AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

The CONTEMPORARY LIBERAL movement has no credibility. Their ideology is full of holes. They say one thing; they do the opposite. We see the hypocrisy. They beat the constitution as if it's their drum and then they work their little hearts out to deprive others of their fundamental rights TO THAT WHICH THEY HAVE EARNED.

BOTH The rich get richer and the poor get RICHER. TO ESCAPE LIBERAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH, the rich have moved their operations overseas WHERE THEY CAN BETTER ESCAPE LIBERAL ENVY AND PLUNDER. They park billions of dollars in offshore accounts to avoid DISCRIMINATORY taxes. Providing the POOR with extensive GIVE-AWAYS hasn't helped to grow our economy. IT IS ONLY HELPED KEEP THE POOR POORER. A deregulated free market operates on greed to the detriment of ENVY. Millions of Americans have FOUND BETTER jobs and benefits BY WORKING FOR A BETTER LIFE FOR THEMSELVES RATHER THAN BY WORKING TO TAKE FOR THEMSELVES WHAT OTHERS HAVE EARNED..

For this nation, the LIBERAL movement has produced nothing but rotten eggs. And yet the LIBERALS refuse to acknowledge the huge failure of their movement and the severe consequences that this country must suffer as a result. THE FANNY&FREDDIE GIVE AWAYS ARE BUT ONE OF MANY EXAMPLES. They are selling a product that ONLY THE ENVIOUS WANT MORE OF AND ARE NOT WILLING TO PRODUCE FOR THEMSELVES.

You are hilarious, ican711nm. You should take your tax protesting comedy show on the road.

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra you have defined a modern conservative incorrectly. You take the behavior of what I call pukes, and falsely attribute that behavior to conservative behavior. The true objective of us modern conservatives is the restoration of equal rights for all persons regardless of their race, gender, nationality, economic status, mutually agreed sexual practices, or percentage of the population, as long as they respect those same rights for others.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

You are hilarious, ican711nm. You should take your tax protesting comedy show on the road.

This comical retort of yours is equivalent to a declaration that you lack the ability to construct a rational rebuttal. Have more confidence in yourself. You can surely do better.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra wrote

Quote:

How many times have you referred to liberals as left wing wackos? How many times have you disparaged liberals? Too many times for me to count. You know you're guilty. Conservatives, and you identify yourself as a conservative, have waged a campaign for DECADES to define liberalism and liberals to mean all things nefarious. Notwithstanding your denials, we see what you do, Foxfyre.

How many times? Zero. I do refer to SOME liberals as left wing wackos because they are just as some right wingers are true nut cases. But I have never ever at any time on any thread provided a definition for modern liberalism that included that phrase or anything like it, nor have I or at least most conservatives defined liberalism and liberals to mean all things nefarious. You must not see very well what I do, or you, being a basicly honest and fair peson, would not say that I do that. But do be careful lest you give the impression that liberals are given to exaggeration and extremism in making their point.

Quote:

I have defined conservatism for you many times. You choose to ignore my posts.

If I ignored you, it was almost certainly because your definition read something like this:

Quote:

A modern conservative is a person dedicated to the preservation and application of the principle that all humans (except Women, Homosexuals, Mexicans, Hispanics, and all other minorities, and all those who do things we disfavor) are endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and will continue to be endowed with those rights they have not unlawfully (according to a modern conservative's personal view of the law) denied other humans.

which is so patently absurd it honestly did not merit a response.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Thanks for yelling at me, Debra. I'm intellectually slow, so your red letters and your capitalizing of the word "response" were essential to my comprehension.

Seriously though: I think your response is reasonable, although I tend to side with joefromchicago here, who would abolish marriage as a distinct civic institution, replace the contractual aspect of it with plain vanilla contract law, and leave everything else to churches or whatever humanist organizations might suit agnostics and atheists. I doubt, however, that we'll find this solution on the agenda of American conservatism in 2008 and beyond.

So, fair enough. For now, I'll run with marriage being a fundamental right. As I understand the algorithm for equal protection analysis, the next question is, is homosexuality a suspect class, a quasi-suspect class, or neither? According to Wikipedia, which unfortunately cites no cases besides US v. Carolene Products, we have to ask four questions to answer this:

Is homosexuality immutable? Answer: In real life, there's a continuum between mutable and immutable, on which homosexuality is closer to immutable. For most homosexuals, for most practical purposes, the characteristic is immutable, although it is somewhat less so than race, sex, national origin, and legitimacy of birth.
Have homosexuals as a group suffered a long history of discrimination? The answer to that one is easy. Yes, they have.
Are homosexuals politically powerless? I'd have to answer that one with a "no". Homosexual activists have been able to change public opinion and voting behavior in their favor. It's hard to argue that they didn't in practice have access to the conventional political process.
Are homosexuals a distinct, insulated group? That's an easy one again. Yes, they are.

