Republican Does Not Mean Conservative

[BigTitLvr]

and vise-verse: Conservative does not mean Republican.

I am a conservative regarding most political issues. But I can NOT be a republican because republicans are not conservatives.

They believe in very big government. But they want to spend the money on their friends in the insurance, banking and war machine industries, instead of programs which would benefit society in general- which is neither liberal or conservative, but just plain smart and compassionate.

So, to most Americans who seem to be too focused on the label: call yourself a conservative, and vote for the conservatives. That way, not one more republican or democrat will end up getting elected...after we abolish the voting machines.

Peace, fellow conservatives.

 

[ChChoda]

and vise-verse: Conservative does not mean Republican.

I am a conservative regarding most political issues. But I can NOT be a republican because republicans are not conservatives.

They believe in very big government. But they want to spend the money on their friends in the insurance, banking and war machine industries, instead of programs which would benefit society in general- which is neither liberal or conservative, but just plain smart and compassionate.

So, to most Americans who seem to be too focused on the label: call yourself a conservative, and vote for the conservatives. That way, not one more republican or democrat will end up getting elected...after we abolish the voting machines.

Peace, fellow conservatives.

Uh huh...

Did you seriously describe Reagan as a true believer? Of what? Reagan was a shill; a puppet for big business. (Just like nearly EVERY president of the past century.) But he is the perfect example of the kind of republican the people on the website seem to be idolizing.

Let's talk about this hypocrisy: When Reagan took office he enacted the biggest tax cuts in a generation, I think. He sold the country on 'trickle down economics. Here's his argument: if the richest people in the country pay lower taxes, they will have more money start companies, create jobs, and buy good and services. And this money will slowly trickle down back in the economy.

So he does it; he lowers the taxes on the rich, cutting off funding to the government but he doesn't reduce spending of the federal government- NO REPUBLICAN EVER HAS, regardless of their campaign promises. He just shifts the money he cuts from school programs into the military, to pad his rich friends pockets further.

When Reagan began his term, the national deficit was 700 million dollars. When he leaves it is 3 trillion.

I don't know where you all are getting your information from. I have to assume it is fox news. I am not an Obama supported. I want REAL reform which would benefit the American people. And neither of the two parties represent reform. They are two sides of the same coin. And anyone who doesn't see that is literally brainwashed.

Politicians don't care about you. They don't give a fuck about us or our families. They are high priced prostitutes for big business and banks. BOTH republicans and democrats just want to raise taxes and give it back to private industry who got them in office. Deficit spending is stealing the wealth of the middle class and BOTH parties are in on the scam. You believers have been had.

 

[BigTitLvr]

Exactly! Reagan was no conservative! And if you think so, you must be getting your news form Faux! Now you're getting it!

I take credit for waking this man up. You're welcome!

 

[undertheice]

.....programs which would benefit society in general- which is neither liberal or conservative, but just plain smart and compassionate.

spending money on social programs is one of the cornerstones of american liberalism. redistributing the money of productive americans in any but the most necessary forms is contrary to conservative tenets. "society in general" is just another way of saying "the majority", the screeching mob that cares nothing for the rule of law, only for its own desires. that mob is precisely what our government was set up to protect the individual from. on the other hand, handing out our tax money to special interests and major business is still just another form of redistribution and is by no means within the sphere of conservative concepts.

though compassion should inform the activities of our government, it should never be the driving force behind legislation. government is not a charitable organization, it is merely the body that allows the people the opportunity to determine their own destinies by protecting them from any infringement on their rights by others.

 

[BigTitLvr]

spending money on social programs is one of the cornerstones of american liberalism. redistributing the money of productive americans in any but the most necessary forms is contrary to conservative tenets. "society in general" is just another way of saying "the majority", the screeching mob that cares nothing for the rule of law, only for its own desires. that mob is precisely what our government was set up to protect the individual from. on the other hand, handing out our tax money to special interests and major business is still just another form of redistribution and is by no means within the sphere of conservative concepts.

though compassion should inform the activities of our government, it should never be the driving force behind legislation. government is not a charitable organization, it is merely the body that allows the people the opportunity to determine their own destinies by protecting them from any infringement on their rights by others.

