AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@parados,

Parados, what do you think would be how we should fix our government?

@ican711nm,

There are a number of approaches, but the conservative approach seems to be a Tussin will fix every illness approach. Conservatives seem to understand that problems need to be broken down into smaller parts, but when they isolated the problems, they still seem to apply the same treatment. That doesn't make any sense. Dynamic problems demand dynamic solutions. I'm not going to say liberalism has all the answers or that conservatism has none of the answers, but your approach is far to simplistic to actually work.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

There are a number of approaches, but the conservative approach seems to be a Tussin will fix every illness approach.

Lol, he won't get that one.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

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!)

Because the due process clause protects freedoms both great and small, our courts generally apply a balancing test based on the importance of the liberty interest involved and the government interest involved.

Some rights (or "great" freedoms) are considered "fundamental" to our concepts of ordered liberty. Thus, if a law (or regulation) denies or disparages a "fundamental right," our courts conduct judicial review of the law using a test called "strict scrutiny." First, the law must serve a compelling state interest. Second, the infringement must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

The Supreme Court stated the Due Process Clause contains a substantive component that bars arbitrary or wrong (unjust) government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992).

The Court stated:

Quote:

Our established method of substantive-due-process analysis has two primary features: First, we have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. [/u]Second, we have required in substantive due-process cases a careful description of the asserted fundamental liberty interest[/u]. Our Nation's history, legal traditions, and practices thus provide the crucial guideposts for responsible decisionmaking that direct and restrain our exposition of the Due Process Clause.

Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-721 (1997).

But, let's look at Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
http://supreme.justia.com/us/478/186/case.html

This was a 5 to 4 decision.

(WHITE, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BURGER, C.J., post, p. 478 U. S. 196, and POWELL, J., post, p. 478 U. S. 197, filed concurring opinions. BLACKMUN, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 478 U. S. 199. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 478 U. S. 214).

The majority opinion which yielded 5 votes erroneously stated:

Quote:

The issue presented is whether the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy, and hence invalidates the laws of the many States that still make such conduct illegal, and have done so for a very long time.

The Majority fails to understand that the Constitution does not confer rights. The Constitution secures the entire universe of liberty interests--great and small--against arbitrary government intrusions. It makes no difference whether the liberty interest encompasses a child's wearing of his cap backwards at the state fair--or a adult's engaging in a sex act with another consenting adult in the privacy of your own home. The issue is NEVER whether the Constitution confers rights. It is the injudicious and inappropriate use of language in cases like this that causes the ignorant public to erroneously believe that the Constitution confers rights and, if a right is not enumerated therein, then the right doesn't exist.

With respect to liberty interests secured by the Constitution, the issue is whether the state has a legitimate government interest in regulating the sexual conduct of consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes and bedrooms. Does the government have any legitimate business in being omnipresent in the private bedrooms of its adult citizens and dictate to them the sex acts that they may or may not perform on their adult partners? Of course not! The government has no legitimate interest whatsoever in regulating the use of our mouths and dictating to us what parts of our partners' bodies that we may or may not lick with our tongues.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Blackman wrote:

Quote:

This case is no more about "a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy," as the Court purports to declare, ante at 478 U. S. 191, than Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969), was about a fundamental right to watch obscene movies, or Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), was about a fundamental right to place interstate bets from a telephone booth. Rather, this case is about "the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men," namely, "the right to be let alone." Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 277 U. S. 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)....

The Court concludes today that none of our prior cases dealing with various decisions that individuals are entitled to make free of governmental interference "bears any resemblance to the claimed constitutional right of homosexuals to engage in acts of sodomy that is asserted in this case." Ante at 478 U. S. 190-191. While it is true that these cases may be characterized by their connection to protection of the family, see Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 468 U. S. 619 (1984), the Court's conclusion that they extend no further than this boundary ignores the warning in Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U. S. 494, 431 U. S. 501 (1977) (plurality opinion), against "clos[ing] our eyes to the basic reasons why certain rights associated with the family have been accorded shelter under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause."

We protect those rights not because they contribute, in some direct and material way, to the general public welfare, but because they form so central a part of an individual's life. "[T]he concept of privacy embodies the moral fact that a person belongs to himself, and not others nor to society as a whole.'" Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 476 U.S. at 476 U. S. 777, n. 5 (STEVENS, J., concurring), quoting Fried, Correspondence, 6 Phil. & Pub.Affairs 288-289 (1977).