When I look at these four points, it seems that sexual orientation is a similar classification as sex: it is not a suspect class, but it's a quasi-suspect class. So any discrimination based on the classification needs to withstand intermediate scrutiny: The law has to be substantially related to an important government interest.

Do you agree so far? And, if it's not too much trouble, can you give me a list of the most important post-Carolene Products cases where the Supreme courts lays down its procedure for testing what constitutes a suspect class, and what constitutes a quasi-suspect class? I tried to find them on Wikipedia and FindLaw, but couldn't find anything but US v. Carolene Products. That can't be all there is, can it?

(I anticipate, perhaps incorrectly, that you're inclined to take the short cut some state Supreme Courts have taken: that it doesn't matter what kind of classification sexual orientation is, because prohibiting same sex marriages doesn't even withstand the rational basis test. If you don't mind, I'd like you not to use this short cut, and later deal separately with the level of scrutiny that gay marriage bans withstand or not. I'd like to think this through as thoroughly as practicable.)

2 Replies

I propose a new law be adopted establishing parriage, as defined below, such that the legal obligations and rights of parriage partners be the same as the legal obligations and rights of marriage partners. That way the current meaning of marriage and the future meaning of parriage need not be compromised.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=marriage&x=25&y=10
Main Entry: mar·riage Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: marij, -rj also mer-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Middle French, from marier to marry + -age -- more at MARRY
1 a : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife b : the mutual relation of husband and wife : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected : WEDDING; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities -- compare BEENA MARRIAGE, COEMPTIO, CONFARREATION, LEVIRATE
3 : an intimate or close union
4 : MARITAGE

Proposed New Entry: par·riage
1 a : the state of being united to a person of the same gender as two males or two females b : the mutual relation of two members of the same gender: MATELOCK c : the institution whereby two men or two women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family
2 : an act of parrying or the rite by which the parried status is effected : WEDDING; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union
4 : PARITAGE

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You may be onto something there, ican, but even plumbers know that you cannot marry two pipes with both male or both female ends, you need a male and female to make it work, unless you want to do some extra welding or something, the connection just does not work and it is not practical. Building codes do not allow it, it makes for unsafe infrastructure. People are put at risk of fire, flood, or whatever if you build a structure using such unsound practices.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Hi Thomas:

I apologize for not responding sooner. I read your post yesterday and tried to respond, but was interrupted several times.

Because marriage is a legal status that may only be entered into or dissolved in accordance with the law, delegating control over this legal status to religious organizations is out of the question.

There are two separate issues: 1) Constitutionality of the official state ban on same sex marriages under the due process clause; and 2) Constitutionality of the official state ban on same sex marriages under the equal protection clause. The first deals with liberty interests; the second deals with discrimination among similiarly situated classes of persons.

I.

Under the due process clause, the Constitution protects the entire universe of liberty interests (or rights). After all, the primary purpose of a constitutional republic is to secure the blessings of liberty against arbitrary government infringements. Again, our forefathers did not create a pure democracy under which individual rights would be insecure and at the mercy of shifting (and often arbitrary, capricious, oppressive) whims of mob rule. This is referred to as "substantive" due process because, in essense, we look to the substance of the law itself and determine whether the law is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

(Justice Scalia often scoffs at substantive due process. He claims "due process" means "procedure" and nothing more. Scalia has often expressed a view, if a law was duly enacted in accordance with proper procedures, that's all the "process" the people are entitled to receive. His view would be accurate if our framers designed a pure democracy.)

Here is one of my "favorite" cases because it recognizes that due process clause protects freedoms both great and small:

http://www.ahcuah.com/lawsuit/federal/hodge.htm

Quote:

CONCLUSION

This case involves a seemingly trivial matter, the wearing of one's baseball cap backward or forward. However, it raises important issues concerning the extent to which government officials can regulate any activity that might be an indicator of gang presence. Courts have noted that the due process clause protects freedoms "both great and small." See Karr, 460 F.2d at 615, fn. 12. In this case, in the County's effort to prevent any possible problems at the Fair, the County impermissibly infringed on Jerry's liberty to wear his cap as he saw fit. For this reason, the Court will find in favor of Jerry and against the County.