This is a stereotype. Society in general does not mean the mob or the majority: it means EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY is better off with a police force, an army and a library in their community. The nation as a whole is better off that its citizens can read for free.

If we want improvements in our Society as a whole, there is a cost somewhere. It is the selfish attitude of ME ONLY that will eventually lead to the decline of a great nation which will one day be considered "once prosperous and compassionate."

Plus, I would argue that compassion was the driving authority of the Constitution. Huge burdens of taxes were levied on the people, after which our founders sought to protect us from an overbearing hand of government "by protecting them from any infringement on their rights by others."

Indeed, we do not create government for charity. We create and use it for protection; from evil forces inside and outside our borders.

 

[upnorth2505]

and vise-verse: Conservative does not mean Republican.

I am a conservative regarding most political issues. But I can NOT be a republican because republicans are not conservatives.

They believe in very big government. But they want to spend the money on their friends in the insurance, banking and war machine industries, instead of programs which would benefit society in general- which is neither liberal or conservative, but just plain smart and compassionate.

So, to most Americans who seem to be too focused on the label: call yourself a conservative, and vote for the conservatives. That way, not one more republican or democrat will end up getting elected...after we abolish the voting machines.

Peace, fellow conservatives.

Hey big tit loving guy. No fair! You are making me a conservative!!

Seriously though, one of the most intelligent statements regarding conservatism I have seen: A common sense, no BS approach.

The republicans and demmies are both polluted by special interests. Truth is, even though I mostly vote demmie, is that my interests are served by neither.

Fiscal conservatism is a no-brainer. Policies that promote education and personal responsibility make sense.

I almost cringe at using "liberal" as a way to describe myself. I tend to associate "conservative" with the ultra-extreme right wing which is a huge over simplification.

Good post Tit Luver.

 

[Rob Roy]

This is a stereotype. Society in general does not mean the mob or the majority: it means EVERYBODY. EVERYBODY is better off with a police force, an army and a library in their community. The nation as a whole is better off that its citizens can read for free.

If we want improvements in our Society as a whole, there is a cost somewhere. It is the selfish attitude of ME ONLY that will eventually lead to the decline of a great nation which will one day be considered "once prosperous and compassionate."

Plus, I would argue that compassion was the driving authority of the Constitution. Huge burdens of taxes were levied on the people, after which our founders sought to protect us from an overbearing hand of government "by protecting them from any infringement on their rights by others."

Indeed, we do not create government for charity. We create and use it for protection; from evil forces inside and outside our borders.

I disagree that "everybody" is better off with a Police force...think about it.

Unless you think incarcerating people for weed is a good thing.


I disagree that everybody is better off with an army. Ever seen flies buzzing around an innocent "collateral damage" bloated corpse of a mother trying to shield her children in a war zone ? You wouldn't like it.

Libraries are nice. Forcing people to pay for them that don't use the library isn't nice. Libraries aren't "free" either, somebody has to pay for them.

Of course I can't really speak for "everybody" , I can only speak for myself.

 

[upnorth2505]

How about art? Is it worth anything really?

Governments have supported the arts as long as there have been governments. Many "conservatives" would like to see this end.

This is just another area that is questioned when you look at the role of government.

 

[BigTitLvr]

I disagree that "everybody" is better off with a Police force...think about it.

Unless you think incarcerating people for weed is a good thing.


I disagree that everybody is better off with an army. Ever seen flies buzzing around an innocent "collateral damage" bloated corpse of a mother trying to shield her children in a war zone ? You wouldn't like it.

Libraries are nice. Forcing people to pay for them that don't use the library isn't nice. Libraries aren't "free" either, somebody has to pay for them.

Of course I can't really speak for "everybody" , I can only speak for myself.

Well, at least you admit you speak for yourself, alone. In your defense, I am certain there were many in positions of authority who railed against each one of those provisions when they were voted on originally.

