Skip to comments.So, are you a Constitutionalist or a Conservative?
Posted on 10/27/2011 4:42:34 AM PDT by mek1959
This might seem like a ridicules question from the above average intelligence of one of the Forgotten Men. But is it really? Are you sure conservative and Constitutionalist mean the same?
I don't think so.
Having followed and been intimately involved in national politics for decades now, in my former years I would have thought that in all cases a Constitutionalist was the same as a conservative. I had my pocket Constitution ready to be pulled out at a moments notice. I even knew a little bit of the Declaration of Independence (though I would often mingle the Preamble of the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence). All in all, if you would have asked me in the 90's if I was an adherent to the Constitution, I would have looked at you as if you were from another planet...of course I was!
(Excerpt) Read more at forgottenmen.com ...
Exactly, our guy, their guy, who cares. There is just to much power centralized in DC. This is not they way it was supposed to work out. Thank Lincoln.
“This article asks what I believe is a legitimate question. I personally believe we’re focusing on the wrong solution...getting “our guy” into office. This won’t solve the problems we face.”
No, but it will prevent the left from totally stacking the Supreme Court, thus rendering the Constitution meaningless. It will also help to prevent the left from using executive orders to circumvent the checks and balances put into place by the Constitution.
That is true, “conservative” and “constitutionalist” are not always one in the same things, this is why Ron Paul makes perfect sense to some, and is incomprehensible for others.
I agree on the Lincoln comment. This will eventually become a major time period (1861-1865) that people who decide to change from being a “Conservative” to “Constitutionalist” will HAVE to come to terms with.
More suggested reading/study:
The text of Davy Crockett’s “Not yours to give” speech before congress.
The presidency of Calvin Coolidge, who, in my opinion, was the last U.S. president to make an honest attempt at treating the Constitution as a document that LIMITED the powers of the government instead of as one which must be exploited to EXPAND government power.
Dude, where’s my republic?
Yep. Though I try to steer away from personalities, Paul is the ONLY one upholding the Framers view of the Constitution. The others are “posers!”
Remember, voting for anyone who doesn’t uphold federalism as a central tenant of the framing of the Constitution simply supports more big government...just conservative big government.
Spot on Wayne S.
What is your definition for conservative? Ditto constitutionalist?
Which more or less produces a sort of Corpro Fascism, were the State, rather then being a neutral 3rd party, partners with corporations to implement policies the State deems needed and the corporation deems profitable.
The Federal Govt has become a sort of Tolkeinesque ring of power, whoever has it can wield whatever power they deem fit, and that is one of the problems in the US.
“if” the politicians themselves refuse to be bound by the Constitution, what use is the Supreme Court? Does one suppose a string of pro Constitutionalist rulings from the SCOTUS in perpuitity?
We’ve had a Income Tax since 1916, no matter the politician or court in power, we’ve had direct control of State affairs since the 50’s, no matter the court or politician in power.
‘m personally conservative in my ideology which generally amounts to being a traditionalist on social issues and fiscal policy.
On governance, I STRONGLY believe in federalism, republicanism as did most of the Framers and certainly the Founders. I strongly believe in dual sovereignty (vertical checks and balances) as the ONLY solution to the mess in Washington. Herman Cain will NOT correct Washington DC. Only the States, using their Constitutional powers (10th Amendment, Article V Amendment Convention) can save us now. And even then, it’s not going to be easy nor painless. We’ve had generations of massive big government from BOTH parties.
Yep, thanks to republican and democrat supporters of the Incorporation Doctrine. For those who don’t know what that is, google it. What you’ll find is the improper use of the 14th Amendment has obliterated the Constitution and essentially folded the States into the national or general government we have in DC.
Harding and Coolidge were the were the last presidents who saw themselves as first magistrates with limited powers. All of the following presidents have essentially been elected kings.
The constitution, as written, if applied as written, would piss off liberals and conservatives alike. I dropped the conservative label when I realized both liberals and conservatives want the same control over people, the only difference is which side of the spectrum they control you from, and what controls they wish to impose.....
Exactly, and the dirty little secret in republican circles is that they are just as supportive of BIG government as the democrats...just their type of BIG government.
Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, Undeclared Wars! The list can go on and on.
We need to move away from politics and back to principles. Founding and Framing principles. Article 1 Section 8, federalism, etc. Read George Mason and other Anti-Federalists. Study Patrick Henry; read his efforts during the Virginia Ratification debates.
This will take the republican/democrat blinders off and refocus attention on the real problems.
Since everyone who posts here calls themselves a ‘conservative’ I cant see how you can get a coherent A or B answer but I agree with the below logic, a huge problem I had with GWB:
Then I ran across a ideological changing article by the famous Dr. Walter E. Williams, Professor at George Mason University. The title of the article was “It’s Time to Part Company” and it forced me to begin a process of rediscovery. A rediscovery that would eventually lead to me change my entire understanding of the 50 States, 13 of which the Framers referred to as the Union. This process also led me to no longer define myself as a conservative and instead a Constitutionalist in relation to the national government even though I remain conservative in my general views of governance. So what’s the difference Mark...isn’t this just semantics or a play on words? Not in the slightest, it defines how I look at Washington DC, the elected officials that ask for a vote to go there and the bureaucrats that occupy vast amounts of space there.
A Constitutionalist demands from elected officials 100% compliance with the limitations placed on them by the Constitution. No wiggle room just because they will vote for our favorite extra-constitutional program.
A Constitutionalist decides that the Constitution is not a living breathing document that entitles us to vote for politicians that will give us what we want; whether it be a new entitlement program, farm subsidy, war, or aircraft carrier.
IMHO, the New Deal interpretation of the Commerce Clause and the resultant "substantial effects" doctrine has done more to destroy the 10th amendment an consolidate power in DC than the Incorporation Doctrine.
Agree and think this is the goal of the article...to properly define terms.
Conservatives (self included) generally promote the idea of a “limited government” whatever that means. But as soon as policies supported by republicans are challenged, why then I’m a progressive, turn-coat, etc which couldn’t be farther from the truth.
I’ve come to realize that conservatives have been raised on a diet of Republican politics, Heritage Foundation training and talk-radio hyperbole. Rarely stopping to think of whether ANYTHING the republicans have done while in or out of power has ANYTHING to do with the Constitution. An elementary assessment would suggest NOT.
So, what we really have as a measure of “conservatism” in the 21st century is personality driven politics. And right now, the flavor of the month is Herman Cain regardless of his comments about entitlement programs, taxation. Never mind those Framers, let’s get him in office, he’ll fix everything! Next month it will be Perry, then Newt and so on and so on.
Like I said, PRINCIPLE of politics, party or politician.