To: FReepers; everyone; All
Exactly, our guy, their guy, who cares. There is just to much power centralized in DC. This is not they way it was supposed to work out. Thank Lincoln.
“This article asks what I believe is a legitimate question. I personally believe we’re focusing on the wrong solution...getting “our guy” into office. This won’t solve the problems we face.”
No, but it will prevent the left from totally stacking the Supreme Court, thus rendering the Constitution meaningless. It will also help to prevent the left from using executive orders to circumvent the checks and balances put into place by the Constitution.
That is true, “conservative” and “constitutionalist” are not always one in the same things, this is why Ron Paul makes perfect sense to some, and is incomprehensible for others.
More suggested reading/study:
The text of Davy Crockett’s “Not yours to give” speech before congress.
The presidency of Calvin Coolidge, who, in my opinion, was the last U.S. president to make an honest attempt at treating the Constitution as a document that LIMITED the powers of the government instead of as one which must be exploited to EXPAND government power.
The constitution, as written, if applied as written, would piss off liberals and conservatives alike. I dropped the conservative label when I realized both liberals and conservatives want the same control over people, the only difference is which side of the spectrum they control you from, and what controls they wish to impose.....
Since everyone who posts here calls themselves a ‘conservative’ I cant see how you can get a coherent A or B answer but I agree with the below logic, a huge problem I had with GWB:
FROM LINK
Then I ran across a ideological changing article by the famous Dr. Walter E. Williams, Professor at George Mason University. The title of the article was “It’s Time to Part Company” and it forced me to begin a process of rediscovery. A rediscovery that would eventually lead to me change my entire understanding of the 50 States, 13 of which the Framers referred to as the Union. This process also led me to no longer define myself as a conservative and instead a Constitutionalist in relation to the national government even though I remain conservative in my general views of governance. So what’s the difference Mark...isn’t this just semantics or a play on words? Not in the slightest, it defines how I look at Washington DC, the elected officials that ask for a vote to go there and the bureaucrats that occupy vast amounts of space there.
A Constitutionalist demands from elected officials 100% compliance with the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. No wiggle room just because they will vote for our favorite extra-constitutional program.
A Constitutionalist decides that the Constitution is not a living breathing document that entitles us to vote for politicians that will give us what we want; whether it be a new entitlement program, farm subsidy, war, or aircraft carrier.
A constitution not followed is worse than no constitution all. For the ignored constitution gives a fig leaf for the statist to point to say see we are doing it right, by the book. This dichotomy leads to extreme cynicism in the intelligent and destroys little ‘r’ republican values.
Not only have we seen the issue of the Incorporation Doctrine but I also contend the 17th amendment removes the state check against the federal government. Senators, under the current system, play to a national stage and do not support their state in maters of state sovereignty. The National Popular Vote will eviscerate the remaining state identity and further nationalize the race for President. States have become, I hate to say it, subdivisions of the national government and dual federalism is gone.
From the article:
>> A Constitutionalist demands from elected officials 100% compliance with the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. No wiggle room just because they will vote for our favorite extra-constitutional program.
A Constitutionalist decides that the Constitution is not a living breathing document that entitles us to vote for politicians that will give us what we want; whether it be a new entitlement program, farm subsidy, war, or aircraft carrier.
A Constitutionalist is not impressed with a politicians claim to support the Constitution simply by carrying and whipping out the pocket Constitution at opportune times.
It is really that simple. A Constitutionalist demands allegiance to the Constitution, all the time, every time, every vote....no exceptions! >>
That’s a nice concept - and just as lame brained as those who think a liberal utopia is possible. Nobody is 100% anything all the time ever. Just does not happen in the human condition. The Founders, unlike the author, had the wisdom to understand this. Thus the phrase “more perfect union” instead of a perfect union.
The author IMO is trying to position himself as above the fray in some sort of irrelevant purity that does not exist. From the mess we are in now, someone who is conservative and who would move us 20% closer to that 100% impossible purity would be a huge improvement.
Evetytime I have someone braying in my face about how much they believe in the Constitution, I say two words: “Drug War”. That usually shuts ‘em up.
So, are you a Constitutionalist or a Conservative?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is a good question. Me? I’m a Conservative first and a Constitutionalist second.
Almost daily I run into FReepers who have it backwards. And some are not even conservative at all. Yet they hide behind the Constitution as they seek to promote all their nutty libertarian ideals like legalizing pot, porn and so on.
Many framers were Constitutionalists, like Jefferson for instance. But he (and others) were hardly conservative.
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.
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.