And so we protect the decision whether to marry precisely because marriage "is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects." Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 381 U. S. 486.

We protect the decision whether to have a child because parenthood alters so dramatically an individual's self-definition, not because of demographic considerations or the Bible's command to be fruitful and multiply. Cf. Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, supra, at 476 U. S. 777, n. 6 (STEVENS, J., concurring). And we protect the family because it contributes so powerfully to the happiness of individuals, not because of a preference for stereotypical households. Cf. Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. at 431 U. S. 500-506 (plurality opinion). The Court recognized in Roberts, 468 U.S. at 468 U. S. 619, that the "ability independently to define one's identity that is central to any concept of liberty" cannot truly be exercised in a vacuum; we all depend on the "emotional enrichment from close ties with others." Ibid.

Only the most willful blindness could obscure the fact that sexual intimacy is "a sensitive, key relationship of human existence, central to family life, community welfare, and the development of human personality," Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 413 U. S. 63 (1973); see also Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678, 431 U. S. 685 (1977). The fact that individuals define themselves in a significant way through their intimate sexual relationships with others suggests, in a Nation as diverse as ours, that there may be many "right" ways of conducting those relationships, and that much of the richness of a relationship will come from the freedom an individual has to choose the form and nature of these intensely personal bonds. See Karst, The Freedom of Intimate Association, 89 Yale L.J. 624, 637 (1980); cf. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 405 U. S. 453 (1972); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. at 410 U. S. 153.

In a variety of circumstances, we have recognized that a necessary corollary of giving individuals freedom to choose how to conduct their lives is acceptance of the fact that different individuals will make different choices....

BASED on the foregoing, the issue is NOT whether the Constitution confers upon homosexuals the right to marry. Again, the Constitution does NOT confer rights. It secures rights.

MARRIAGE is a fundamental right. The right is objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if the right to marry was sacrificed. It embraces the right to marry the person of your choice. (Loving v. Virginia.)

Thus, the only question that remains is determining who is included and who is EXCLUDED from excercizing the fundamental right to marriage. We evaluate the issue of inclusion and exclusion under the Equal Protection Clause.

II

Equal Protection Clause

Gay couples are choosing to live together and form families. The Courts protect the family because it contributes so powerfully to the happiness of individuals, not because of a preference for stereotypical households. The Equal Protection Clause looks to classes of people whom are similarly situated. Families headed by gay couples and families headed by straight couples are similarly situated. If an entire class of people are denied a fundamental right that is granted to others similarly situated, or if an entire class of people are treated differently on the basis of race or national origin in comparison to others similary situated, then the Courts apply the strict scrutiny test.

The state has no legitimate interest, let alone compelling interest, in depriving families headed by gay couples of the same dignity and respect that the State affords to other families through the operation of our laws that regulate marriage & families. Depriving gay couples of the right to marry does not serve any compelling state interest.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

Because the conservatives will never back down from their case, no matter how much legal history and presence you provide. No matter how much you write. No matter the potency of your argument. They'll never admit they are dead wrong.

But you put a lot into your posts, and I thought that you should know I get a lot out of them. I learn a lot.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Because the conservatives will never back down from their case, no matter how much legal history and presence you provide. No matter how much you write. No matter the potency of your argument. They'll never admit they are dead wrong.

But you put a lot into your posts, and I thought that you should know I get a lot out of them. I learn a lot.

T
K
O

I agree that some conservatives are willfully blind. That's one of the reasons why I quoted a paragraph from Justice Black's dissent in the Adamson case: "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." That same sentiment can be expressed for the derision that people who identfy themselves as conservatives have for gay rights.

Some people harbor a consuming belief that homosexuality is immoral. They force that belief on others through the operation of our laws. They rarely ever believe that gay people in general, or gay couples in particular, have any rights which should or can be rightfully respected. They go an irrational step further and claim that respecting the rights of others somehow DEPRIVES THEM of THEIR rights.

(Conservatives pay lip service to protecting rights, and then they work their hypocritical hearts out to deny rights to those they disfavor. We hear what they say, but we see what they do--and actions speak louder than words. And that's the overriding problem that "American Conservatism in 2008 and beyond" must resolve if the movement ever desires to regain political power. Thus far, with the majority of this nation's youth rejecting their politics of exclusion and divisiveness, modern conservatives appear to be a dying breed.)

