A conservative position todayQuote:
The democrats were focused on state rights
A liberal position todayQuote:
the federalists were about a stronger centrlal government
Printable View
A conservative position todayQuote:
The democrats were focused on state rights
A liberal position todayQuote:
the federalists were about a stronger centrlal government
yes, but everyone in america at that time could have been considered an extreme conservative.
The democrats believed in a loose interpretation of the constitution, liberal position today
federalist believed in a srict interpretation of the constitution, conservative belief today.
I say agian the originial polictical parties werent about conservative/liberal as they were all conservatives.
Actually I believe they were considered quite liberal. At least those who favored the revolution. Remember yesterdays liberal is todays conservative. ~;)Quote:
yes, but everyone in america at that time could have been considered an extreme conservative.
They were just as split as people are today no matter how you label them. Again I see the founding Fathers as the Liberals of their time. That is unless you call revolting against your King a conservative idea.Quote:
I say agian the originial polictical parties werent about conservative/liberal as they were all conservatives.
Well then you just proved my point, as this whole side argument was about if jefferson was a liberal.Quote:
Actually I believe they were considered quite liberal. At least those who favored the revolution. Remember yesterdays liberal is todays conservative. ~;)
sure they were split, but i really dont think that any one party was more conservative/liberal than the other.Quote:
They were just as split as people are today no matter how you label them. Again I see the founding Fathers as the Liberals of their time. That is unless you call revolting against your King a conservative idea.
Which do you think today represents Jeffersons views better? Conservatives or Libberals? I said they were liberal for their time and I also said yesterdays liberal is todays conservative.Quote:
Well then you just proved my point, as this whole side argument was about if jefferson was a liberal.
Im sure they were.Quote:
sure they were split, but i really dont think that any one party was more conservative/liberal than the other.
You guys are jerks for ignoring my interesting link while squabbling.
Interesting to who? Look girl personal attacks are against forum rules ~DQuote:
You guys are jerks for ignoring my interesting link while squabbling.
I figured I could get away with one if I whispered it. My deepest apologies.
I'll throw in again. I will offer my apologies for the "motherfreakin liberal" comment. It was typed out of quasi-emotion, and if I have offended anyone, then I will take my lumps and lesson from the Mod.
That is mostly accurate.Quote:
This is really the whole point as Divinus seems to want us to go by the constitution line by line.
My gripe is that Judges are really causing some very seious harm to this country. A "liberal" or loose interpretation of written documentation can leave it open-ended. By sticking as closely to the letter of the law as possible, we limit the opportunity for damage.
Liberal interpretation is not limited to Democrats. Republicans are guilty of this as well. A good example is the gross expansion of Federal powers under the commerce clause. I think Scalia erred in the recent findings of the Court on medicinal marijuana. For me, the marijuana was a non-issue. The issue was the power given to the federal government through the commerce clause. I know that this subject has already been discussed in another thread, so I will not continue. I use this as an example of where I think liberal interpretation can be a damaging mistake perpetrated by both sides of the aisle.
As for Dems and the GOP, I hate seeing the GOP go the way it is going right now. The GOP is becoming a bloated monster of itself and is losing its identity. We used to be about states rights, individual and economic freedom, and reduced federal involvement. It has morphed into a religion-driven overbearing micromanaging mother-in-law. I mean, gay marriage constitutional amendment? What the hell is that?
The essence of all political conflict is centered on one concept: those for democracy vs those for autocracy. The GOP is leaving its roots and inching owards autocracy, which is typically a Democrat position. We will stay out of your wallet, but we will jump in your bedroom.
I am afraid for this country. I just want judges who will strictly limit their interpretation of the constitution to what is written.
Divinus, that post was much better and you had some good points ~:cheers:
Gawain- the whole point is jefferson was for a loose interpretation which is a liberal view. Sure by our standards he would be a conservative, but back then he was a liberal. It is hard to say what he would be in modern day as he would have grown up in a completly different enviroment.
Right. I had read that and I don't really agree with it's saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Proletariat
Now, I don't know all the details of this case- but I don't think you should be able to sue over your car not having airbags and I don't think its 'flexing federal muscle to protect a big corporation' either. But again, I'm not familiar with the case or what it was determining.Quote:
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist sided with a majority that flexed federal muscle to protect a big corporation.
Bump to refresh people's memory.
So what do you think about Roberts?
I just want Roe v. Wade to be overturned so that we can have something else and get futher from abortion on demand. This is my focus for this presidency and i am not ashamed of it. Roberts doesnt need to be an idealogue about it, he just needs to have the right verdict when it comes his way. This is our best shot at getting rid of the supreme court mandate and going back to the drawing boards regarding our abortion laws. Even if we get laws closer to some countries in Europe it will save thousands of lives every year. Il take what i can get.
this needs to occur sometime soon. our current laws are barbaric
Roe just allows for the possiblity of abortion, and that states cannot outlaw it altogether. It never said anything about allowing it through the full 9 months. That's all the decisions that have come since. If SCOTUS wants to rule the United States, and I would argue it's clear they do, they need to stop being halfway pregnant and do it right. Come out and say "THis is what we command, this is the common sense solution". This pretense of "how can we weasal what we want, even if it means 50 times more than what we want" has to end. Have the guts to rule, or shut up. Pretending you don't order the President & Congress around like [...] isn't cute, and it's not fooling anybody.
It is Roberts Brought to you via the NZ Herald
It's Official: Roberts.
I thought either Luttig or Roberts would get the nod.
This is a homerun.
SCOREQuote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
this is my equivalent to sports
Excellent.
Sounds like a good pick. Here's to 'strictly applying the Constitution'. ~:thumb:
I bet his relative youth played no small role either- this guy is likely to be on the court for 25+ years.