Posted on 03/23/2009 10:30:09 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, greater economic opportunity, and respect for this nation and its heritage.
BY JERRY A. KANE
At what point does complacency end and panic set in for the members and leaders of the Republican Party? When will they notice the empty hour glass and recognize wickedness for what it is? The hordes of satiated simpletons shouting in rhythmic cadence, “Oh we love, the O-One … Oh we love, the O-One” is not the Winkie chant of guards entering a castle in a scene from a classic fantasy film. The ill winds of the 2006 and 2008 elections that uprooted the GOP House and Senate leadership and sent Republicans spiraling downward were not flash-in-the-pan Kansas dust devils but full-blown Category-5 whirlwinds.
The party of Ronald Reagan has been victimized by disorganized thinking, held spellbound, and led astray by the siren call for moderation from its left wing, which by nature votes for progressive governance. Before Republicans begin their assault on the castle to douse the progressive Democrats’ power grab, the party’s conservatives and libertarians, i.e., Conserva-tarians, must come out from under the spell and cast out the treacherous progressive element from the positions of power in their own ranks.
Caught up in the tidal wave of the ’94 election, Republican exuberance soon gave way to a heightened sense of self-importance; instead of governing on principles and fulfilling their Contract with America, Republicans lost their way and spent the next 12 years trying to convince the electorate that their compromises were smart, courageous, and compassionate. Now, it’s up to Conserva-tarians to rise to the occasion, accept the challenge facing them, and move the party in the direction of limited government, individual liberty, personal responsibility, greater economic opportunity, and respect for this nation and its heritage.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.
The problem is you run into this little problem that John Adams pointed out about our great Constitution.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798 John Adams
“For government to “leave us alone” will require the People of this country to learn, once and for all, that government is the answer to nothing: “that government is best which governs least.”
The problem is you run into this little problem that John Adams pointed out about our great Constitution.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” —October 11, 1798 John Adams”
Exactly, itsahoot. That quote from Adams really hits the nail on the head.
I actually like libertarians and enjoy reading much of their philosophical work. I find Ayn Rand very fascinating. However, ultimately their philosophy turns out to be as unrealistic as the socialists since social liberalism by its nature requires economic liberalism/statism.
I don’t consider that a problem, insofar as you don’t appear to understand the historical context underpinning his argument.
John Adams wasn’t arguing that the Constitution was tailor-made to be used as a blunt instrument to squeeze morality out of the People, independent of the already-existing morality of the People. It is precisely that type of “top-down” moral tyranny that the early colonists escaped.
What Adams meant was that a Constitution that assigned limited powers to government could only function adequately where a People had the ability to exercise self-restraint, self-control, and self-discipline. In the absence of such a People, only a tyrannical government (an absolute monarchy, a dictatorship a la Cromwell) could maintain law and order.
You can use the Constitution to impose a form of “moral socialism” on the People, but such would not be a Constitutional Republic as defined by our Founding Fathers. On the other hand, you can have a Constitutional Republic where the boundaries imposed on government are jealously maintained, but you would need to give up using the State to enforce your vision of a moral utopia.
...Best thing to do is break it down, issue by issue, see where you stand in comparison. Then make up your mind what group or party you fit into. Because you won’t agree with everything, become active and make your voice heard. Most reasonable people are willing to change their minds, it’s up to you to convince them...
I learn so much from these discussions. I'm asking in all sincerity, why B$? Do you mean it doesn't happen now, or do you think that if we went 'Constitutional', left it to the states, that this wouldn't happen at the state level in some states? Don't you think that, over time, states would come to their own identities?
I do think the GOP needs to rethink its 'big tent'. Let the big-government RINOs go to the dems. We should be looking to build a coalition between Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and conservatives. I certainly agree with more of the Libertarian and Constitutionalist positions than I do with those of our GOP 'leadership' these days. It's a heart-breaker, because in order to actually DO anything, you have to be in power, and, like it or not, two-party is how the game is currently played.
So do you seriously believe that the Constitution gives the federal government the power to criminalize those issues, or should the 9th & 10th Amendments be respected & let the States decide what to do?
There’s a significant difference between minarchy and anarchy; I advocate for minarchy.
Yes, I oppose anarchy.
Answer my question: are these issues a federal or state responsibility, & where is the clause in the Constitution that you are basing your assumptions on?
Now that IS really B$!
Pedophilia is RAPE, period! Not "a preference", not "a right", it is an act of aggression against a child who is below the age of any "consent".
I don't know a single small "l" libertarian who would favor that -- as a matter of fact I have never met a big "L" Libertarian who would favor it either -- although in this a country this size, it wouldn't surprise me if you turned over enough rocks you might find some pedophiles trying to hide their moral deviance behind some pseudo political position.
Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment among other things.
The fact of the matter is this: the powers of the federal government are, as James Madison said in Paper #45 of The Federalist Papers, "FEW & DEFINED". Article I, Section 8 lists the crimes that the federal government has the authority to punish, & the 10th Amendment leaves to rest to the states -- & they can be as severe or as lenient as they so desire.
Get a life newbie. This is also what Ronald Reagan believed.
In case you are confused, this is a CONSERVATIVE forum, there is a clear distinction between conservatism and liberatrianism.
What Madison wrote MIGHT have made sense WITHOUT the 14th Amendment. Additionally, the response to the Whiskey Rebellion made it pretty clear what the Founding Fathers believed.
I never said I was a Libertarian, ‘cuz I’m not (not anymore; I used to be one back in the early 1990;s, & it was thru my Libertarian friends where I began to read the words of the Founding Fathers, & I will be forever thankful to them for that. I left the LP & became an independent after reading George Washington’s Farewell Address, where he criticized what he called “The Spirit of Party”. I am a defender of the Constitution, PERIOD. I have several disagreements w/ the Libertarian Party. I could care less about “conservatism”: I believe in strict constitutionism. To hell w/ conservatism & liberalism —either you support the Constitution or you don’t.
I have heard some people say that the 14th Amendment wasn’t ratified properly, but then again, others say the same thing about the 16th & 17th Amendments also...& I’m not sure where I stand on those issues ‘cuz I don’t have enough info to make an informed decision about it.
That's because they're not.
WHERE do you have evidence that Ronald Reagan believed the Federal government should have MORE power in individuals’ lives, as opposed to decisions being left to the states?
***What Madison wrote MIGHT have made sense...***
I mean he was only the Father of the Constitution after all.
***Additionally, the response to the Whiskey Rebellion made it pretty clear what the Founding Fathers believed.***
The response to the Whiskey Rebellion... where they marched troops and then ended up pardoning the few people that were arrested and ultimately repealing the tax?
Hamilton wanted hangings, but Hamilton also proposed a system mimicking a monarchy at the Constitutional Convention.
That's true. Thomas Jefferson was especially outspoken about how inappropriate it was for the Federal overreach.
After the mortgage mess, after the S&L debacle, if you want deregulation in some part of the financial system, you have to make a precise and accurate case for it and not simply rail against government.
So conserva-tarianism is probably a non-starter.
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.