quote:Dag, what you failed to notice is that my post is a reply to Will B's assertion that conservatives favor constitutional law, with the apparent implication that liberals do not. (Note that the quoted material is his clarification in response to my question.) I find his assertion outrageous.
Clarification: I didn't say (or believe) that liberals hate every aspect of Constitutional law. I said conservatives support it. One side supporting something doesn't mean the other side opposes it. Both sides oppose slavery, for example. We were discussing what each side is about. Conservatives' support of Constitutional law can't reasonably be based on distaste for change, which Glenn suggested as their defining characteristic, since judicial activism is the status quo.
It means that conservatives want the constitution interpreted the way they want the constitution interpreted.
It means nothing of the sort, of course, and you aren't qualified to tell other people what I mean. 20 lashes with a wet noodle for you! It means that when conservatives want a law changed, they usually push for legislation, which is the Constitutional way to do it; and if they want the Constitution amended, they try the amendment process. They aren't willing to find a Constitutional right to a pornography-free country, say, "in the penumbra of the document." Liberals often rely on the courts to ignore Constitutional restrictions on law and to make up extra-Constitutional restrictions on law. Prime examples: abortion, gay marriage, and affirmative action. The Constitutional way to make a Constitutional right to abortion would have been an amendment. The Constitutional way to make gun control legal would have been to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Ignoring what the Constitution says and making up new stuff is the "living document" doctrine that conservatives abhor.
quote:BTW, I know of no one who "wants higher taxes." That's a strawman if I ever heard one.
Don't you remember the tax increase in the Bush I admin, with Democratic senators explaining that tx increases were a good idea? The attempted tax increase in the first 2 years of the Clinton admin, pushed by Clinton and Democratic legislators? Taxes don't raise themselves; they are raised by legislators who support them and vote for them. If nobody wanted higher taxes, there would never be a tax increase. It's amazing to hear this basic function of democracy -- policies enacted because people support them -- called "straw man."
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
In all seriousness, though, no one is "for higher taxes" just like no one is "for war." Both of those are the means -- the end is what people are "for."
posted
"The Constitutional way to make a Constitutional right to abortion would have been an amendment.
Agreed.
"The Constitutional way to make gun control legal would have been to repeal the 2nd Amendment."
I disagree. Conservatives interpret the 2nd ammendment to prohibit gun control. This is a prime example of what I meant when I said that conservatives want the constitution interpreted the way they want it interpreted.
Likewise for freedom of religion. Prayer in school issues aside, the 1954 law adding "under God" to the pledge of allegiance was blatantly unconstitutional, but very few conservatives will concede that point.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me back off what I said about gun control. I should have said, the Constitutional way to make carrying guns illegal. "Gun control" is a little vague. A2 guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but that wouldn't prohibit some gun-control type law, like "keep your shotgun barrell no shorter than X number of inches."
I don't know what most conservatives would say about "under God." This is an issue where I'm libertarian: I don't think the government has any business telling 6-year-olds to pledge allegiance to anything. However, I am fairly sure conservatives would give up on this symbolic act in exchange for overturning Roe v. Wade, reversing the judicial repeal of A10, banning racial discrimination, and reversing this recent eminent-domain thing. I know I would.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't QUITE seem like an even exchange there ... and I assume that by "racial discrimination", you're referring to Affirmative Action? Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll agree to drop "Under God" from the pledge, "In God We Trust" from the money, add an amendment specifically allowing affirmative action, specifically allowing gun control, abolishing all non-progressive taxes, and guaranteeing a minimum wage with automatic COLAs if we can have an amendment either banning abortion or specifically allowing Congress and the states to ban abortion.
How's that for bargaining?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:. . . and reversing this recent eminent-domain thing.
Are you saying that this eminent domain thing is a liberal thing? I was not under the impression that it was.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I think that there are a lot of people on both sides of this issue. and they defy labels. But in defense of the traditional "conservative" judges on the SCOTUS, THEY were the ones who voted against this, and who wrote the dissenting opinion slamming it.
posted
Hmm. I was shocked that the court decided as it did, but I have not read the threads on it, so I lack specifics. Based on what little I know of the issue, I am dissapointed in all involved.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
This "living document" is exactly that, thank god, something that HAS to change with the times of become irrelevant. Also, the Constitution is what gives the legislative branch it's powers, and allows them to rule on situations that would have never been thought of when the Constitution was drafted.
