Posted on 02/17/2010 7:45:44 PM PST by Mozilla
With polls and recent elections suggesting a possible comeback for Republicans, a group of prominent conservatives unveiled a statement of principles Wednesday called Constitutional Conservatism that they hope will guide a new era of governing.
"A year ago, some pundits claimed that conservatism was effectively dead. But today, as revelations about Washington's futility in addressing America's problems continue to mount, the movement is alive and poised for a resurgence of Constitutional Conservative leadership," former Attorney General Edwin Meese said.
Meese, who served under President Ronald Reagan , was one of several dozen conservatives who drafted and signed the statement, dubbed the Mount Vernon Statement because they introduced it at a museum that once was part of George Washington's Virginia estate of the same name.
Others noted that they were following in the footsteps of the late conservative icon William F. Buckley Jr. and others who signed a similar statement in 1960.
"Fifty years ago, the federal government threatened to grow exponentially," said Edwin Feulner Jr. , the president of the Heritage Foundation , a conservative research center. "Visionaries then gathered in Sharon, Connecticut , to articulate essential principles of American governance. Today, that threat is even greater, and so we must articulate anew the nature of Constitutional Conservatism in the 21st century."
The statement reaffirms their goal of a limited government coupled with a strong national defense.
"Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law," said the statement from a group that included such figures as American Conservative Union President David Keene ; Tony Perkins , the president of the Family Research Council ; and Grover Norquist , the president of Americans for Tax Reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Not specific enough. http://pushbackuntil.com lists very detailed, specific laws that need to be passed in order for conservativism (aka “good and smaller government”) to prevail.
David Keene I could do without, but the rest of the crew seems pretty solid.
Is it me, or does it not have anything about pro-lifers?
Good list that would only save America. Trouble is only when the streets are on fire and all the Congressman have run for their lives would this occur. Maybe not too far off either.
If you want specificity you might take a look at the Republican Party Platform which details the beliefs of grassroots conservatives all over the nation, a number of which are teapartiers.
Anything that provides support to the Constitution is great. Especially because we have a president who is crushing our most important document.
The Constitution is in utter peril. All of our Founding documents emphasize the dignity of man as in "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
We need to engage all true conservatives in this regard.
Ronald Reagan once told a crowd of pro-lifers, "I could to much more if all of you could ever get your act together."
Bleh.
This is all they could agree on? Bury it quick or we’re all doomed.
Im not sure these two belong in a list defining a “constitutional conservative”:
» It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom
and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that
end.
» It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood,
community, and faith.
“It is a statement from a number of true blue conservatives.”
I still believe this is too general. We are a country of laws. And we need laws that protect us and the fiscal future of the United State of America from people who would continue to make bad decisions. Although I have not read this year’s version of the Republican platform, platforms are STILL too general. Yes, we all want smaller government, but how are you going to get it? By passing a law that restricts spending. That is the only way.
That is why http://pushbackuntil.com has specific mandates - because this country needs them in order to exist for the foreseeable future.
By getting more people in agreement with us than with Obama. That will require a lot of people thinking in the same direction.
Most people don't pay any attention to the conservative platform, and yet it is the ONLY document created and voted on unanimously by grassroot conservatives. For those who care to read it they will find that there is nothing in it that is contrary to the Constitution. In fact, it actually renews what our Founders fought for, with all of today's concerns and language.
My point is that we have a tool in our arsenal which already lays down what we believe as conservatives. It needs to be used as the blueprint for further action. Much like the Constitution.
The last time Republicans successfully used their own platform was in 1994 when a group of Republican representatives made a list of what they considered the most workable parts from the Republican platform and they signed a "Contract With America," and promptly won both houses of Congress and put a brake to most of what Clinton wanted to do.
One organization is not going to solve the problem, just like having the correct representatives or even the right president. We have to work together as a team with two strong legs: pro-life and pro-business. When one leg kicks the other we cannot remain strong.
As with all things I must treat this with a grain of skepticism as it is little more then a statement of general principles, and only for conservatives.
The The Mount Vernon Statement, is a good statement which i could sign on to. Although I no longer feel that an energetic foreign policy should ever take presidency over a constitutional domestic policy. No civilization can afford the burden of unending war.
Wars and thus “energetic” foreign policy as I am to understand it, must be temporary things.
To that end while it may be prooden to engaged in a ballade budget as well as a maximum expenditure limit in peace time. In times of declared(must be time limited) Wars such economic limits, constitute military capability limits which could very easily cripple out ability to match our enemy, by reducing us to devoting only at most say 10% of our economic resources to defeating them.
We’re we 10 times larger then every other threat, this might be a reasonable restriction. But as we are not,and likely would not remain even if we were, such a restriction in the conflict between nations guarantees the defeat of our nation at the hands of their more mobilized one.
