What are you, nuts? If you get hit by a car while you are crossing a street, then to you it hardly matters whether the driver was drunk or talking on a cell phone or getting Monica'd. All that would matter -- to you -- would be that you got hit by a car.
Before you accuse me of taking an acid trip, try and get a grip yourself. (And, for what it's worth, in my first post I never used the phrase NWO. Jim just used it to make a joke about the nature of my comments. But FR has a LOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG history of having fun with tin foil speculation, so I was just taking my place in the batting order. Got it?)
Mark W.
Judicial Review & the Constitutionality of Acts
Some herein have mentioned the 1803 decision by the Marshall Court which established the doctrine of "judicial review" (i.e. the Supreme Court has the final say on whether legislation is "constitutional" or not).
What some may not know, however, is that John Marshall's opinions in general, and that one, in particular, was neither widely accepted in the short term nor was it in the mainstream of political thought at the time.
The principle of nullification widely espoused by John Calhoun was derived from the belief that the Constitution was a compact between the States and that, therefore, the States had the final say on what was and what was not "constitutional".
A Solution to Bush's Naturalization Plan
Okay...here's a thought. How many of you would be willing to endorse the President's plan to grant citizenship to those 3 million illegal aliens from Mexico [i]in exchange for the following concessions?[/i]
English written into law as the national language.
An end to government funded bilingualism.
A real crackdown on further illegal immigration.
What do you think?
On the question of the GOP v. 3rd Parties
A gentleman posted something which I cannot now locate within these nearly 700 responses. However, the gist was that the Republican Party was the only proper home for conservatives and that conservatives who vote their conscience by trying to elect Harry Browne, Howard Phillips, Pat Buchanan, etc. are no different than liberals who vote for Al Gore.
This is patently false.
I think it ill behooves any of us here to alienate others with whom we disagree. The question of whether or not the Republican Party is [i]the best[/i] vehicle for conservative changes is one I contemplate often. That, at present, it is the best option [i]available[/i] is a little more credible statement to make. However...
...we should not be looking for the best candidate offered us, but the best candidate - period. If he (or she) is not on the ballot, it is our responsibility to put him there.
We should not be looking for the best political party offered to us, but should be asking ourselves what the [b]ideal[/b] party looks like.
By subscribing to the "GOP is the only way to win elections" theory, we are eliminating all other options. Perhaps the GOP [i]is[/i] our best option? I'm not saying it is or it isn't, just that it would be unwise to eliminate all our other options before we've arrived at a conclusion. Apparently the gentleman I refer to has arrived at that conclusion. I, as of yet, have not.
The [b]real question[/b] here is "How can we best implement conservative ideas? And what is the best way to go about doing that?"
It's obvious that the "big tent" theory does not work. So where does that leave us?
Either we (meaning conservatives) purge the Republican Party of liberals and moderates and exact from our elected officials a higher standard than we have in the past, or we leave the GOP and band together somewhere else.
The problem with the GOP is that too often it moves to the left and, therefore, makes itself indistinguishable from the Democratic Party. Thusly, voters perceive little difference between the two parties.
Conservatives MUST present an alternative to the status quo.
My question to all of us is this: Is the Republican Party beyond reform? (Keep in mind this is NOT asking "Does the Republican Party welcome conservatives?" They do - at least...our votes, anyhow.)
We must identify what the BEST path to proceed is. And we must COMMIT to that path.
Without steadfastness and vigilence in this endeavor, we will continue to see the wishy-washyness of our elected leaders and the light of hope for significant reform will be extinguished.
So....what is the best way to go about implementing our agenda?