Also, I hate when I hear someone (not that anyone has yet, but I am sure they will eventually) talk about "what the framers intended" or their intention regarding "states rights vs. federal rights". Read up on this a bit and you will find that there was an impassioned discourse about these very issues even while the Constitution was being drafted, and that there was no clear consensus between the primaries about what was proper.
They made the language fairly vague because to that, actually. It was one of the only ways to get agreement from so many people, all of whom held differing ideas about the role of government.
This is the SAME discourse that occurs every day in courts across the land, not something new or some sort of "judicial activism"....by it's very nature a lot of judicial affairs ARE activism; or at least that is what the side who loses the case calls it.
quote: I'll agree to drop "Under God" from the pledge, "In God We Trust" from the money, add an amendment specifically allowing affirmative action, specifically allowing gun control, abolishing all non-progressive taxes, and guaranteeing a minimum wage with automatic COLAs if we can have an amendment either banning abortion or specifically allowing Congress and the states to ban abortion.
How's that for bargaining?
Wow that's quite a statement. Banning abortion all together, or does that make allowances for when the life of the mother is in danger, rape/incest? Cause I'd be willing to go along with that. Except, swap out the whole God thing and the COLA thing and replace it with Pro-Environmental legislation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The phrase "pro-environmental legislation" makes me imagine a nonexistent opposing lobby filled with people who want to expend resources to destroy the environment for no good reason
"Fricking trees! Always looking at me when I turn my back! BURN THEM!"
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for the random snarky posts, by the way. I'm up late at work, and I'm getting a little punchy.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if you want I could go more in depth, but I didn't want to bore anyone with the ramblings of a rabid tree hugger.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'll agree to drop "Under God" from the pledge, "In God We Trust" from the money, add an amendment specifically allowing affirmative action, specifically allowing gun control, abolishing all non-progressive taxes, and guaranteeing a minimum wage with automatic COLAs if we can have an amendment either banning abortion or specifically allowing Congress and the states to ban abortion.
How's that for bargaining?
Well.
I could give you a counter offer, but of course, neither of us are in a position to carry them out, so it's kind of irrelevent. But the issue isn't whether you're willing to give it up, it's whether you would admit that it's unconstitutional.
But actually, I would have said I'd never heard of a conservative who would concede that "under God" was unconstitutional, except I'm pretty sure you already had. You get to be the exception to the rule.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Banning abortion all together, or does that make allowances for when the life of the mother is in danger, rape/incest?
Life or physical health of the mother, yes. Rape/incest, no.
Although, of course, I would vote for a law that allowed it in cases of rape/incest if it were that or nothing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Since there's been some discussion about "Under God" and the Pledge, I thought the least I could do was provide the history of the Pledge. http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm If you don't feel like reading the whole page (but it's worth the time), I'll be concise in a short summary. The Pledge was written by a socialist Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy (later asked to leave his church because of his political idealogies).
His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]
In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.
Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'
A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'
So there you have. I'm not going to say anything about what I think about the Pledge and its wording. I think I was pretty fair about representing both sides' viewpoints, but now it's your guys' turns.
Posts: 35 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But actually, I would have said I'd never heard of a conservative who would concede that "under God" was unconstitutional, except I'm pretty sure you already had. You get to be the exception to the rule.
That's complicated. There are two standards of constitutionality: what SCOTUS would decide based on precedent, and what SCOTUS should decide based on the Constitution itself. If the phrase didn't exist in the pledge today and were passed now, I would say it's unconstitutional under both standards.
Back in the 1950s when it was passed, it would have been unlikely for it to be considered unconstitutional by SCOTUS going by precedent. I think it's unlikely to be considered unconstitutional by SCOTUS today, based on the phrase's 50+ year history.