Although the Adamson case is 61 years old, Justice Black understood that our society must constantly strive to overcome irrational prejudice and bigotry if America is going live up to its promise of liberty and justice for ALL. And strive we did! It was close to midnight on November 4, 2008, when MILLIONS of Americans in all of our diversity sat before our television sets and cried tears of joy. It was a day in history that was 221 years in the making--and we were watching it and soaking it up with tremendous awe and appreciation for the moment. Earlier in this thread, Foxfyre critically alleged that liberalism has never worked. But we know with certainty that liberalism has been working since our "liberal" forefathers founded this country. The "liberals" in every generation thereafter have been struggling to achieve liberty, and justice--and DIGNITY for all. Liberalism is always working hard to achieve the promise of America and to secure the blessings of liberty for ALL.

It was ironic indeed for Sarah Palin, one of the most conservative bobbleheads that the movement has ever produced (who later stood in front of America and claimed she "tolerated" gay people), to announce that the women of America were not done. She praised Hillary Clinton for achieving 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America--and that she, SARAH PALIN, was going to take advantage of those cracks and finally crash through to place herself (a woman) in the White House. What the conservatives fail to understand is that those 18 million cracks in the ceiling wouldn't be there but for the work of all the generations of liberals who worked their hearts out to achieve equal rights for women. But for the progress made through liberalism, the right-wing conservatives wouldn't have had their beloved Sarah Palin vying for one of our nation's highest offices.

Liberalism is the foundation of this country--and it works--and it will continue to work until gay couples and all other oppressed minorities achieve equal rights under the law.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

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.

I see what you do, Foxfyre--your denials do not carry any weight because you say one thing and do the opposite. You have no credibility. Your disparaging remarks about liberals and liberalism in this thread and others, too numerous to count, speak for themselves. I'm not the ONLY one who is aware of the long-term conservative campaign to sully and disparage liberals and liberalism and to make those words mean all things nefarious. Why aren't you paying attention? Denying the obvious and burying your head in the sand is causing the death knell of your beloved, but failing movement. Cancer kills and you're embracing the cancer rather than fighting it.

So be it.

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra wrote:
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:

Debra wrote:
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.

The truth is not absurd. You just don't want to face the truth. (See above.)

You SAY that a modern conservative respects the liberty interests of others, but you refuse to acknowledge that people whom you disfavor have liberty interests that you must respect. Although you enjoy the right to marry which you exercised with the person whom you chose to be your partner, you have no problem denying that same right to gay couples. You say one thing, you do the opposite. We see what you do, Foxfyre. Our eyes are wide open. Some of us are not willfully blind. Smile

Modern conservatism represents hypocrisy, bigotry, and prejudice. It embraces the politics of hate, fear, and divisiveness. WE SEE THAT. Compare the competing tents. Who are the people gathering under your "conservative" Republican tent? Why is your tent shrinking? Who are the people gathering under the "liberal" Democrat tent? Where are the minorities gathering--you know, the minorities that your movement has repeatedly oppressed generation after generation? They don't want to gather in a tent that merely "tolerates" them, they want to gather in a tent where they are treated as respected equals. Hmmmmmm. Food for thought for those inclined to think.

Why haven't you addressed Advocate's post?
Conservatism Is Dying
http://able2know.org/topic/113196-6#post-3145415

Conservativism--the movement of empty platitudes--is DYING. The American people aren't satisfied with a movement that says one thing and does the opposite.

You may continue to define conservatism to mean all things good and liberalism to mean all things bad. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But the majority of the people aren't fooled anymore.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

I'm not going to say liberalism has all the answers or that conservatism has none of the answers, but your approach is far to simplistic to actually work.

Pick a solution you think is better!

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
I'm not going to say liberalism has all the answers or that conservatism has none of the answers, but your approach is far to simplistic to actually work.

Pick a solution you think is better!

I guess I need to pick between Asprin and Rolaids too huh?

Tussin
K
O

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Quote:

Conservativism--the movement of empty platitudes--is DYING. The American people aren't satisfied with a movement that says one thing and does the opposite.