(I'm out of time right now, will continue later!)

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

I apologize for not responding sooner. I read your post yesterday and tried to respond, but was interrupted several times.

No problem. Thanks for your response so far, and sorry for being snippy with you in my last response.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

...you cannot marry two pipes with both male or both female ends... you need a male and female to make it work, unless you want to do some extra welding ...

Wow! An epiphany: Parriaged couples will not have had weddings like married couples. By golly, they will have had weldings!
Thank you for your brilliant constructive response!

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Wow! An epiphany:
Parriaged couples will not have had weddings like married couples.
By golly, they will have had weldings!

That sounds painful.

Will the assembled well wishers have to wear welder' s masks ?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

CONTEMPORARY LIBERALS work to deprive others of their fundamental rights to that which they have earned. Millions of CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATIVES have found better jobs and benefits by working for a better life for themselves rather than by working to take for themselves that which others have earned.

CONTEMPORARY LIBERALS not only work to reduce what others have earned. They end up reducing what they themselves are able to take when CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATIVES eventually have no more than do CONTEMPORARY LIBERALS.

CONTEMPORARY CONSERVATIVES must recognize these contemporary realities and work to change them. Their first goal must be accomplishing the reform of the current federal tax system to conform to that which is lawful under the USA Constitution. The USA Constitution requires that all taxes be uniform throughout the USA, not uniformly non-uniform. A flat tax, not a graduated or progressive tax on gross income, is what is required by "the supreme law of the land."

Their second goal must be accomplishing the reform of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. These three branches of the federal government must be compelled to exercise only those powers granted them by the USA Constitution. In particular, they must be prevented from giving away federal tax revenues to individual Americans and to groups of Americans.

A first step in accomplishing both goals is for the legislature and governor in one or more states of the United States to decide to seceed from the United States, until the federal government stops failing to obey the Constitution and keep its constitutional agreement to "support this Constitution."

Of course, many will correctly observe that it is unconstitutional for a state to seceed from the United States. However, it is also unconstitutional for the federal government to exercise powers not explicitly granted it in the Constitution. Clearly, under conditions where the federal government is repeatedly violating the Constitution, the federal government forfeits its power to deny the states their right to seceed to escape abuse of their citizens by the federal government.

The Constitution is a contract between the states and the federal government. That contract is voided when the federal governemnt repeatedly and continually violates that contract.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

they will have had weldings!

Will thay be married by a WELDER ?

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Thank goodness, the verb weld has more than one meaning. No masks required of the guests attending a legal welding of male to male or female to female.

Quote:

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged
Main Entry: 2weld Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: weld
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -ed/-ing/-s
Etymology: alteration (influenced by welled, past participle of well to boil, rise, well) of obsolete English well to weld, from Middle English wellen to boil, well, weld -- more at WELL
intransitive verb : to become or be capable of being welded : undergo junction by welding <iron welds easily> <the parts welded together perfectly>
transitive verb
1 a : to unite or consolidate (as metallic parts) by heating to a plastic or fluid state the surfaces of the parts to be joined and then allowing the metals to flow together with or without the addition of other molten metal or by hammering or compressing with or without previous softening by heat -- compare GAS WELDING b : to unite (plastics) in a similar manner by heating c : to produce or repair (as an article) by this method <welded pipe> <welded the crack in the tube> d : to produce or create as if by such a process <weld a political party out of ... divisive elements -- Gladwin Hill> <solidarity welded out of emergency -- Amy Loveman> <West welds reply to Soviet -- Carlyle Morgan>
2 : to unite closely or intimately : join closely or inseparably : form into or as if into a single unit <her gratitude welded her to him forever -- Harrison Smith> <weld the warring Gaelic and English elements into a Norman-Irish nation -- Brian Fitzgerald>
3 : to cause (tissues) to form a seal by adhesion

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Thank goodness, the verb weld has more than one meaning.
No masks required of the guests attending
a legal welding of male to male or female to female.

I don 't wanna say anything about the image that came to my mind
of welding them male-to-male together !

I have no position on this matter; I remain neutral.
If there were a referendum on this,
I woud not go to the polls.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Likewise!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
I apologize for not responding sooner. I read your post yesterday and tried to respond, but was interrupted several times.

No problem. Thanks for your response so far, and sorry for being snippy with you in my last response.

I didn't think you were being snippy. I know I didn't format my post correctly when I previewed it. Rather than take the time to do it right, I just added color and an attribution. My "bad" for taking a short cut.