By the second standard, I think it's unconstitutional in all three scenarios. We probably part company as to the suitability of certain religious displays (I don't know what your opinion is on them), but enshrining religion in law is at the heart of the establishment clause.
quote:However, I am fairly sure conservatives would give up on this symbolic act in exchange for [stuff] and reversing this recent eminent-domain thing.
quote:Are you saying that this eminent domain thing is a liberal thing? I was not under the impression that it was.
No, I am not saying that. I am saying conservatives would give up on "under God" in the Pledge in exchange for the things I listed. As I said earlier, "One side supporting something doesn't mean the other side opposes it. Both sides oppose slavery, for example."
Liberals AND conservatives hate the new eminent-domain ruling. I've only heard one defend it so far -- a liberal -- but he's an exception.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that seems to make two conservatives who consider the "under God" thing unconstitutional -- assuming Dagonee accepts that label! Out of how many conservatives posting on this thread? It may not be rare, after all.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: quote:since judicial activism is the status quo.
Nice to see you are trying to be impartial.
Even nicer to tell you you have failed at it. [Wink]
This "living document" is exactly that, thank god, something that HAS to change with the times of become irrelevant.
And the Constitution has a built-in way to change with the times. It's the amendment process. It works, and it's democratic! Letting 5 appointees ignore the Law of the Land in favor of their own biases is not democratic, or Constitutional.
I didn't say I was being impartial. I'm very partial, to truth. Roe v. Wade is law of the land. So's the New London ruling. So's ignoring the 10th Amendment. These actions are not in the Constitution; they are activism, and they are judicial, and they are status quo. I think it's reasonable to make verifiably true statements, without regard to whether it makes me look partial!
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the "Under God" thing as being no different than "In God We Trust", but I definitely think we have bigger fish to fry... and would not try to argue that it *was* constitutional.
This in answer to Will B's "how many conservatives posting on this thread think 'under God' is unconstitutional?"
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read an interesting take on the eminent domain ruling (and itself) by a left-leaning former coworker. It said what I thought much better than I could. Here it is:
quote:Liberals have long attacked the sanctity of private property for corporations because these artificial entities can perpetrate great wrongs due to their size and power, and seem to ignore their chartering "for the public good" even more than they ignore the benefit of their share-holders. This shows up as mandatory health and safety laws, pollution controls, and civil-rights standards.
The problem lies in the distinction between a home or pocket-knife owned by a real person and twenty factories owned by an entity created by the state of Delaware. To many property-rights advocates, both are "private property" and deserve equal protection. I don't think this is reasonable, and one consequence of tying these two very different type of property right together at the ankle is that the sort of treatment that should probably be acceptable in the case of the more artificial variety ends up happening to both.
GloboChem Co. can't mourn a childhood home, probably owns a lot more property somewhere else, and has the resources to make sure that their compensation is more than just, in which case GloboChem should be happy.
Of course, smaller corporations make for harder cases, since they're often just wrappers around a small group of people who _can_ feel pain, dislocation, and the like which can't be allayed with more money.
-- M. Turyn
I think the two worst decisions of the SCOTUS in the 19th century (I think they were both 19th century), as far as long-lasting unintended consequences are concerned, were Plessy vs. Ferguson and Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. I think interesting conclusions can be drawn about how real persons were treated versus a "useful fiction", and that maybe the rationales for both decisions ought to have been reversed.
That all said, I'm with the conservatives on this one, at least until SCC vs. Southern Pac. RR Comp. is repealed in some manner.
posted
I think people are missing some pretty important distinctions when they decry the "corporation has the rights of a person" rulings.
If government has the right to block an organization from doing something, then it has the right to limit the scope of rights to what individuals can achieve. This is what the right of association is supposed to prevent.
Hypothetical: I want to run TV ads stating my opposition to abortion and desire for a new SCOTUS justice who will overthrow Roe v. Wade. There's no way I can afford to do that. I need to associate with others in order to do so. For a variety of reasons, a corporation is likely to be the best form of organization to do that. If corporations can't have their free speech rights protected, this could be made impossible.
The right to exercise rights in groups is of utmost importance. Are there cases where the reasoning becomes less compelling? Sure. But the law adapts to these. For example, attorney-client privilege and self-incrimination are both reduced or eliminated for corporations.
