Why don't conservatives care about constitutionalism?

[lew]

This is an honest question.


I was flipping through the channels last night and stumbled upon Hannity & Colmes. They were speaking of the judicial system and the importance of appointing "constitutionalist" and "originalist" judges.

I completely agree with that sentiment. However, I rarely hear conservatives (and by "conservative" I mean the current crop of Religious Right, Republican, pro-war, neoconservative) speak about having a constitutionalist and originalist Congress and / or President.

Why is that?

What good is a constitutional judiciary today when the Congress and President strip us of our rights and impose tyranny upon us? Especially when the Congress and President so easily ignore the Courts' opinions so often.

The Courts are a reactive system. They are not proactive. Instead of conservatives fighting so much for a constructionist Court (which, again, I do believe is a great idea), I think they should be focusing much more upon a strict constructionist President and Congress.

It irritates the hell out of me when a conservative Republican speaks about holding our Courts accountable and about constitutionalism regarding the Courts; but yet defends Bush's actions, as well as the Congress's, regarding the deficit, the Iraq War, Social Security, and dozens of other Republican "accomplishments."

I expect the usual answers by some liberals about Republicans being hypocrites, morons, etc, but I would like some real answers to this.

I could ask the same thing regarding liberals as to why they care about the Constitution in certain areas but not others, but that's not really a fair question. One reason being is that liberals typically have not cared for the Constitution in the last 50 years. Not until the Patriot Act and Bush have liberals really started talking about the Constitution. Meanwhile, Republicans constantly speak of the importance of the Constitution and have been for decades, yet squander that very importance when they rise to power, particularly within the past 6 years. So, I will not ask this same question to liberals. This question is to typical Republican conservatives and I would like an honest answer as to why you care so deeply for constitutional judges but not for constitutional presidents or congresses.

[kinggovernor]

because those kind of people want to force their views on everyone else

[RMNIXON]

Lew has a good point. Reagan talked about States Rights. Bob Dole talked about the 10th Amendment when he ran in 1996. Other have brought up the abuse of the Commerce Clause from time to time. But today they don't bring it up. The left/center in this country is so activist in their tendency to have the Federal Government try to do everything. They don't want to be told there are things the Federal Government cannot do, have no right to get involved with, and should not even try!

[RMNIXON]

And what about that eminent domain rulling? Heard much from either side on that?


Back to Fox News......

[Diamond Cross]

What eminent domain ruling? I am completely against eminent domain because it gives the government too much power over our land.

[grembert]

The religious right, of course, wants the focus to be on social issues - gay rights, abortion, and prayer. That's understandable, but I have been really disappointed with people like James Dobson, a well respected leader in the evangelical communtiy ( Focus on the Family leader ) who has not said one word of criticism against things that Bush has done. The religious right gave Bush maybe as much as one third of his votes in 2000 and 2004, and are going down with the ship, so to speak. The strange thing is, when you look at the larger picture and compare the Republican party today with the one of the early 1990's and 1980's, Buch is not even conservatives at all. I think the religious right has made a big mistake not speaking out more against Bush's positions.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Lew has a good point. Reagan talked about States Rights. Bob Dole talked about the 10th Amendment when he ran in 1996. Other have brought up the abuse of the Commerce Clause from time to time. But today they don't bring it up. The left/center in this country is so activist in their tendency to have the Federal Government try to do everything. They don't want to be told there are things the Federal Government cannot do, have no right to get involved with, and should not even try!

No ideology supports the constitution because it intentionally makes it exceedingly difficult for one faction to gain complete control through the fragmentation of power and elections. I for one am glad it is even though the powers that be are trying hard (and succeeding) to go around it through primaries, redistricting and consolidation of powers to the executive.

Sorry to say - but liberals and libertarians don't support it either

[thomez]

libertarians do not support the Constitution?

please provide some evidence of that, kthx

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Lew has a good point. Reagan talked about States Rights. Bob Dole talked about the 10th Amendment when he ran in 1996. Other have brought up the abuse of the Commerce Clause from time to time. But today they don't bring it up. The left/center in this country is so activist in their tendency to have the Federal Government try to do everything. They don't want to be told there are things the Federal Government cannot do, have no right to get involved with, and should not even try!

I find it ironic that Nixon would participate in a thread about "constitutionalism."


