Posted on 04/13/2003 6:32:28 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
Having a 'big' military for a big country raises no problem with me. - Favoring a big federal government for a union of big government states & localites is ludicrous.
and more than a few of us relatively big government in others, such as preserving the social safety net (although perhaps not quite as big as present, but still big). Deal with it.
I try to 'deal', but me flesh is weak. -- It crawls when you socialist welfare FReeks pretend to be conservatives.
You can say we are ersatz conservatives, but then a case can be made that perhaps you might be one, since preserving the social order (some might consder that a conservative tenet) is not a high priority for you.
I arguably spend more time discussing/defending the constitutional rule of law than most posters here at FR. -- That, imo, ~should~ be considered the highest "social order" subject.
That it is not tells the tale. At one point most here agreed that:
"Free Republic is a place for people to discuss our common goals regarding the restoration of our constitutionally limited republican form of government.
If people have other agendas for FR, I really wish they would take them elsewhere.
Thanks, Jim 226 posted on 2/7/02 4:01 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson
Needless to say, your ideology doesn't prevent you from cashing your excessive SSI checks each and every month. No doubt such unprincipled hypocrisy is easy for you to rationalize.
Grover Norquist is in bed with the ACLU now.
Two of America's most prominent conservative leaders and a former Democrat ambassador and Boston mayor have written a letter to President Bush opposing a Justice Department proposal that would permit state and local law enforcement agencies to track down illegal immigrants as a way to fight terrorism.
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist president of Americans for Tax Reform - a top political analyst - and former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn who heads the Catholic Alliance took the side of police officials and immigrant rights activists in urging the president to prevent the proposal from being implemented.
Police officials across the nation have already criticized the idea, warning that it would endanger their relations with immigrants. especially because they would be reluctant to report crimes fearing they might be exposed to charges of immigration law violations.
According to the New York Times' Eric Schmitt, on Friday the three men wrote to the President complaining that the plan, now being reviewed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, would create a dangerous precedent because it would empower local authorities to become enforcement tools of the federal government.
Needless to say, your ideology doesn't prevent you from cashing your excessive SSI checks each and every month.
Excessive? Whatta boob. -- I'll have to live 12 more years or so to get back what I put in, - and the odds are against me.
No doubt such unprincipled hypocrisy is easy for you to rationalize.
I'm sure you tell your mom & dad that same line, every month when you cash their check.
Hypocrisy, thy name is CJ.
Sometimes I wonder if there is any possibility of a rational discourse between the 'reasonable conservative' faction that cinfla, sinkspur, Roscoe, CJ, et al. represent and the constitutionalist libertarian faction that most others on here push. I think that it's easier for most to call out the anti-American card than say simply, this is a line I wouldn't cross. I didn't think it was such a hard question. I think it's just easier to stick out your tongue than say, 'Here I stand, I can do no other.'
To answer my own question: RE: BOR Amendment #1, which, let me remind you is:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I would never have made the statement 'you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.' Sure, this is true, because your statement could cause harm, but the restrictions since placed have gutted the First Amendment, and the case on which this famous quote rests was purely political speech, which is what the First Amendment was all about. Peaceable assembly PERMITS are essentially blocks on the idea that people can freely assemble--government has to give you permission! When government intervenes in free expression that is ignoring the Constitution.
BOR2, Which states:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
When we allowed government to decide who carries a gun, the U.S. broke the intent of the Second Amendment.
BOR5, which states:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I think that until we're actually in a war, not a 'War Powers Act' conflict, or a "War On Etc.," the removal of Constitutional protection against being held on these crimes is not legally justified, and I'm in agreement with you somewhat. I have vacillated on this issue before, because it is a national security issue and that I have strong concerns about our security makes it difficult to side with potential terrorists. But to clarify: holding any AMERICAN CITIZENS on charges of capital crimes, or worse, on no crimes at all (though that's a 6th amendment issue, too) without a grand jury indictment is going too far. I am in agreement with other posts that stated that the U.S. Constitution doesn't protect non-citizens.
And for those of you who dodged the question by saying it's a spurious one, that we are not faced with the question of liberty vs. security, I don't think I asked you if you wanted liberty or security. I didn't present you that stark choice. I just asked you what would be going too far for you constitutionally.
So let me ask you again. After Soros, etal, take away your freedoms, are you going to really enjoy your drugs then?
I have a hard time coming to rational discourse with those that want to have heroin, crack, ectasy sold at the corner grocery store. A few, including the Libertarian party, even want the drugs to be available to minors. The hatred of some on this board for anyone that even challenges their positions is amazing.
If you don't agree that the WOD is a TOTAL failure and should be immediately ended then your are evil.
How can you take serious their pro-drug posts when they come right off the Soros sponsered web-sites.
How can you take serious their posts of the medical marijuana scam artists in California.
How can you take them serious when they seem to think the socialists in California should be looked up to for being progressive druggist.
Perhaps you should read your BOR5 a little closer .....
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.