Dagonee P.S., from almost any perspective, Dred Scott is worse than either of those two, although its legal effects are no longer an issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Re: Dred Scott. That's why I mentioned long-lasting unintended effects. The political reality that it affected no longer existed after the 1860s.
Sepearate but equal, while essentially moot at this point as well, I see as superceded Dred Scott, and lasted well into the 20th century, and it's echos still inform policies and attitudes today, for better or ill.
I see your point about politically-motivated coprorations, but why bootstrap "personhood" to this particular organization (or any other)? I'd be more ready to provide personhood to the fetuses that group is trying to protect than to the group itself. I understand there is a certain legal expedience (sp) in using pre-existing legal constructs, and am not against this sort of thing (for example, my support of same-sex civil marriages) on principle, but I think, looking back on 150 years of history relating to the entity of corporations shows that the devil is in the details, and that personhood for corporations causes more exceptions than just separating out corporations as a separate entity that may or may not share certain rights/privileges that actual citizens have.
posted
Nope, Dagonee. An individual must take full responsibility for his/her words and actions. A corporation is a way to to avoid such liability.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Life or physical health of the mother, yes. Rape/incest, no.
Although, of course, I would vote for a law that allowed it in cases of rape/incest if it were that or nothing.
If you include the environmental thing I mentioned, details to be ironed out later, it's a deal! You call your people, I'll call mine!
I'm not sure if we're both centrists, or just a very confused conservative and a very confused liberal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Both Bill Clinton and John Kerry were known as "waffles," or "flip floppers." They were accused of doing whatever was politically expedient, given current public opinion. Well, that's as it should be, given that they are both liberals. That is to say, they both were willing to listen to public opinion, and change their minds and policies as the result of new information. That's good politics, by definition.
In other words, they will say anything just to get elected?
True leaders do not allow the mob rule either.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"In other words, they will say anything just to get elected?
True leaders do not allow the mob rule either. "
Nothing like jumping to extremes.
True leaders present their ideas to the public, and judge public reaction before ramming it down our throats.
True leaders are capable of changing their minds if presented with new evidence. They aren't so worried about saving face if they find out they were wrong.
True leaders recognize that their job is to serve the people, even if that means following instead of leading.
True leaders have the option of making a stand if they think the public is getting mob-like, but they shouldn't operate under the assumption that the public is simply a mob.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: True leaders have the option of making a stand if they think the public is getting mob-like, but they shouldn't operate under the assumption that the public is simply a mob.
One of the best things said in this thread. Period.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both parties are doing horrifyingly bad. I'm not sure how conservitives have suddenly gone wrong. Imminent domanin, the Terry Schiavo case, and their basic pansyness. They have simply stopped believeing in less government. And Bush has been doing an okay job, but he's dissapointed me plenty of times. Never enough for me to wish that I voted for Kerry though.
Liberals are far worse than conservaties. You on the boards might not be bad, but the ones you are putting into office are closing in on being traitors in my eyes. Let's look at something recent: Rove's very truthful comments about the difference between liberals and conservaties stand after 9/11 got liberals in a rage and they demanded his apology or resignation. Yet, Durban's slanderous remarks on comparing our troops to Nazis went by completely scot free in their eyes. And Durban isn't some minor Democrate either. Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and Howard Dean are just as bad as he is too. Do you liberals see something wrong here?
Both these parties care more about their nice little group then they do about America.
I think I may become a libertarian. I need to do more research on them, though. Neal Boortz is the man.
quote:Let's look at something recent: Rove's very truthful comments about the difference between liberals and conservaties stand after 9/11
You must have seen a different statement than I did, what I saw was exactally what is wrong with politics these days, regardless of political orientation.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's look at something recent: Rove's very truthful comments about the difference between liberals and conservaties stand after 9/11
You must have seen a different statement than I did, what I saw was exactally what is wrong with politics these days, regardless of political orientation.
He said that conservatives prepared for war, which they did, and liberals got ready to seek negotiations and understand the motives of the attackers, which they did.