(No, that's not aimed you, personally; I'm talking about Nixon, our ex-president)

Originally Posted by David Octavius

No ideology supports the constitution because it intentionally makes it exceedingly difficult for one faction to gain complete control through the fragmentation of power and elections. I for one am glad it is even though the powers that be are trying hard (and succeeding) to go around it through primaries, redistricting and consolidation of powers to the executive.

Sorry to say - but liberals and libertarians don't support it either

The Libertarian Party supports the Constitution. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, might not coincide with the Constitution in its entirety, but it's definitely the ONLY political philosophy that is explicitly expressed in the Constitution. While strict libertarianism suggests that the government should abrogate itself from the private sector - which means that a strict libertarian would be against the government establishing and funding a postal service and military (both of which are privileges granted by the Constitution) - it is rather obvious that the allowances of government-involvements in the market are simply pragmatic insertions where the objectivity failed to rear itself during the infancy of classical liberalism (aka, libertarianism).

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

What eminent domain ruling? I am completely against eminent domain because it gives the government too much power over our land.

The Supreme Court ruling that made it legal for government on all levels to take land from one owner for the private development of another justified by an increase in property tax and other tax revenue as a public benefit.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I find it ironic that Nixon would participate in a thread about "constitutionalism."


(No, that's not aimed you, personally; I'm talking about Nixon, our ex-president)

What was that Question Again?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

The Libertarian Party supports the Constitution. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, might not coincide with the Constitution in its entirety, but it's definitely the ONLY political philosophy that is explicitly expressed in the Constitution. While strict libertarianism suggests that the government should abrogate itself from the private sector - which means that a strict libertarian would be against the government establishing and funding a postal service and military (both of which are privileges granted by the Constitution) - it is rather obvious that the allowances of government-involvements in the market are simply pragmatic insertions where the objectivity failed to rear itself during the infancy of classical liberalism (aka, libertarianism).

Also wouldn't libertarianism be against the power that congress has to levy taxes (a power very weak in the Articles of Confederation)?

Moreover, libertarianism would be at odds with the representative nature of our government - the soul of our constitution. To libertarians, the person is sovereign, in a representative government, the people are. The constitution has checks to ensure our liberties are protected but in the end, the will of the majority (or the most active part that make themselves the majority) will be satisfied. This is the "force" most libertarians distaste, one person influencing the lives of another.


Bottom line the constitution and government ultimately derive its from the people not the person.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Also wouldn't libertarianism be against the power that congress has to levy taxes (a power very weak in the Articles of Confederation)?

Not necessarily. If you can demonstrate, objectively, why a tax is necessary, then a libertarian would have no problem with it. To date, though, I have yet to see a tax that can be proven to be objectively necessary. So for all intents an purposes, I'll just say "you're right."

Moreover, libertarianism would be at odds with the representative nature of our government - the soul of our constitution.

That's not the "soul of our constitution" at all. The idea of the Constitution was to limit government. The Constitution is only a few pages long. The Judicial Branch alone only has about a third of a page outlining its job criteria. The size of the Constitution is representative of how little duties the Fathers expected the government to perform. The "soul" of the Constitution certainly wouldn't have anything to do with representatives. In fact, the Constitution itself says that the representatives shall meet "AT LEAST" once a year. I emphasize that point because it makes it more obvious that the Fathers were worried that the representatives would go home and never come back to Pennsylvania for a meeting. The elections were held every few years because the idea was to not have people voting on laws and legislation all the time.

To libertarians, the person is sovereign, in a representative government, the people are.

Yeah, I definitely agree. That was one of the main concerns that the Antifederalists had.

Alexander Hamilton wrote (Federalist Papers No.9):

The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies,'' or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. [...] This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

Basically, he's twisting the words around to suit his political agenda. He's basically saying, "It's really a federal government because we didn't erase all of the lines LOLZ!"

Patric Henry (Antifederalist) fired back to Hamilton with:

The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, We, the people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous.
[...]
And cannot we plainly see, that this is actually the case? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretensions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change so loudly talked of by some, and inconsiderately by others. Is this same relinquishment of rights worthy of freemen? Is it worthy of that manly fortitude that ought to characterize republicans: It is said eight States have adopted this plan. I declare that if twelve States and an half had adopted it, I would with manly firmness, and in spite of an erring world, reject it.

