Defining Conservatism Downward

Statists on the left, used the court to legislate, those on the right want(ed) to use it to legislate from their point of view. This philosophical switch for conservatives, ceded the argument in favor of the liberal idea of a living breathing constitution.

I don't have a problem with judicial review if by that we mean interpreting rather than making the law. Clearly enough, the Supreme Court sees itself as much a lawmaker as a law interpreter. It is one thing to strike a particular law down as unconstitutional but it is something else entirely to go from there to proclaiming new law in effect or in fact.

You mentioned the abortion issue. Consider: Had the Court addressed strictly the Texas law challenged under Roe v. Wade and done nothing regarding the laws of 49 other states, that would have been something else entirely. (Justice Blackmun in due course admitted he was on specious Constitutional ground in writing Roe.)

You're quite right: the right these days tends too often to cry "judicial tyranny" as much because the Court didn't rule the way the right would have preferred, as because the Court forged a new legislation from a mere interpretation.

I would also point forth that only too often does the right - when getting the President it either wants or can live with - looks to the President to set the legislative course, conferring upon him a primacy he simply does not possess under Mr. Madison's document. There is a phenomenal distinction between recommending from time to time such legislation as he deems advisable or necessary and insisting, as so often a President does, that his proposed legislation simply must be considered. The Congress was formulated to be the prime legislative branch, and merely because Congress legislates unreasonably (or, better yet, forgets to ask not whether legislation is needed but whether it is constititionally permissible, as Barry Goldwater once formulated the argument) does not mean that the President exists to force them to legislate reasonably or else he's going to do it for them.

"Meanwhile, a new breed was emerging: the "neoconservatives." These were former liberals, mostly pro-Israel and anti-Communist Jewish intellectuals. There weren't really very many of them, but they had disproportionate influence; conservatives welcomed them as allies with awe and gratitude. "

" The neoconservatives were still basically liberals, albeit Cold War liberals. They favored the New Deal legacy and looked back at Harry Truman as a great president. The old conservative agenda of a return to constitutional government left them cold; limited government would hamper military action abroad. But they have moved to the head of the conservative movement, and their chief followers are conservative "leaders."

The conservatives of today are nothing more than warmed over conservative Democrats. We are losing our political system and the greatness and legacy of our country. Conservatives, Wake up before it's too late!!!

conservatives stood for limited government, the rollback of the welfare state, strict construction of the Constitution, and traditional morality. Today they merely want their own people to run big government.

Constitutional government? Conservatives have simply dropped the subject. They can live with the status quo, which is not conservatism's legacy but liberalism's. Yesterday's heresy has become today's orthodoxy.

The current crop of conservatives, sitting in their church are aware of the foul odor but sit quietly in the pews and hope it will go away. Then Sobran jumps up and yells "Who broke wind?" By doing so he commits an unforgivable social faux paus.

Then I jump up and do the same by bumping this article because the stench in the conservative church is getting worse.

Regards

J.R.

Once upon a time, conservatives stood for limited government,
the rollback of the welfare state, strict construction of the Constitution,
and traditional morality.
Today they merely want their own people to run big government.

Two sentances sum it up

This leftward change was facilitated by the globalist agendas
of ghwb during his 12 years in the White House.

Conservative resistance was beaten back during the 90's
by the moderate wing who had taken control of the gop.

And now the annointed one, gwb, will complete the transition.

Take a step back and observe, it's frightening

Here on this forum, espousing conservative principles is attacked from the Libertarians more than the liberals.

I'm not so sure. While there are the occasional "swing from the chandeliers as long as it doesn't hurt anyone" posts, I think conservative principles take many more hits from Republicans here.

The big tent crowd seems wholly unconcerned with big gub, and largely unaware of the stated goals of this forum.

Well, if the neocons were able to quietly infiltrate and take over in the 90's, maybe the paleos and Constitutionalists can do the same thing in the 00's. There's nothing stopping anybody that wasn't overcome by the neocons, and if there is, well, pull up the bootstraps and work harder.

Though I doubt this would ever happen. GWB is in fact sealing the tomb on traditional Right thought, and the bleating chorus couldn't be happier.

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.