Posts: 142 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"He said that conservatives prepared for war, which they did, and liberals got ready to seek negotiations and understand the motives of the attackers, which they did."
Perhaps you will concede that the truth of the situation is a little more nuanced?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
And they are mutually exclusive in what way?
What he said was that liberal were afraid to prepare, and blamed them as traitors, or close to it, because they didn't automatically believe every little thing the Admin told them....
Most of which turned out to be lies in the end. Or at least false.
I also heard him trying to make an emotinal appeal to teh US, attempting to claim 9/11 for his own political party. That just makes me sick, and if there was any justice in the world he would have been struck dead while speaking by an act of God or nature.
I don't care for ANYONE who tries to make 9/11 a partisan issue, from either side of teh political fence.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I killed the hypocrisy in politics thread with this one. I wonder what it'll do here.
quote:I'm bothered by the idea that understanding the enemy equals being soft on them. That's almost unspeakably stupid. As I said on another thread, most of what Sun Tzu said in The Art of War doesn't sound profound until you look at the history of warfare. In this case, throwing the evil label around in place of understanding why these people do the things they do nets us nothing.
The two magic words in a terrorist campaign are recruitment and funding. Pure military force isn't going to do the job. We're not fightign a static army. It's not kill X people and the war will be over. A successful terrorist organization, especially one that relies on suicide tactics has to constantly be bringing in new members. It's nigh impossible to stop that with troops and tanks and guns. If it comes down to it, the only solution we're going to have left is going to be as close to genocide as to make no difference. Terrorism depends on PR. If we can win that war as well as cut off their supply lines, we win.
I actually agree with the "spreading freedom" thing being good for us in general, except much of that region sees us as the bad guys, some of which they've got legitimate reasons for. It'll take a complex understanding of the dynamics of the region to really win out.
The Bush people tried the simplistic "People love freedom." thing and it really, really didn't work out for them. They planned for there to be an Iraq populace greeting us with open arms with only a very few hold out from the old regime resistors. The simplicity of their thinking and the lack of adequate planning cost many soldiers their lives. And even when it was clear that their original projections were absurdly optimistic, they held to that line, claiming that the only resistance they were seeing in Iraq were from a few members of Saddam's regime. Forget about not understanding your enemy. They weren't even able to admit who they were fighting.
We need complexity and an understanding of who are the people we are fighting, who could be on our side or at least against our enemies, and what we can do to shift the dynamics in our favor. Simplistic name calling and appeals to "freedom" may play well on the home front, but they suck as actual things to rely on in the real world.
posted
I imagine it would be difficult to counteract the enemy's recruiting tactics when as the most prosperous, powerful western nation, we're the easiest scapegoat for focusing the anger of the desperate masses. I mean, given where we're starting right now, how exactly could we get to a point at which the common Muslim living in an impoverished region of the world is no longer willing to believe that our position in the world is unfair, illegitimate, and threatening?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There've been some very interesting works on exactly that topic.
Read Iannaconne's (I spelled it wrong, but you'll find it by title) Market for Martyrs to see the basic case laid out. Essentially, it may well be possible to significantly deter martyrdom (and other violent forms of terrorism, but particularly that) if we stop assuming that martyrs (suicide bombers and the like, mainly) are evil, degenerate people, and instead target the systems that generate a demand for martyrs (which aren't simply oppression or the like; there are lots of oppressed populations not commonly seeing martyrdom).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: And they are mutually exclusive in what way?
What he said was that liberal were afraid to prepare, and blamed them as traitors, or close to it, because they didn't automatically believe every little thing the Admin told them....
Most of which turned out to be lies in the end. Or at least false.
I also heard him trying to make an emotinal appeal to teh US, attempting to claim 9/11 for his own political party. That just makes me sick, and if there was any justice in the world he would have been struck dead while speaking by an act of God or nature.
I don't care for ANYONE who tries to make 9/11 a partisan issue, from either side of teh political fence.
I care even less for the people who tried to use 9-11 for political means and jumped on the bandwagon of patriotism and then when it suited their needs, pointed fingers about what was happening in the wake of it all. This was not a bargaining chip or event to "choose sides" on.
Posts: 117 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