Right now, I'm enjoying a cup of coffee before dashing out the door. My husband requires my assistance with his sales extravaganza. We're doing our part to grow the economy and to spread the wealth around. Smile

Before rushing off, I wanted to provide you with a couple of equal protection clause cases and links:

CLEBURNE v. CLEBURNE LIVING CENTER, INC., 473 U.S. 432 (1985)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/473/432.html

Quote:

A Texas city denied a special use permit for the operation of a group home for the mentally retarded, acting pursuant to a municipal zoning ordinance requiring permits for such homes. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that mental retardation is a "quasi-suspect" classification and that the ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not substantially further an important governmental purpose. We hold that a lesser standard of scrutiny is appropriate, but conclude that under that standard the ordinance is invalid as applied in this case.

ROMER v. EVANS, 517 U.S. 620 (1996)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/517/620.html

Quote:

One century ago, the first Justice Harlan admonished this Court that the Constitution "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 559 (1896) (dissenting opinion). Unheeded then, those words now are understood to state a commitment to the law's neutrality where the rights of persons are at stake. The Equal Protection Clause enforces this principle and today requires us to hold invalid a provision of Colorado's Constitution....

0 Replies

Thomas:

I also wanted to draw your attention to ADAMSON V. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA , 332 U.S. 46 (1947). This case demonstrates the judicial quarrel over the incorporation debate. Although I don't always agree with Justice Black, he did make valid points in his dissent concerning the Court's illogical refusal to follow the framers' intent with respect to the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He also said something that is extremely relevant to California's Proposition 8:

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/332/46.html

Justice Black's dissent at 87-88:

Quote:

Nor does the history of the practice of compellig testimon y in this country, relied on in the Twining opinion support the degraded rank which that opinion gave the Fifth Amendment's privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. I think the history there recited by the Court belies its conclusion. [332 U.S. 46 , 88] The Court in Twining evidently was forced to resort for its degradation of the privilege to the fact that Governor Winthrop in trying Mrs. Ann Hutchison in 1637 was evidently 'not aware of any privilege against self-incrimination or conscious of any duty to respect it.' 211 U. S. at pages 103, 104, 29 S.Ct. at page 21. Of course not. 14 Mrs. Hutchison was tried, if trial it can be called, for holding unorthodox religious views. 15 People with a consuming belief that their religious convictions must be forced on others rarely ever believe that the unorthodox have any rights which should or can be rightfully respected. As a result of her trial and compelled admissions, Mrs. Hutchison was found guilty of unorthodoxy and banished from Massachusetts.

0 Replies

HOW TO BEGIN FIXING OUR GOVERNMENT

The Constitution is a contract between the federal government, the states, and the people. That contract is voided when the federal government repeatedly and continually violates that contract. The Constitution requires that all taxeson each and every dollar of income be uniform. Also the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government to transfer tax revenue to individuals or groups of individuals that are not employees of the federal government.

Contemporary liberals work to deprive others of their fundamental rights to that which they have earned. Millions of contemporary conservatives have found better jobs and benefits by working for a better life for themselves rather than by working to take for themselves that which others have earned.

Contemporary liberals not only work to reduce what others have earned. They end up reducing what they themselves are able to take when contemporary conservatives eventually have no more than do contemporary Liberals.

Contemporary conservatives must recognize these contemporary realities and work to change them.

Their first goal must be accomplishing reform of the current federal tax system to conform to that which is lawful under the USA Constitution. The USA Constitution requires that all taxes be uniform throughout the USA, not uniformly non-uniform. A flat tax, not a graduated or progressive tax on gross income, is what is required by "the supreme law of the land."

Their second goal must be accomplishing reform of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. These three branches of the federal government must be compelled to exercise only those powers granted them by the USA Constitution. In particular, they must be prevented from giving away federal tax revenues to individual Americans and to groups of Americans.

A first step in accomplishing both goals is for the legislature and governor in one or more states of the United States to decide to secede from the United States, until the federal government stops failing to obey the Constitution and keep its constitutional agreement to "support this Constitution."

Of course, many will correctly observe that it is unconstitutional for a state to secede from the United States. However, it is also unconstitutional for the federal government to exercise powers not explicitly granted it in the Constitution. Clearly, under conditions where the federal government is repeatedly violating the Constitution, the federal government forfeits its power to deny the states and their people their right to secede to escape abuse of their citizens by the federal government.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

It's a good thing the constitution doesn't guarantee all citizens will be educated, otherwise ican would have an argument that the contract in the constitution was not upheld.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know