Replies

Neo-conservative litmus tests:

1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?

2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?

3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books.

Failing any one of these is a sure sign of a neo-con.

I think your litmus test determines whether or not you are a paleo-con, not a neo-con.

OK a litmus test. I dig tests.

1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?

I oppose anything FDR ever did just as a matter of principle.

2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?

Call me a 'bot but Bush is my man.

3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books.

(1) Yes I would. Every legal imposition upon the American people should be justified Constitutionally. (2) BWAAAHAHAHA...

Score?

3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books.

I am not sure if George W Bush, your candidate of choice in #2, can pass this step.

2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?

Well, if those are the only two choices, I guess I'll have to live with Paul, although he is a little too far left for me. I've never heard him advocate public ritual mutilation for liberals, or the death penalty for the politically correct.

On the issue of Congress having to announce the emumerated power under the Constitution for every law.

Sorry, hate to burst bubble, but that is already ostensibly done. Anything they do that is not under the enumerated powers is unconstitutional.

The real problem, is that over the last 60-70 years, the courts have basically completely re-interpreted the Constitutional to the point where almost anything the federal government chooses to do is considered within the enumerated powers. So the problem isn't really with Congress, but the Judicial Branch.

The Courts have done this by bastardizing the meaning of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

In the Constitution the Federal Government is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. The purpose of this, of course, is to prevent states from erecting trade barriers within the United States.

However, the SCOTUS has over the last 60 years reinterpreted that clause to mean that anything has even remotely interstate commerce can be regulated by the government. Under this free for all intepretation. Murder can be regulated by the federal government because in aggregate, if too many murders takes place in the U.S., it would affect the amount of trade that takes place in between states. But think about that, under that logic, the federal government can do anything, because almost any type of action by the people can in aggregrate affect the amount of interstate trade that takes place. This is why, 95% of all actions by the federal government is justified under the commerce clause, it has literally become a blank check.

Ask yourself this question, how come in the early part of the 20th century, when they wanted to prohibit alcohol, they had to pass a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT to do it? How come nowadays they can prohibit any substance, without needing a consitutional amendment? Because back then, when the Courts correctly understood the commerce clause, the Federal Govt had no power to ban alcohol until it got that power through an Amendement. But under today's free for all, they don't need it, they just cite the commerce clause.

"Neo-conservative litmus tests:
1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?
2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?
3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books."

Great set of criteria ... but if these are your litmus tests, what distinguishes a small "L" libertarian from a conservative?

1. Yes.I reject the interpretation of the commerce clause
3. Yes. I think they should site where a law is allowed by the Constitution
2. Yes pre 9/11. Since then the answer is NO!

Call me a neocon if you will, but I belive in a strong national defense and in Reagan's peace through strength.

Yep I qualify as a Neo per your litmus test (which test is silly and beside the point, and item one tendentious since I support the modest cut back in SCOTUS's interpretation of the reach of the clause under the Reinquist court (but to cut it back to its roots would invite economic chaos in a modern interdependent economy and will never happen), but then I have never shyed from that term, because I am a neo and proud of it.

1. Do you agree with FDR's New Deal interpretation of the commerce clause, and all subsequent government powers/court rulings that have sprung from it?

No. It turned our nation from one of limited government to one of essentially unlimited government.

2. There is a hypothetical election with no Democratic or third party candidates. The person who wins the Republican nomination wins the election. The candidates for nomination are Ron Paul and George Bush. Who do you vote for?

Ron Paul.

3. Would you approve of a law that forced Congress to cite a specifically enumerated constitutional power before it can pass a law? Also, apply this to every law already on the books.

I think this is a great idea.