Quote:
Originally Posted by wdmso
For me I agree limited government
If you believe that judges are allowed to disregard the strict language of the Constitution and impose loose interpretations of that language in order to allow government to do things which the Constitution strictly does not allow it to do, then you do not agree with limited government.
separations of powers again yes.. consertives only want it when rulings swing their way when they don't its the judges fault .. strict reading of the constitution seems only again to apply to issues comsertives support
Strict reading of the Constitution does not involve issues per se. It is about which branch of government, if any, has the power to deal with the issue at hand. It is the loose "interpretation" which frees government, or a branch of government, to control an issue which a strict reading would prohibit it from doing. That is a basic tenet of so-called "conservatism." Usually, a conservative argument in court is not so much about proposed legislation, but more about the constitutional power to pass it. When, and if, a conservative argues strictly on social implications or social justice, then that conservative is not one.
they only support the 3 branch's of government when they think they control all 3 branches
Why should a conservative support a branch of government if that branch was not abiding by the Consitution? It isn't the Congress, or the Executive, or the Judicial which is to be supported, it is the Constitution which is to be "preserved, protected and defended." Whenever any of the three branches is acting in a manner which does not support that oath of office, it is in error, and should not be supported.
Who has done more for individual rights and Who has done more to restrict individuals rights and advance corporate American I know my answer and it's not based on a feeling  |
I think we all know your answer. But riddle me these--why has corporate power, such as it is, grown so much in spite of all the regulations imposed on it? Why has so called income inequality grown in spite of regulations against it? Who has facilitated the power of groups to grow over individual choices?
Hint, your choice, of who, depends on corporate power to fund its efforts and to collectivize business and production into fewer, larger, more centralized entities whose number are easier to control than the scattering little individual enterprises. Your choice, of who, strives to centralize all facets of society. It's favorite notion of individual rights is group rights, which is a form of centralizing individual power and rights. It is easier to have more control and forced dependence over the large but fewer in number groups than the scattered and unruly 350 million individuals. Your choice, of who, prefers, requires, a top down controlling authority which decides what individual rights are rather than the constitutional notion of inalienable rights which that top down authority has no right to trample.
Threaded Mode