But understand that you really are in the minority. Nations across the globe realize the benefits of having a literate society; you can't seriously be arguing against that, can you?

Every Nation needs an Army or they wouldn't be a nation for long. You can rail against the corrupt leader's lies created as a pretext for war, but not against having a national force to protect us against standing armies.

And regarding police and weed: Well, they are simply enforcing an illegitimate law that we, as citizens, are doing a poor job of changing.

But in each case, it would be an enormous burden for each household to provide these services to their family. It is the enormous purchasing power of taxation which can provide these useful services to our society as a whole.

These services is precisely why the rest of the world views America as the 'richest Country in the world.' Even it's average and poor citizens can enjoy security and privileges. throw these services away and you will lower the standard of living overall...and we lose our position in the world.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

If the Federal government would confine itself to the limits set forth in the Constitution and leave the states to manage their own affairs....

Who am I kidding? That ain't gonna happen.

Republicans and Democrats are sidewalks on opposite sides of the street, but they lead to the same playground.

 

[ChChoda]

If the Federal government would confine itself to the limits set forth in the Constitution and leave the states to manage their own affairs....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZD.html


REHNQUIST, J., Dissenting Opinion
Roe v. Wade

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Jurisdictions having enacted abortion laws prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868:

1. Alabama -- Ala. Acts, c. 6, § 2 (1840).
2. Arizona -- Howell Code, c. 10, § 45 (1865).
3. Arkansas -- Ark.Rev.Stat., c. 44, div. III, Art. II, § 6 (183.
4. California -- Cal.Sess.Laws, c. 99, § 45, p. 233 (1849-1850).
5. Colorado (Terr.) -- Colo. Gen.Laws of Terr. of Colo. 1st Sess., § 42, pp 296-297 (1861).
6. Connecticut -- Conn.Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16 (1821). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by another abortion law. Conn.Pub. Acts, c. 71, §§ 1, 2, p. 65 (1860).
7. Florida -- Fla.Acts 1st Sess., c. 1637, subc. 3, §§ 10, 11, subc. 8, §§ 9, 10, 11 (186, as amended, now Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 782.09, 782.10, 797.01, 797.02, 782.16 (1965).
8. Georgia Pen.Code, 4th Div., § 20 (1833).
9. Kingdom of Hawaii -- Hawaii Pen.Code, c. 12, §§ 1, 2, 3 (1850).
10. Idaho (Terr.) -- Idaho (Terr.) Laws, Crimes and Punishments §§ 33, 34, 42, pp. 441, 443 (1863).
11. Illinois -- Ill.Rev. Criminal Code §§ 40, 41, 46, pp. 130, 131 (1827). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by a subsequent enactment. Ill.Pub.Laws §§ 1, 2, 3, p. 89 (1867).