As our founders repeatedly pointed out war are times of great danger and risk, due to the presents of such large standing army’s, the power to form, control and maintain them so centrally held.
This is the Devil of government which is inherit in its nature and with-which we must live with in order to avoid the devil of the Government that would otherwise country and enslave us.
To that end if we are to have such an exception it is critical that we do everything we can to make it as difficult to improperly weld as possible, and as easy politically to stop as possible. (remember FDR’s War powers?) We may not be able to prevent future generations from misusing this constitution and doing the same again, but we can set it up so that its easier for them to bring an end to the madness when it threatens to consume them.
I think that perhaps requiring a congressional renewal of war powers following a Deceleration at a maximum interval is probably a good start, as to insure that if such is ever miss-used at least a small majority could bring an end to it, by filibustering its renewal.
I welcome any other suggestions as to improve the security of such an an amendment, without necessarily compromising our ability to defend ourselves, when we agree its necessary.
” By getting more people in agreement with us than with Obama. That will require a lot of people thinking in the same direction.”
With respect Sly that has never worked in the past, in 1994 we got more people to agree with us then Clinton and still congress could not and did not do anything to reverse the growth of government.
I do not believe taking control of the 3 branches of the united States Federal government is the solution to our problem. I believe who ever we send to that government will inevitably by majority be corrupted by the same power, and thus become mostly useless to our goals by the time we have enough power in that government really make a dent.
Washington D.C. has become like the ring of power in the Lord of the Rings, we can’t weld it, even if we could ever get “a good strong hold over it”.
It is simply too much power for any one man or group of men to ever weld without being corrupted by such power. It must be destroyed, the power must be divided and returned back to the people and their States.
And the only realistic way to do that given our in ability to weld the same power for any length of time with out our leaders being corrupted by it is to tear it down from the outside. Yes we will need Federal politicians in office with a signal and simple mandate which is not to resist, not to interfere, and help where possible.
Once the power has been practically striped from Washington by our states it will be easier to get the politicians for “formally” give up the power they don’t practically hold anymore, and now represents a liability rather then asset to them just trying to weld it.
This is the political chess games that I believe we must play to win this war. I suggest this because its been done before, such as in Real ID, as even the 2nd bank of the United States. This strategy works, and so far its the only strategy that we have ever tried historically that has really worked to significantly reduced the power of the Federal government.
If necessary we might want to amend the Constitution to expand upon this Strategy to make it more easily implemented.
Ideally it should take only a minority to protect their rights from usurpation by the majority.
The purpose of this is to awaken people that they are conservatives. Once in the door, they'll find the rest of it.
If you check the numbers you will see that we got a surplus for a few years following the Republican takeover in both houses. Clinton wanted to do exactly what Obama is doing right now but he was prevented by some good guys who were on our side.
This list is windy,but empty.
Here is an action list.
A Constitutional Conservative’s List
1. Abolish the Federal Reserve and return to sound money.
2. Abolish Commerce, Education, Agriculture, Homeland Secuity, HHS and Energy transferring some functions. Sharply reduce all other departments eliminating functions beyond the limits of the Constitution.
3. Bring all the troops home in short order ending the military-industrial-congressional complex.
4. Introduce job competition and cost incentives for all federal employees, epecially military officers. (Former JAG.)
5. Impose means-tests for all entitlements ending entitlement accrual in most instances and ending all forms of corporate welfare promptly. End all bailouts. Encourage charitable organizations from the bully-pulpit and by personal example.
6. Abolish most federal taxes once the national debt has gone way down.
7. Amend the Constitution to end the congressional powers under the Commerce Clause that were largely usurped during the last depression. Appoint judges who limit government to its enumerated powers unlike all of the present judges.
8. Help break up the government education monopoly by encouraging parental choice and competition.
9. End entanglements with other nations that limit the freedom of our nation while pursuing one exception, free-trade.
10. Establish an enforced. immigration policy that seeks to. attract the best and brightest from across the world.
“My point is that we have a tool in our arsenal which already lays down what we believe as conservatives. It needs to be used as the blueprint for further action. Much like the Constitution.”
No problem with this, but the larger point is that the Constitution, which obviously is an awesome document, is interpreted different ways by people with diverse ideologies. For example, “a woman’s right to privacy.” The only thing that will stop that “interpretation” is a law the outlaws abortion. Or at the very least does not allow government to fund it - vis a vis the Hyde amendment.
So it is with spending. As one of the mandates at http://pushbackuntil.com describes, we need to limit what the Feds spend to a particular percentage. That is the ONLY way we will stop overspending and increased debt.
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.