To: FReepers; everyone; All
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 ...
A constitution not followed is worse than no constitution all. For the ignored constitution gives a fig leaf for the statist to point to say see we are doing it right, by the book. This dichotomy leads to extreme cynicism in the intelligent and destroys little ‘r’ republican values.
Sorry, I meant “Like I said, PRINCIPLE OVER politics, party or politician.”
Not only have we seen the issue of the Incorporation Doctrine but I also contend the 17th amendment removes the state check against the federal government. Senators, under the current system, play to a national stage and do not support their state in maters of state sovereignty. The National Popular Vote will eviscerate the remaining state identity and further nationalize the race for President. States have become, I hate to say it, subdivisions of the national government and dual federalism is gone.
From the article:
>> 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.
A Constitutionalist is not impressed with a politicians claim to support the Constitution simply by carrying and whipping out the pocket Constitution at opportune times.
It is really that simple. A Constitutionalist demands allegiance to the Constitution, all the time, every time, every vote....no exceptions! >>
That’s a nice concept - and just as lame brained as those who think a liberal utopia is possible. Nobody is 100% anything all the time ever. Just does not happen in the human condition. The Founders, unlike the author, had the wisdom to understand this. Thus the phrase “more perfect union” instead of a perfect union.
The author IMO is trying to position himself as above the fray in some sort of irrelevant purity that does not exist. From the mess we are in now, someone who is conservative and who would move us 20% closer to that 100% impossible purity would be a huge improvement.
“Thank Lincoln.”
OK.
Thank you Mr. Lincoln for doing the tough job for which you were elected (twice) and for which you paid the ultimate price.
“Thank Lincoln.”
OK.
Thank you Mr. Lincoln for doing the tough job for which you were elected (twice) and for which you paid the ultimate price.
agreed
The author of this article seems to be taking a page from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. His opinion seems to be at this point in history nothing we can do is going to stop the destruction, so we are better off not slowing it down, because we are exhibiting insanity in trying to do so.
>> The author of this article seems to be taking a page from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. His opinion seems to be at this point in history nothing we can do is going to stop the destruction, so we are better off not slowing it down, because we are exhibiting insanity in trying to do so. >>
You may be right about the author’s point - and the author may be right about the ultimate conclusion. If so, he should wrap himself in Rand and not in the Founders. The Founders would not agree with him. Again, they warned against attempts at perfection. They understood the inherent flaws.
And another thing: for folks who are say, 65 or 75 years old, I would suspect they would put a big value on “slowing it down.”
Reminiscent of Alice and the Mad Hatter:
MH: Would you like some more tea?
Alice: I can't have more tea, I haven't had any yet!
MH: you mean you can't have less; it's easy to have more than nothing.
It already is meaningless (to the 3 branches) and it only prevents the left from circumventing checks and balances while the right is in office and does it. Sorry, the GOP is every bit as guilty (flame away but I'm still right).
Evetytime I have someone braying in my face about how much they believe in the Constitution, I say two words: “Drug War”. That usually shuts ‘em up.
>> Sorry, the GOP is every bit as guilty (flame away but I’m still right). >>
You have a point, but you are not “right.” Many in the GOP are guilty, but the worst Republicans are not “as guilty” as say Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Obama, etc are.
If they were, we would already be a totalitarian society and you would no longer have the right to post to sites like Free Republic.
So, are you a Constitutionalist or a Conservative?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That is a good question. Me? I’m a Conservative first and a Constitutionalist second.
Almost daily I run into FReepers who have it backwards. And some are not even conservative at all. Yet they hide behind the Constitution as they seek to promote all their nutty libertarian ideals like legalizing pot, porn and so on.
Many framers were Constitutionalists, like Jefferson for instance. But he (and others) were hardly conservative.
I read a book by a progressive professor (forget his name) titled "On What the Constitution Really Means". He, and the people destroying the Constitution in the courts, begin the decimation of the Constitution with the words "More Perfect Union". They theorized and apparently courts have bought into that what we view as perfect must be evolving since we have more experience and history every day, the framers must have known this and that is the very reason they wrote "more Perfect". This sets up the entire evolving Constitution theory.
He ignores the very real and plausible reason for the words "more perfect" being placed in the preamble probably being they were in fact replacing the "less perfect" Articles of Confederation.
I have had a number of heated arguments with a few here about certain laws that GWB pushed and signed and how they expanded the federal governments role by setting new 'consitutional' precedents that can lead to things like Obama-care mandate once Republicans are out of power. The sames ones call everything Obama does unconstitutional.
After much back and forth and probing they make the case that the issue is so critical to conservative values that our goal should be to get the courts to find a rationale in the constitution for it, much like Democrats do to get their's.
It's the "Fight Fire with Fire" principle.
It's kind of ridiculous for us to expect career politicians (and those who want to be) to restrict their own power. When the Constitution gets in their way, they'll try to find a way to circumvent it - while rationalizing to themselves that they're acting in the publics’ best interest.
Having said that, it still matters that we prevent people like Obama from remaining in office, and there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats (although not a big enough difference).
Hmmm, I’m not sure the introductory phrase “a more perfect Union” has anything to do with the restraints placed on Congress in Article 1. Section and the oath all Members of Congress before God and man to uphold those restraints 100% of the time. How odd you’d point to that.
Perhaps you should read Locke a little and throw off your “more perfect Union” rule of men thinking. Or do you not agree the moral superiority of the RULE OF LAW as in the Constitution.
Feel free to hide behind a parenthetical phrase as justification for your concept of what a more perfect Union is...I’m not sure it’s a good defense for the Framers “maturity” though. Good luck with your ideology, I’ll continue to promote the Constitutional notion of federalism as a solution...not just getting my guy into office.
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.