12. Indiana -- Ind.Rev.Stat. §§ 1, 3, p. 224 (183. By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Ind.Laws, c. L410I, § 2 (1859).
13. Iowa (Terr.) -- Iowa (Terr.) Stat., 1st Legis., 1st Sess., § 18, p. 145 (183. By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Iowa (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 49, §§ 10, 13 (1843).
14. Kansas (Terr.) -- Kan. (Terr.) Stat., c. 48, §§ 9, 10, 39 (1855). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Kan. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, §§ 9, 10, 37 (1859).
15. Louisiana -- La.Rev.Stat., Crimes and Offenses § 24, p. 138 (1856).
16. Maine -- Me.Rev.Stat., c. 160, §§ 11, 12, 13, 14 (1840).
17. Maryland -- Md.Laws, c. 179, § 2, p. 315 (186.
18. Massachusetts -- Mass. Acts & Resolves, c. 27 (1845).
19. Michigan -- Mich.Rev.Stat., c. 153, §§ 32, 33, 34, p. 662 (1846).
20. Minnesota (Terr.) -- Minn. (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 100, § 10, 11, p. 493 (1851).
21. Mississippi -- Miss.Code, c. 64, §§ 8, 9, p. 958 (184.
22. Missouri -- Mo.Rev.Stat., Art. II, §§ 9, 10, 36, pp. 168, 172 (1835).
23. Montana (Terr.) -- Mont. (Terr.) Laws, Criminal Practice Acts § 41, p. 184 (1864).
24. Nevada (Terr.) -- Nev. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, § 42, p. 63 (1861).
25. New Hampshire -- N.H.Laws, c. 743, § 1, p. 708 (184.
26. New Jersey -- N.J.Laws, p. 266 (1849).
27. New York -- N.Y.Rev.Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit 2, §§ 8, 9, pp. 12-13 (182. By 1868, this statute had been superseded. N.Y.Laws, c. 260, §§ 1, pp. 285-286 (1845); N.Y.Laws, c. 22, § 1, p. 19 (1846).
28. Ohio -- Ohio Gen.Stat. §§ 111(1), 112(2), p. 252 (1841).
29. Oregon -- Ore. Gen.Laws, Crim.Code, c. 43, § 509, p. 528 (1845-1864).
30. Pennsylvania -- Pa.Laws No. 374, §§ 87, 88, 89 (1860).
31. Texas -- Tex. Gen.Stat. Dig., c. VII, Arts. 531-536, p. 524 (Oldham & White 1859).
32. Vermont -- Vt. Acts No. 33, § 1 (1846). By 1868, this statute had been amended. Vt.Acts No. 57, §§ 1, 3 (1867).
33. Virginia -- Va.Acts, Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (184.
34. Washington (Terr.) -- Wash. (Terr.) Stats., c. II, §§ 37, 38, p. 81 (1854).
35. West Virginia -- See Va. Acts., Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (184; W.Va.Const., Art. XI, par. 8 (1863).
36. Wisconsin -- Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 133, §§ 10, 11 (1849). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 164, §§ 10, 11; c. 169, §§ 58, 59 (185.
2. Abortion laws in effect in 1868 and still applicable as of August, 1970:
1. Arizona (1865).
2. Connecticut (1860).
3. Florida (186.
4. Idaho (1863).
5. Indiana (183.
6. Iowa (1843)
7. Maine (1840).
8. Massachusetts (1845).
9. Michigan (1846).
10. Minnesota (1851).
11. Missouri (1835).
12. Montana (1864).
13. Nevada (1861).
14. New Hampshire (184.
15. New Jersey (1849).
16. Ohio (1841).
17. Pennsylvania (1860).
18. Texas (1859).
19. Vermont (1867).
20. West Virginia (1863).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZD.html#ref
21. Wisconsin (185.