I suspect that fox will not permit herself any intercourse with such a defeatist, liberal-propagandist notion. Over time, her position on certain aspect of the movement/party/its leaders will change (ie her opinions on Bush) but certain core ideas will not likely be much available for serious review. And she's not alone in this, of course. The 'death' you speak of, debra, looks probable but it isn't certain. And it won't be quick in arriving.

Brooks recently argued that the party is likely to stay under the control of movement conservatives because the institutions of the party (rightwing media leaders and mechanisms, think tanks, big financial supporters) are under their control and because those institutions have built up a large listening/believing/voting block. I think those points are accurate. Kathleen Parker write a significant column today, one which you and I would heartily agree with but it the middle of it she throws in the following trope...

Quote:

Short break as writer ties blindfold and smokes her last cigarette.

She knows that if/when she continues to write content such as her recent columns, the conservative movement machine will turn its significant power on her (and any like her) as we've seen over the last two months or so. The thing is, there is no comparable machine developed or held by moderate conservative/Republicans.

So, the crazies are in charge for a while. AM radio earns one of every seven dollars from talk radio (talk radio saved AM stations and has grown them) so it isn't going away and it along with Murdoch's enterprises, is now, I think, the fundamental driving force of the movement. Further, because the movement thrives on a perception of oppression and victimhood, a period of time where Dems/liberals are in power will tend to validate this perception and a set of notions/motivations associated with it.

The unknown factor, it seems to me, is how things will go a bit further up the road (assuming the trends you and I see aren't interrupted by something nasty). Power and influence ARE the game and if continuing electoral losses are suffered by the conservative movement and Republican party, then the dynamics of that situation seem likely to marginalize the crazies far moreso than at present. But it looks a fair distance from here to there.

1 Reply

@blatham,

The reality is the Republican Party is not under the control of contemporary conservatives who seek conservation of the rule of law in general and the rule of the USA Constitution in particular.

Most of what you describe as characteristics of conservatives are actually characteristics of most Democrats and too many Republicans. They perceive themselves as infallible advocates of increasing government control of commerce and property. They have rendered themselves incapable of intelligent analysis of the actual and probable consequences of what they advocate and institute.

Here's one example of such advocates accusing those who disagree with them of behaving exactly like them.

blatham wrote:

So, the crazies are in charge for a while. AM radio earns one of every seven dollars from talk radio (talk radio saved AM stations and has grown them) so it isn't going away and it along with Murdoch's enterprises, is now, I think, the fundamental driving force of the movement. Further, because the movement thrives on a perception of oppression and victimhood, a period of time where Dems/liberals are in power will tend to validate this perception and a set of notions/motivations associated with it.

AM radio does provide an outlet for contemporary conservatives to voice their views. However, their audience is trivial compared to the size of the audience of the TV and newsprint media currently owned by Democrats. These media ignore the fact that the primary cause of the USA's depression/recession is the obstruction by liberal Democrats and Republicans of any efforts to halt the rapid conversion of our free enterprise system into a dictatorial socialist system. The obstruction of all efforts to rein in Fanny&Freddie before it was too late, is but one of many examples.

Socialism succeeds only in reducing positive human achievements and increasing the powers of socialist leaders over human populations. Redistributing the wealth of those who earned it to those who have not earned it, succeeds only in reducing the wealth of everyone save those dictating that redistribution. No matter how many times socialism fails to improve the human condition and actually worsen it, its envious advocates pursue it expecting a different result.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Most of what you describe as characteristics of conservatives are actually characteristics of most Democrats and too many Republicans. They perceive themselves as infallible advocates of increasing government control of commerce and property. They have rendered themselves incapable of intelligent analysis of the actual and probable consequences of what they advocate and institute.....

These media ignore the fact that the primary cause of the USA's depression/recession is the obstruction by liberal Democrats and Republicans of any efforts to halt the rapid conversion of our free enterprise system into a dictatorial socialist system. The obstruction of all efforts to rein in Fanny&Freddie before it was too late, is but one of many examples.

First you complain because the government regulates the free market for the common welfare; then you complain because the government failed to provide adeqate regulation of the free market for the common welfare.

You complain no matter what.

Quote:

Socialism succeeds only in reducing positive human achievements and increasing the powers of socialist leaders over human populations. Redistributing the wealth of those who earned it to those who have not earned it, succeeds only in reducing the wealth of everyone save those dictating that redistribution. No matter how many times socialism fails to improve the human condition and actually worsen it, its envious advocates pursue it expecting a different result.

