congress, nor the President.