Posted on 10/27/2011 4:42:34 AM PDT by mek1959
This might seem like a ridicules question from the above average intelligence of one of the Forgotten Men. But is it really? Are you sure conservative and Constitutionalist mean the same?
I don't think so.
Having followed and been intimately involved in national politics for decades now, in my former years I would have thought that in all cases a Constitutionalist was the same as a conservative. I had my pocket Constitution ready to be pulled out at a moments notice. I even knew a little bit of the Declaration of Independence (though I would often mingle the Preamble of the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence). All in all, if you would have asked me in the 90's if I was an adherent to the Constitution, I would have looked at you as if you were from another planet...of course I was!
(Excerpt) Read more at forgottenmen.com ...
sic semper tyrannis
I too have engaged in these senseless debates over the years and they are futile. In my view, there are almost as many “living constitutionalists” in the Republican” party and “conservative movement” as there are in the Democrat party and “progressive movement!”
First of all, shame on you for assuming I come to this thread with any agenda about getting “my guy” into office. That’s not at all why I came.
I came with a philosophical point of view regarding the ideas in the article. I will spoil your little irrelevance party by mentioning that “someone’s guy (or gal)” will in fact be elected to very many offices in 2012, and while none of them will likely live up to the articles 100% standard, many will be damned closer than many others. Facts are stubborn things.
Second, while constitutional purity is clear on some issues, it is not clear on others, especially with respects to defending the Republic given the nature of travel and technology now versus when the founding documents were inspired. A constitutional argument can be made on both sides of the drug issue as well, and some others. It’s often easy, but NOT ALWAYS EASY, to interpret today’s issues through our Constitution.
Third, we have to deal with where we are now, because we are where we are now. Facts, again, remain stubborn things. We have sadly strayed so far from the principles that a full leap back is simply not going to happen.
The point of the “more perfect” phrase is that it is in stark contrast to “perfect.” The perfect is often the enemy of the good and the friend of evil.
I will strive for perfection, but I refuse to throw out the good in the meantime. (and in some cases, the good ain’t very good, I’ll admit).
Also, he is all caught up in this rather anti-libertarian notion that the feds are limited by a constitution, but the states can do anything they want.
It would seem to me that a principled political theory wouldn't really care what level of government one was talking about, there are certain things no government should do.
If you are a "Constitutionalist" then I guess all you have to go by is the US Constitution so you really have nothing to say about state or local government. That seems like a rather limited point of view.
The reason why being conservative makes more sense than being a "Constitutionalist" is that conservatives have principles which apply at the local, state, and national levels.
No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, etc. were not conservative initiatives that went against "Constitutionalism". They were liberal notions put in place by a neo-liberal president claiming to be a compassionate conservative.
>> They theorized and apparently courts have bought into that what we view as perfect must be evolving since we have more experience and history every day, the framers must have known this and that is the very reason they wrote “more Perfect”. This sets up the entire evolving Constitution theory. >>
But I don’t buy that meaning of “more perfect” at all (and I’m not sure you do, I realize you were quoting a book here). To me “more perfect” was a jab at the feckless attempts at utopian societies - man’s attempts to make a perfect union. And BTW, “more perfect” refers to “the union” and NOT to the Constitution per se.
I first was exposed to the idea of a originalist concept reading Bork's 1980s book. But watching Scalia debate Breyer on CSPAN a few times really opened my eyes. He and Thomas believe in the limited authority of the Federal Government and I have even prompted a few here (GWB fans) to claim they don't know what they are talking about.
with you 100%
A conservative hater of the republic is still a hater.
I do understand friend, I was simply responding to the “lame brain” comment.
Fidelity to the Constitution is not hard and in my view, using Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English language from 1785, it’s really not that hard to understand the limits the Framers placed on the National Government. In one case, the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8, Randy Barnett, Chicago eviscerates the current use of this clause by both parties seeking to grow government. Here’s the link http://randybarnett.com/Original.htm
The Republic can be restored but only if We the People force it to be restored. That’s why I agree 100% fidelity statements because that’s the only way it will happen.
Constitution bump! The document I swore an oath to protect and defend!!!!
I think you could be asleep at the wheel old chum. Just because the govt isnt shutting down FR doesn't mean the Republicans aren't guilty.