Any form of government that would require YOU to pay TAXES that goes into a general fund for the common welfare is SOCIALISM in your skewed tax protesting view.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:

Most of what you describe as characteristics of conservatives are actually characteristics of most Democrats and too many Republicans. They perceive themselves as infallible advocates of increasing government control of commerce and property. They have rendered themselves incapable of intelligent analysis of the actual and probable consequences of what they advocate and institute.....

These media ignore the fact that the primary cause of the USA's depression/recession is the obstruction by liberal Democrats and Republicans of any efforts to halt the rapid conversion of our free enterprise system into a dictatorial socialist system. The obstruction of all efforts to rein in Fanny&Freddie before it was too late, is but one of many examples.

Debra Law wrote:

Quote:

First you complain because the government regulates the free market for the common welfare; then you complain because the government failed to provide adeqate regulation of the free market for the common welfare.

You complain no matter what.

Wow! That is so far your wildest misinterpretation of the written word. I did not complain about the government REGULATING the free market FOR THE COMMON WELFARE. I complained: the primary cause of the USA's depression/recession is the obstruction by liberal Democrats and Republicans of any efforts to halt the rapid conversion of our free enterprise system into a dictatorial socialist system. That obstruction PROVIDED FOR THE DECLINE OF THE COMMON WELFARE.

ican711nm wrote:

Quote:

Socialism succeeds only in reducing positive human achievements and increasing the powers of socialist leaders over human populations. Redistributing the wealth of those who earned it to those who have not earned it, succeeds only in reducing the wealth of everyone save those dictating that redistribution. No matter how many times socialism fails to improve the human condition and actually worsen it, its envious advocates pursue it expecting a different result.

Debra Law wrote:

Quote:

Any form of government that would require YOU to pay TAXES that goes into a general fund for the common welfare is SOCIALISM in your skewed tax protesting view.

Taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it, is not providing for the GENERAL WELFARE. Taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it, is VIOLATING THE USA CONSTITUTION--is violating "the supreme law of the land"--IS THIEVERY and is PROVIDING FOR THE DECLINE OF THE GENERAL WELFARE.

1 Reply

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...

Artical I.Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711 wrote:

Taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it, is not providing for the GENERAL WELFARE. Taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it, is VIOLATING THE USA CONSTITUTION--is violating "the supreme law of the land"--IS THIEVERY and is PROVIDING FOR THE DECLINE OF THE GENERAL WELFARE.

Which provision of the constitution do you claim the federal government to be violating when it taxes high incomes to supplement low incomes -- and people who can't earn an income?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

ican711 wrote:
Taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it, is not providing for the GENERAL WELFARE. Taking money from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not earned it, is VIOLATING THE USA CONSTITUTION--is violating "the supreme law of the land"--IS THIEVERY and is PROVIDING FOR THE DECLINE OF THE GENERAL WELFARE.

Which provision of the constitution do you claim
the federal government to be violating
when it taxes high incomes to supplement low incomes --
and people who can't earn an income?

10th Amendment, qua USURPATION of power
and 16th Amendment in that it does NOT authorize
discriminatory taxation; i.e., all citizens shud be treated alike.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Where does the constitution say that the federal government must tax all citizens at an equal income tax rate?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Where does the constitution say that the federal government
must tax all citizens at an equal income tax rate?

The 10th Amendment confines it to doing NOTHING
except within the jurisdiction that has been granted to it.

It had no jd to tax peoples' incomes until the 16th Amendment;
the latter did NOT authorize it to tax on a discriminatory basis.

Additionally, gov 't is required to render equal protection
of the laws; there is no exception for matters of taxation.
(see 5th n 14th Amendments)

David

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid wrote:

It had no jd to tax peoples' incomes until the 16th Amendment;
the latter did NOT authorize it to tax on a discriminatory basis.

It didn't prohibit it either. The Sixteenth Amendment authorized the US to tax "incomes, from whatever source derived," without placing limits on that authorization.