Who am I kidding? That ain't gonna happen.

Not until unconstitutional laws are overturned. We all know this requires Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices.

 

[ViRedd]

"Not until unconstitutional laws are overturned. We all know this requires Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices."

And fully informed juries.

http://fija.org/​

 

[Johnnyorganic]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZD.html


REHNQUIST, J., Dissenting Opinion
Roe v. Wade

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Jurisdictions having enacted abortion laws prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868:

1. Alabama -- Ala. Acts, c. 6, § 2 (1840).
2. Arizona -- Howell Code, c. 10, § 45 (1865).
3. Arkansas -- Ark.Rev.Stat., c. 44, div. III, Art. II, § 6 (183.
4. California -- Cal.Sess.Laws, c. 99, § 45, p. 233 (1849-1850).
5. Colorado (Terr.) -- Colo. Gen.Laws of Terr. of Colo. 1st Sess., § 42, pp 296-297 (1861).
6. Connecticut -- Conn.Stat., Tit. 20, §§ 14, 16 (1821). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by another abortion law. Conn.Pub. Acts, c. 71, §§ 1, 2, p. 65 (1860).
7. Florida -- Fla.Acts 1st Sess., c. 1637, subc. 3, §§ 10, 11, subc. 8, §§ 9, 10, 11 (186, as amended, now Fla.Stat.Ann. §§ 782.09, 782.10, 797.01, 797.02, 782.16 (1965).
8. Georgia Pen.Code, 4th Div., § 20 (1833).
9. Kingdom of Hawaii -- Hawaii Pen.Code, c. 12, §§ 1, 2, 3 (1850).
10. Idaho (Terr.) -- Idaho (Terr.) Laws, Crimes and Punishments §§ 33, 34, 42, pp. 441, 443 (1863).
11. Illinois -- Ill.Rev. Criminal Code §§ 40, 41, 46, pp. 130, 131 (1827). By 1868, this statute had been replaced by a subsequent enactment. Ill.Pub.Laws §§ 1, 2, 3, p. 89 (1867).
12. Indiana -- Ind.Rev.Stat. §§ 1, 3, p. 224 (183. By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Ind.Laws, c. L410I, § 2 (1859).
13. Iowa (Terr.) -- Iowa (Terr.) Stat., 1st Legis., 1st Sess., § 18, p. 145 (183. By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Iowa (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 49, §§ 10, 13 (1843).
14. Kansas (Terr.) -- Kan. (Terr.) Stat., c. 48, §§ 9, 10, 39 (1855). By 1868, this statute had been superseded by a subsequent enactment. Kan. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, §§ 9, 10, 37 (1859).
15. Louisiana -- La.Rev.Stat., Crimes and Offenses § 24, p. 138 (1856).
16. Maine -- Me.Rev.Stat., c. 160, §§ 11, 12, 13, 14 (1840).
17. Maryland -- Md.Laws, c. 179, § 2, p. 315 (186.
18. Massachusetts -- Mass. Acts & Resolves, c. 27 (1845).
19. Michigan -- Mich.Rev.Stat., c. 153, §§ 32, 33, 34, p. 662 (1846).
20. Minnesota (Terr.) -- Minn. (Terr.) Rev.Stat., c. 100, § 10, 11, p. 493 (1851).
21. Mississippi -- Miss.Code, c. 64, §§ 8, 9, p. 958 (184.
22. Missouri -- Mo.Rev.Stat., Art. II, §§ 9, 10, 36, pp. 168, 172 (1835).
23. Montana (Terr.) -- Mont. (Terr.) Laws, Criminal Practice Acts § 41, p. 184 (1864).
24. Nevada (Terr.) -- Nev. (Terr.) Laws, c. 28, § 42, p. 63 (1861).
25. New Hampshire -- N.H.Laws, c. 743, § 1, p. 708 (184.
26. New Jersey -- N.J.Laws, p. 266 (1849).
27. New York -- N.Y.Rev.Stat., pt. 4, c. 1, Tit 2, §§ 8, 9, pp. 12-13 (182. By 1868, this statute had been superseded. N.Y.Laws, c. 260, §§ 1, pp. 285-286 (1845); N.Y.Laws, c. 22, § 1, p. 19 (1846).
28. Ohio -- Ohio Gen.Stat. §§ 111(1), 112(2), p. 252 (1841).
29. Oregon -- Ore. Gen.Laws, Crim.Code, c. 43, § 509, p. 528 (1845-1864).
30. Pennsylvania -- Pa.Laws No. 374, §§ 87, 88, 89 (1860).
31. Texas -- Tex. Gen.Stat. Dig., c. VII, Arts. 531-536, p. 524 (Oldham & White 1859).
32. Vermont -- Vt. Acts No. 33, § 1 (1846). By 1868, this statute had been amended. Vt.Acts No. 57, §§ 1, 3 (1867).
33. Virginia -- Va.Acts, Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (184.
34. Washington (Terr.) -- Wash. (Terr.) Stats., c. II, §§ 37, 38, p. 81 (1854).
35. West Virginia -- See Va. Acts., Tit. II, c. 3, § 9, p. 96 (184; W.Va.Const., Art. XI, par. 8 (1863).
36. Wisconsin -- Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 133, §§ 10, 11 (1849). By 1868, this statute had been superseded. Wis.Rev.Stat., c. 164, §§ 10, 11; c. 169, §§ 58, 59 (185.
2. Abortion laws in effect in 1868 and still applicable as of August, 1970:
1. Arizona (1865).
2. Connecticut (1860).
3. Florida (186.
4. Idaho (1863).
5. Indiana (183.
6. Iowa (1843)
7. Maine (1840).
8. Massachusetts (1845).
9. Michigan (1846).
10. Minnesota (1851).
11. Missouri (1835).
12. Montana (1864).
13. Nevada (1861).
14. New Hampshire (184.
15. New Jersey (1849).
16. Ohio (1841).
17. Pennsylvania (1860).
18. Texas (1859).
19. Vermont (1867).
20. West Virginia (1863).

