> Some Republicans are Conservative, but not all and all of them never
> were. Bush is a neocon idiot we need men like Reagan and Goldwater
> back in charge.
The term "conservative" is in itself an interesting one. I consider
myself a conservative in the sense of Mr. Justice William O. Douglas.
Justice Douglas said, with respect to a First Amendment case, "The First
Amendment states: 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 take that to mean that '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.'"
And THAT, my friends, is a conservative position. The First amendment
does not state that "Except as the (Administration, Congress, FDA, NSC,
STB, or any other entity) chooses, Congress shall make no law...(etc.)"
Many people on the right have become flaming liberals in that they want
to mold the Constitution to fit their own desires. Their position is
decidedly NOT conservative. Shrub and his Dick are among those.
If the Constitution is to be interpreted as "what it says, no more, no
less," then that interpretation should be bound over to all governmental
conduct. "Faith-based?" See the First Amendment. Secret surveillance
and wiretapping? See the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
But of course, the art of politics is compromise. But how much do we
lose when we compromise the ideals of our Constitution? Well, the fact
is that the "founding fathers" (an often boisterous, rag-tag, group of
mis-fits, intent on excusing themselves from the obligations the
acquired as citizens of the United Kingdom) did not give us any
guidance. They wrote a document for their circumstances, which may or
not be applicable today.
So how do we interpret that document we allegedly hold so dear, the
Constitution? I go along with the strikingly conservative Justice
Doutlas. "Congress shall make no law...(etc).
kh
surely in the minority here
Jonathan King - 02 Aug 2007 13:32 GMT
>> Some Republicans are Conservative, but not all and all of them never
>> were. Bush is a neocon idiot we need men like Reagan and Goldwater
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> kh
> surely in the minority here
Well said there Ken. Two of my favorites are:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or
to the people.
The Constitution is an enumeration of powers delegated to the federal
gubmint. If it doesn't explicitly say they can do it, they can't. Almost
every law passed today is unconstitutional. Health care, education,
agriculture, etc are not in the domain of the federal gov't, yet they
meddle.
JK