They are gigantic progressive govt crony capitalists that want to control everything and democrats are gigantic progressive govt crony socialists that want to control everything and BOTH of them work feverishly towards those ends. Dont be fooled, totalitarian govt is only one event away from coming thru the door.
Who created the TSA? You mean that the TSA stopping motorists in the street and going thru their vehicles isnt totalitarianism?
Even better - and I rest my case on this one.
Name for me what big progressive govt “thing” the Republicans rolled back or eliminated when they were in control of congress and the presidency during Bush’s first term. I’ll be waiting with baited breath for when you show me I can put them back in the not guilty column.
you are more smartass than smart - first: Bush is no conservative and second, if you cannot understand the concept of matter of degree - and clearly your posts indicate that you are tone deaf to matter of degree - then we have nothing further to discuss.
There are no Republicans as bad as Frank, Dodd, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Schumer, Durbin, etc etc etc.
There are no Democrats as good as DeMint, Rubio, Scott, West etc etc etc.
In the middle, there are a of both that are more or less the same, but no intelligent analysis leaves off the tip ends of each party. “They’re all the same” is the lazy shallow analysis of those who don’t want to put the effort into actually understanding the truth.
I'm sorry dumb-ass, go back and re-read BOTH our posts and then point to me where I EVER wrote "Conservative". We were talking about REPUBLICANS. I dont mix those two names because republicans aren't conservative. You failed - all your base are belong to us.
>> I’m sorry dumb-ass, go back and re-read BOTH our posts and then point to me where I EVER wrote “Conservative”. >>
I was arguing in context of the article, which very much mixed the two terms. You replied to me after I picked apart the author’s points.
If you want to have an argument in the vacuum of only what you wrote, then go have it with your self. You can be a master-debator by yourself.
It’s ok. Here’s your lolly pop now run along.
irrelevance and condescension combined does not work well for you.
Well, I don't think so either. But that does not make it a false dichotomy.
Let me take a bit of a contrarian view. He absolutely makes valid points—and I do believe as I’ve studied the Constitution over the past couple years (you don’t know how important it is until it is threatened, right?!), I have certainly come to the conclusion that the Republican party has SCREWED UP some things on the Constitutional front.
*But* I do not believe his answer—to vote out everyone who screws up—is a practical or smart one. NO one is perfect.
I think you can vote consistently conservative and move the ball CLOSER to a fully Constitutional Republic envisioned by our Founders. Will it be exactly what our Founders envisioned? No.
I am not defending liberalism, and I’m not saying we always have to split the baby in half. Some ideas that are clearly UNconstitutional can be dealt with quickly, in my opinion: getting rid of the Department of Education...the EPA...etc. And by “quickly”, I mean in relative terms.
Other problems are going to take time.
Folks, unless we’re going to literally revolt with weaponry, and I don’t think that is in the cards, we need to work within the system and revolutionize the culture from the ground up. That will include support imperfect people.
Hell, just like our CIA, before the era of political correctness, made “friends” with some very bad people...in order to keep our national security interests in tact. We aren’t always going to have the greatest of allies even in our own party, but we have a greater interest in mind: the survival of our nation.
We DEFINITELY need to beware of crony capitalism—which is as prone to invade the Republican party as well as the Democrat party. But we shouldn’t bash business just for the sake of bashing business...this is the mode of liberals.
When one looks at Supreme Court decisions from as early as the 1803, Marbury v. Madison, you’ll find people wondering about the Constitutionality of particular actions...even as to whether the Supreme Court REALLY gets to be the “final word”.
When SCOTUS pissed off the states in “Chisholm v. Georgia” in the early 1790s, they went off and passed the 11th amendment.
My point is: there have been arguments over this kind of stuff from the beginning...we lost our way BIG TIME in the 1930s, and need to bring the pendulum back.
I hope this makes sense. I’m not dismissing his points, they’re good ones, but I think he may go a bit too far.
Very well thought out response and I agree with you 100%. Some folks like to ‘luxuriate in the purity of their own irrelevance” - without understanding that we are imperfect people in an imperfect world dealing with an imperfect union with imperfect choices before us.
That’s just the way it is, and given that, I’ll take anything that moves the ball closer to the goal - and then we’ll keep fighting from that point.
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.