Posted on 06/15/2007 7:24:20 AM PDT by Fiji Hill
.
Great to see your Posts of CLARITY back here of F/R, Freeper miss print.
Happy Father’s Day to your Loved Ones.
AR
‘I only go by what I hear the man say, sorry so far he hasn’t impressed me. ‘
‘So his sterling record of supporting the Constitution means nothing to you.’
His mutterings on Constitutional theory don’t trump his insane assertion this is our fault due to policies from the past decade.
Congress did not abrogate any responsibilities to the President ... they fulfilled their Constitutional mandate, and passed an authorization of the hostilities against Iraq.
That is ALL the Constitution requires ...
A
Libertarians are conservative in some aspects ... but there are definite distinction between libertarianism and conservatism (which is why there are two different names).
>> They are a whole lot more conservative than the republican party acts now.
The Republican Party is far from a model of conservatism ... and I don’t remember arguing otherwise.
>> And, actually, staying out of foreign entanglements is a time honored conservative policy expressed by more than two of the founders.
Two? Anyway, isolationism is no more “time-honored” in conservative ranks than interventionism. And, isolationism is not majority position among modern conservatives. I am a conservative ... and I will not vote for isolationism as a foreign policy. It is naive, and ultimately self-destructive.
The founders of this country envisioned isolationism as a policy when isolationism was a viable option ... i.e. when weapons were short-ranged, Navies were slow, communications were archaic, and the globe was generally segmented. Technology in weaponry, communications, and speed of travel has rendered isolationism nothing more than a quaint idea for a less globalized era.
The founders also, incidentally, invisioned the national defense as among the highest callings of the Federal government. I would argue that, in this modern age of high-tech weaponry, any prioritization of national defense is anathema to the idea of isolationism.
>> Also, the freedom of people to take anything within their bodies at their own discretion is a conservative principle consistent with the foundation of the states ancient police power.
No - that’s a libertarian principle. Conservatism favors protection of innocent citizens when “freedom” encroaches on the public safety.
You are only free to do what you will, even within your own body, to the extent that this freedom does not imperil the safety and well-being of others in society. This is relatively rudimentary conservatism - as expressed by John Locke ... one of the originators of conservatism, and one of the philsophers on whom the founders drew for the founding principles of the United States.
There are always limits on absolute freedom in an ordered society.
A
Just a little note to you folks that think our Reps are conservative and fighters of freedom:
House approves stiffer gun background checks
By Joel Havemann, Los Angeles Times June 14, 2007
Only Representative Ron Paul, Republican of Texas, spoke out against the bill, calling it “flagrantly unconstitutional” and saying it undermines the Second Amendment right to bear arms and violates privacy rights of those whose medical records go into the FBI database....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1850033/posts
Like so many before me have said... “Ron Paul is the only real Conservative”
So where are your “conservative Republicans now?”... Thats right.. there are not any... OOPs..I forgot... there’s that pesky Ron Paul again... trying to protect us from the BIG arm of the government.Hmm, isn’t that a conservative position?. So give me a break with your Ron Paul bashing. One more thing-— he never said we “deserved” the attacks. He is only speaking in retrospect of our foreign policies.Don’t you as a conservative think we should stop sending our troops globe trotting around the world? (You did when Clinton was doing it) Well, Ron Paul does too. And He is also a States Rights supporter. Some interprit that to be “liberal”, because he may vote against a conservative bill thats “unconstitutional”; but emotionally, he supports it.
Don’t be blinded by the leftist in our republican party-— I’m talking about people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved, Mark Levin, and others... “leftist...???”. Well I have no other choice... when they tell me to vote for KNOWN traitors to conservatism like Arnold, Lieberman, Romney, and Ghouliani. What do you want me to think?
Arnold - 1st year in office , BAnned the 50 cal rifle in Kommifornia
Lieberman — Known socialist. Look at his voting record
Romney — Tax and spend. OOPS I mean raise “FEES” and spend... to the tune of over 500 Million dollars in Massachusetts, Oh, and lets not forget his assault weapons ban, and his State health care boondoggle!!!!!...CONSERVATIVE???? I don’t think so!
Ghouliani -— Anti- gun, authoritarian NUT CASE extroidanaire...claim to fame... 911...( I read his book...its all in there) what else did he do..... cracked down on guns. and crime. Well, I’ll let him slide on the crime crack down.... but lumping me in with the criminals with his anti-gun stance is ludicrous. And DANGEROUS to future freedom fighters of America. Yes, your great grandchildren may need weapons to defend their liberties...from cattle cars to gas chambers.. Think about it!
“No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their rights to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to defend themselves from tyranny in government.” -—Thomas Jefferson
Ron Paul gets it.... no other republican got it...And I guess you die hard, Republican First, Freedom Second folks.... just don’t either!
Truckinmike
Terms like "liberal" and "conservative" are politically relative. Terms like "libertarian" are absolute, along with terms like "socialist" or "democratic". "Libertarianism" and "conservativism" are the same in the context of American politics to the degree that we were originally founded on libertarian principles.
The Consitution of the United States lays out a national government of strictly enumerated powers, limited to those functions necessary at the national level. It explicitly protects individual liberties, and generally restricts the national governments power to control personal behaviour implicitly by not enumerating the powers to do so, and therefore leaving them to the States. It is quite arguably a libertarian proposition, and holding strictly to those ideas will produce a necessarily libertarian result within that context. Faulting Ron Paul for being "libertarian" while agreeing with his desire for smaller, limited government and holding the origial intent of the Constitution is self-contradictory, IMHO.
Your argument(in the form of a question) is a non-sequitur, because it assumes that simply passing a new law would negate the effects of Roe v. Wade. The only thing that will override Roe is either a new SC decision or a Constitutional Amendment. I believe the former is much more likely than the latter.
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.