Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Constitutional' conservatives -- not
NY Post ^ | February 24, 2010 | JACOB SULLUM

Posted on 02/24/2010 3:24:36 AM PST by Scanian

The day before last week end's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, a group of prominent conservatives gathered a few miles away at the Virginia estate of our first president. Their Mount Vernon Statement swears fealty to a "constitutional conservatism" that "applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal" and "honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life." If only they meant it.

Constitutional conservatism certainly sounds better than "compassionate conservatism," which turned out to be code for big-government conservatism. And it is easy to hope that the thread of a properly limited federal government could bind the strands of a movement that has been unraveling since the end of the Cold War.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: commerceclause; cpac; federalpower; mtvernonstatement; teaparty; tenthamendment; usconstitution; wickard
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 next last
To: Rockingham
Stare decisis is necessary? Why? You have the original source material. Why deal with someones interpretation of someones interpretation of someone else's theory?

Ever play grapevine? That is what they are doing with the millions of laws on the books and every court case over the last 200 years.

Any wonder left as to why some of us are fed up?

141 posted on 02/24/2010 12:51:40 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The fundamental problem today is not constitutional mechanisms and precedents but defeating the Left and fashioning an enduring conservative political majority.

Unfortunately, we have and need RINOs until we can get strong enough to no longer need them. Meanwhile, we must regard them as having loyalty like Arabs or the French.

I do not put people in neat boxes. Most are too complicated for that. And thanks for keeping the country safe from enemies foreign for this short, scrawny civilian with bad eyesight.

142 posted on 02/24/2010 1:08:38 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Major court cases arise because the law is unclear in concept or in application. Without stare decisis, there would be no continuity in judicial decisions because they could vary from week to the next and from one party to another. There would be no certainty and predictability to the law. Judicial decisions would be like a bus transfer: good for one day, and only for the passenger to whom it was issued.
143 posted on 02/24/2010 1:29:36 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham
So we need the likes of McCain and Snowe, who work with Democrats, thereby defeating real conservative goals from being accomplished, and this will lead us to an enduring majority?

This is sounding more like South Park's Underpants Gnomes...

144 posted on 02/24/2010 1:40:46 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

That is a sure sign we have too many laws.


145 posted on 02/24/2010 1:41:28 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Snowe’s vote could be the difference between Mitch McConnell or Harry Reid as Senate Majority Leader. The point though is to win enough seats to make Snowe irrelevant.


146 posted on 02/24/2010 1:50:58 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

And you aren’t going to draw in the votes doing stuff like this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2458429/posts


147 posted on 02/24/2010 1:54:13 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
From Federalist No. 78, by Alexander Hamilton:

" . . . It has been frequently remarked, with great propriety, that a voluminous code of laws is one of the inconveniences necessarily connected with the advantages of a free government. To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them."

148 posted on 02/24/2010 1:57:14 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

“It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression...that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;...working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.” —Thomas Jefferson


149 posted on 02/24/2010 2:14:59 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I ain’t one of the 13.


150 posted on 02/24/2010 2:17:08 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Jefferson did not blame stare decisis.


151 posted on 02/24/2010 2:17:58 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

No, but you are saying we need RINO’s like these.

I’m scratching my head as to why...


152 posted on 02/24/2010 2:18:44 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

“The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Mar 9, 1821

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

What else could he have been referring to?


153 posted on 02/24/2010 2:23:26 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: egannacht

It shouldn’t be such a big worry. I’ve followed politics for 50 years and the Democrats have been at each others’ throats about one thing or another all that time. Remember what Will Rogers said: “I don’t belong to any organized political party, I’m a Democrat.” In spite of all their disagreement and dissention, they do OK at the polls because they have enough political sense to pull together when it matters.

I don’t see why people on the right can’t do likewise.


154 posted on 02/24/2010 2:23:32 PM PST by Scanian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Jefferson's distaste for the federal judiciary was because of Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, and because the judges were federalists. Jefferson and his party were on the losing side of Marbury and were therefore unable to oust John Adams' end of term appointees. In short, Jefferson was angry because he and his buddies could not take hold of all the patronage they expected.
155 posted on 02/24/2010 2:41:47 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Rockingham

They were right to be pissed. Just as we are...


156 posted on 02/24/2010 3:23:00 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III, Oathkeeper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
I'm not sure exactly what you oppose.

I oppose legalizing. They have the constitutional authority to do so, however.
157 posted on 02/24/2010 4:27:41 PM PST by Antoninus (Vote Mitt Romney in 2012 -- We need an even bigger fraud in DC than Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

“You are acting like a typical liberal, projecting what you are upon those of us tired of daily doses of LIBertarian and LIBeral bullsh!t.”

Nope. You merely refused to offer any rational explanation, saying that you didn’t like the way something was stated. That is a very touchy-feely response instead of a measured response of logic.

You should re-examine your screen name. It doesn’t fit well.


158 posted on 02/24/2010 5:02:35 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

“Yes? And tell me what our founding fathers thought of pornography and other “lifestyle” issues like sodomy? “

I think your opinion is somewhat naive.

No doubt that people who wanted to open, for example, a brothel in the 18-19th century didn’t ask for the endorsement of the city fathers, but it was a common thing back then for brothels and opium dens to be tolerated as long as they were away from the center of the city and didn’t cause too much trouble. IOW they didn’t try to stop those activities completely, they just chose to turn a blind eye as long as thing didn’t get out of hand.

Ever read anything about the Victorian era in England and the U.S.? It wasn’t polite and moral as The Queen herself would like to have people believe.

I’m not condoning this behavior, I’m just saying that these modern vices are not really ‘modern’ at all. They have been around for thousands of years and no matter what our society does about them, they will continue on.

The only way to change a society is to change people’s hearts. That’s what causes real, lasting change.


159 posted on 02/24/2010 5:18:56 PM PST by webstersII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

We may need a RINO or two to have enough votes to run the Senate. If it is in play after the next election, I hope that Mitch McConnell would do whatever it takes to get to 51 votes — even if means putting some Barry White on, calling Olympia Snowe in for a private meeting, then gently putting his arm around her and whispering sweetly: “Olympia, dear, what can I do for you?”


160 posted on 02/24/2010 5:23:32 PM PST by Rockingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-179 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson