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

To: Dominic Harr
Ok. Maybe I missed this part, but (and more germane to the thread), What do you mean by "socials"? Exactly which issues? Part of the problem is in defining "Conservatism", which, as an idealogy, can embrace the strict interpretation of the Constitution as the founders wrote and practiced it, (which would rapidly do away with a number of Cabinet positions), etc.

I think part of the difficulty we are all having around here stems from what who considers a conservative stance.

At best, let's try to define the end-member in the spectrum.

First, those powers not delegated to the Federal Government would revert to the States and to the people. (sound familliar?--it should)

That would eliminate the Department of Education, HHS, and a host of Federal Agencies, just for starters.

This alone would make for smaller government at the Federal level, and a smaller tax bill, so the income tax could be eliminated, as there is no provision for such in the original Constitution (I include the Bill of Rights with the original Constitution because ratification would still be pending without it).

Similarly, by strict interpretation, at a minimum, a citizen who had no disqualifying mental conditions or felony record could own and bear any arm they were capable of carrying. This would do away with most gun control laws, in accordance with the clause shall not be infringed.

The right to life is one of the unalienable rights, listed (...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and should be sacrosanct. After that, if the mother wants to give the baby up for adoption, that is up to her, and there are people who would be glad to raise the kid. (If the courts got out of the way, maybe the adoptive parents could foot part or all of the medical bills for the mother or some other arrangement.)

The clause "...to provide for the common defense... would necessitate a capable military.

That should get the ball rolling, for starters, maybe you can think of a few. Feel free to add some in, or to even dispute these, but remember, we are looking for the 100% conservative position, the benchmark by which other positions could be measured.

This could get interesting, but anyone should feel free to join in.

447 posted on 03/08/2007 9:44:09 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies ]


To: Smokin' Joe
The right to life is one of the unalienable rights, listed (...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and should be sacrosanct.

You've probably noticed by now, there is significant disagreement on this topic. A large % of R voters do not agree with banning abortion at the federal level.

If you're going to say this is a requirement in being a C, then you're kicking out a lot of people who believe in a conservative use of federal power.

That, and Gays, seem to be the big 2 issues dividing us.

468 posted on 03/08/2007 10:24:20 AM PST by Dominic Harr (Conservative: The "ant", to a liberal's "grasshopper".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies ]

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