OmSigDavid wrote:

Additionally, gov 't is required to render equal protection of the laws; there is no exception for matters of taxation. (see 5th n 14th Amendments)

Where does the Fifth Amendment talk about equal protection of the law? And on what legal basis are you arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment should matter to federal legislators at all? The section you probably have in mind reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Please notice the absence of any mention of the US government.

0 Replies

I've just put this on my blog but thought I'd put it here too.

On the strength of a piece he'd written in his college paper, David Brooks was hired by Bill Buckley at the National Review. Mentored there by Buckley for some years, Brooks later went on to write at The Weekly Standard and still later, to replace Paul Gigot as the conservative writer on PBS Newshour's friday show, opposite Mark Shields (earlier, Gigot had replaced David Gergen). Several years ago, Brooks was taken on by the New York Times. As a 'by the way', the piece that had caught Buckley's eye was about Buckley. Brooks had written that Buckley, in deciding on a title for the National Review, had narrowed the choices down to The Buckley Review and The National Buckley and had finally decided to put the two together and name the paper The Buckley Buckley).

Here's some excerpts from Brooks in today's Times...

Quote:

The domestic policy team will be there, too, including Jason Furman (Harvard, Harvard Ph.D.), Austan Goolsbee (Yale, M.I.T. Ph.D.), Blair Levin (Yale, Yale Law), Peter Orszag (Princeton, London School of Economics Ph.D.) and, of course, the White House Counsel Greg Craig (Harvard, Yale Law).

This truly will be an administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on their SATs. Even more than past administrations, this will be a valedictocracy " rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes. If a foreign enemy attacks the United States during the Harvard-Yale game any time over the next four years, we’re screwed.

Already the culture of the Obama administration is coming into focus. Its members are twice as smart as the poor reporters who have to cover them, three times if you include the columnists. They typically served in the Clinton administration and then, like Cincinnatus, retreated to the comforts of private life " that is, if Cincinnatus had worked at Goldman Sachs, Williams & Connolly or the Brookings Institution. So many of them send their kids to Georgetown Day School, the posh leftish private school in D.C. that they’ll be able to hold White House staff meetings in the carpool line.

And yet as much as I want to resent these overeducated Achievatrons (not to mention the incursion of a French-style government dominated by highly trained Enarchs), I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition

As a result, the team he has announced so far is more impressive than any other in recent memory. One may not agree with them on everything or even most things, but a few things are indisputably true.

First, these are open-minded individuals who are persuadable by evidence....Second, they are admired professionals...Third, they are not excessively partisan...Fourth, they are not ideological...Finally, there are many people on this team with practical creativity...

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Contrast the above with the following from Rush Limbaugh yesterday...

Quote:

Who's surprised? Who in the world is surprised that leftist radicals would nominate people like this to the cabinet? ...What are we going to do? I'll go through it all, but I gotta tell you that it's a little childish to sit here and whine and moan about the kind of people that the most leftist, radical, inexperienced Democrat ever elected to the presidency is going to appoint...

Why doesn't he sit down with the auto companies? Why doesn't he sit down with their executives, the unions, the workers, the retirees, all the suppliers? Why doesn't he sit down, why doesn't he have a meeting right now? He's Barack Obama. He's the president-elect. He's The Messiah...What you see and hear out of congressional Democrats is a complete abandonment of capitalism. Obama will say and do no differently when he is inaugurated. There will be a frenzy of bureaucratic creations. This first hundred days of his is going to be a doozy. I'm warning you now: You haven't seen anything like this.

By his own admission, he's gonna "experiment." By experiment, let me define experiment. Radicalize as much of this country as he can. You can see it all coming now...You have to understand, you have to remember here that Obama's context for analyzing all social and economic matters is socialist.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112008/content/01125106.guest.html

Limbaugh, and other conservative talk radio voices, along with Fox and the WSJ editorial page have been doing precisely this type of hateful 'populist' rhetoric for years. Their audience is immense. The behaviors we saw so commonly at Palin rallies originate here.

Anti-intellectualism, though a phenomenon with deep historical roots in American society, can be seen to wax and wane through different periods of time. The present is one of those periods when it is as strong and pervasive as one might ever wish to see it become. The daily commentary from agents like Limbaugh, in their repetitive denigration of intelligence and educational achievements, along with their celebration of the opposite of those things as being representative of "real America" or "the best of America" is how we got to Sarah Palin as a contender for VP and, no doubt, President.

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know