To summarize what they're debating, Hamilton is defending the term "States of America" by saying that those states are members of a constituency. Henry refutes Hamilton by basically saying that he doesn't give a shit about the Hamilton's weaselry attempt at erasing the state borders and replacing them with dotted lines. He's more concerned with this notion of a creating a government that is centered around the idea of "We the people" (democracy) as opposed to "rule of law" (republic).

The constitution has checks to ensure our liberties are protected but in the end, the will of the majority (or the most active part that make themselves the majority) will be satisfied. This is the "force" most libertarians distaste, one person influencing the lives of another.

Not everything in the Constitution coincides with libertarian ideals, but it was certainly centered around the principals advocated by libertarians of today. The Declaration of Independence is one of the most libertarian documents ever written. It's really quite obvious that the Fathers (with the exception of Hamilton, but he was a cock), for the most part, held true to the concept of merely using the government as a tool to protect the negative rights of individuals.

Bottom line the constitution and government ultimately derive its from the people not the person.

It was supposed to only gain power from the Constitution. The purpose of the Great Compromise was to help ensure that the representatives would have a better influence regarding matters in DISTRICTS, not the will of the people. Originally, the representatives were there to represent jurisdiction, not the will of the people. That was the main difference between representative democracy and representative republic. In a representative democracy, the representatives represent the will of the people. In a representative republic, the representatives represent the law of the land. It was this concept of representing "what is right" as opposed to "what people want" that spawned many of the great things that happened in American history. The slaves certainly weren't freed because of a majority vote, or the "will of the people." All of the rights movements were against the will of the majority. Prohibition of alcohol certainly wasn't the result of a majority vote. The PATRIOT Act wasn't the result of a majority vote. These are all things that were done by representatives because that's what they felt was the right thing to do. Some of their decisions were stupid, some of them good, but in the end, that's what it comes down to: they represent districts, not constituency and "democracy."

[David Octavius]

Still, the major powers of taxation and military are significant flaws (to libertarians) embedded in the constitution that no libertarian can just dismiss, because the chances are great that it will be used in ways inconsistent with the ideals of no force - sooner or later.

But the fatal flaw is our representative government - so long as we have "the people" sovereign over "the person", libertarian beliefs will never fully be realized. A partial victory is no victory at all for an ideology.

Representative government has elements of "positive liberty", that is those who participate in the system can influence others whether the person wants it or not, which wholly against your principles.

Measuring it strictly against the principles of your movement, I can't see how libertarians can support the constitution

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Measuring it strictly against the principles of your movement, I can't see how libertarians can support the constitution

Well now we've just reached a point where you're just actively ignoring the explanation because it's been explained in this thread ... a couple times.

But again, we support it because it's fundamentally based on libertarian ideals. Collectively, the Founding Fathers expressed what is known today as the beginnings of classical liberalism, which later became known as libertarianism. The Constitution, regardless of any silly nitpicking anal retentiveness, is a libertarian document because it outlines a list of negative rights, and it was the first document in human history that did that.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Well now we've just reached a point where you're just actively ignoring the explanation because it's been explained in this thread ... a couple times.

But again, we support it because it's fundamentally based on libertarian ideals. Collectively, the Founding Fathers expressed what is known today as the beginnings of classical liberalism, which later became known as libertarianism. The Constitution, regardless of any silly nitpicking anal retentiveness, is a libertarian document because it outlines a list of negative rights, and it was the first document in human history that did that.

Excuse me nitpicking? Taxation and the military is a huge part of government and gives it much power - that you are against - that is supported by the constitution. Republican government is also supported by the constitution and this cannot work for libertarians for the reasons I outlined before. I dont care if "fundamentally" its based on your principles, the actual application of it doesn't, the constitution does not make us sovereign individuals, the few dictate the many and the only way to change it, is to be actively involved yourself. For your principles to be enacted, all of this would have to be reversed. You can't claim you support something when you want to abolish the very things that makes it up.

[MTdream]

this got hijacked to the libertarian issue, so, trying to get it back on track...

Ignoring the obvious blah blah blah "conservatives suck" stuff...

A true conservative, does NOT want to tell others how to live...However, a true conservative believes there is a right and a wrong...yet we firmly believe you have the right to be wrong...And I have the same right under the constitution to tell you that i think you are wrong...

slight dichotomy that some cannot understand...


I think it is sad that "conservatives" have hijacked the party...