The problem with your idea is that now leftists are rabid-mad-dog aggressive and will never let one state or one county or one city or hospital or anything or anyone alone. Never. The voters in CA voted against fag marriage three times.
So the leftists pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and what do we get? Judicial activism at its very worst.
We need people and a party that will fight to the death the lefists and promote conservative values with courage. Not laissez faire libertarianism (actually libertarians are social leftists) because laissez faire means the leftists WIN BIG.
So the leftists pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed and what do we get? Judicial activism at its very worst.
We need people and a party that will fight to the death the lefists and promote conservative values with courage. Not laissez faire libertarianism (actually libertarians are social leftists) because laissez faire means the leftists WIN BIG.
I absolutely agree with what you said. However, I think what we have to look at is HOW do they push back? What is their mechanism? I think, (I might be wrong), but think, it is the COURTS. Almost every time.
So for my idea to be realistic for conservatives to win out we need to reign in the courts, all of them, and specifically clip the wings of the federal courts that do such much "judicial review" and damage to states rights and traditional values. The Supreme Court judges have become extremely corrupted with their oligarchy type power. I'm not enough of an expert to know what that would take, but I think that is the big weak spot in our system that allows the lunatic leftists to take so much power.
If we can "clip their wings" so to speak in that area, I have confidence that traditional Judeo Christian values will win out in the marketplace of ideas, even with people who aren't traditional conservatives and Jews, as even a lot of non-"religious" people don't want homo "marriage", perversion, etc. As you said, CA voted against perversion "marriage" 3 time. CALIFORNIA! Wow, if it can win 3 times there , it can anywhere - but again, it was the courts that overturned the will of the people.
I don't believe in Laissez Faire libertarianism, but I believe if the courts were put back in their places, that leftism would not thrive anywhere in the US. ( See Travis McGee's post below.) That along with repealing the 17th amendment would clip the wings of the powerful statist Senators and bring power back down to the state level, where it is more easily influenced by us.
The alternative to that, I think , is a complete reset via a new constitutional convention, in which the individual states actually make a decision on whether or not to become "Covenental Communities", actually putting a reference to our laws being based on the Bible, as our individual colonies were before the constitutional convention. (and if we went that far, we would probably be at the point of secession, as we wouldn't hold together at that point). That may be what God actually wants from us, and we are just seeing the fruit of making that major mistake when the Constitution was ratified (taking out all references to God and the Bible). I just think we are a long way off from making that happen, outside of actual CWII.
Got to go do my Bible study/devotions time- I've been convicted lately that too much time on FR is making me sad and depressed, wasn't going to get on until later today for a short while. I will check back in later in case you have any thoughts. ----------------------
SCOTUS DOMA Ruling A Loss For Big Government, Democrats Thursday, June 27, 2013 7:23:13 AM · 24 of 66
Travis McGee to BarnacleCenturion
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:travismcgee/index?more=85833956
The reset, when it comes, (and it might not be 50 states “after” the reset), will sweep away the original “poisoned tree” which is Marbury vs Madison, all the way back to 1803.
The Constitution does NOT say that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all laws in the USA. In fact, it puts Congress over the SCOTUS.
For perspective: Article One, dealing with congress, is 2,269 words long. Article Two, the executive, is 1,025 words. Article Three, the judiciary is only 377 words. Only 295 words if you take out Article Three Section 3, which deals with definitions of treason, not the judiciary.
And here is the applicable part of Article Three:
“In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Right there, it says that congress can regulate the SCOTUS, and decide which cases should or should not be under their purview.
The fact that the congress has abrogated this power since Marbury vs Madison doesn’t mean that this power no longer exists in the Constitution. After our coming crash and reset etc, I have some small hope that the “Tyranny of Five” will be thrown out. Nowhere in the Constiution or the Federalist Papers etc does it say that the SCOTUS shall have the power to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions and so on.
It was never the intention of our Founding Fathers that our Republic should become a tyranny of five judges.
24 posted on Thursday, June 27, 2013 7:23:13 AM by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
The very thing Newt said he would work to stop.