21. Wisconsin (185.



Not until unconstitutional laws are overturned. We all know this requires Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices.

Question. How many of the states you listed voted to ratify the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?

I know you are thick, but surely even you realize that once an amendment is ratified by the requisite number of states, it becomes part of the Constitution.

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Answer. Every state in the Union at the time the 14th Amendment was under consideration ratified it. Most did so before the 3/4 requirement was met, and some after. But every state ratified it.

The 14th Amendment was a Radical Republican Reconstruction measure following The War Between the States.

Now some may point out the folly of forcing seceding states back into the Union at the point of a bayonet, and then stripping individuals within those states of their rights.

In fact, some claim, with some justification, that the U.S. abrogated the Constitution to preserve the Union.

But that is another topic entirely.

 

[ChChoda]

Question. How many of the states you listed voted to ratify the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?

Actually, William Rehnquist, a conservative, in his dissent in Roe V Wade, listed them... Here he is dispelling your notions on the 14th amendment.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist

Unfortunately, more than a century of decisions under this Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have produced .... a syndrome wherein this Court seems to regard the Equal Protection Clause as a cat-o'-nine-tails to be kept in the judicial closet as a threat to legislatures which may, in the view of the judiciary, get out of hand and pass "arbitrary", "illogical", or "unreasonable" laws. Except in the area of the law in which the Framers obviously meant it to apply—classifications based on race or on national origin, the first cousin of race—the Court's decisions can fairly be described as an endless tinkering with legislative judgments, a series of conclusions unsupported by any central guiding principle.





http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec4

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

 

[ChChoda]

Answer. Every state in the Union at the time the 14th Amendment was under consideration ratified it. Most did so before the 3/4 requirement was met, and some after. But every state ratified it.

The 14th Amendment was a Radical Republican Reconstruction measure following The War Between the States.

Now some may point out the folly of forcing seceding states back into the Union at the point of a bayonet, and then stripping individuals within those states of their rights.

In fact, some claim, with some justification, that the U.S. abrogated the Constitution to preserve the Union.

But that is another topic entirely.

Obfuscation seems to be your niche...

 

[Johnnyorganic]

Actually, William Rehnquist, a conservative, in his dissent in Roe V Wade, listed them... Here he is dispelling your notions on the 14th amendment.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist

Unfortunately, more than a century of decisions under this Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment have produced .... a syndrome wherein this Court seems to regard the Equal Protection Clause as a cat-o'-nine-tails to be kept in the judicial closet as a threat to legislatures which may, in the view of the judiciary, get out of hand and pass "arbitrary", "illogical", or "unreasonable" laws. Except in the area of the law in which the Framers obviously meant it to apply—classifications based on race or on national origin, the first cousin of race—the Court's decisions can fairly be described as an endless tinkering with legislative judgments, a series of conclusions unsupported by any central guiding principle.





http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A4Sec4

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 4 - Republican government
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the Republican Party did not exist. How far the Republicans have strayed from their origins?

Pretty motherfucking far.

Obfuscation seems to be your niche...

Your confusion at such a straightforward concept is not my responsibility.

 

[PadawanBater]

Isn't that the issue with politics these days? The labels.

For anyone to call themselves 100% democrat or 100% republican, and likewise 100% liberal or 100% conservative - is incorrect. Each of us hold liberal opinions and conservative opinions regarding different issues.

These people we vote into office use the terms against us so we fight about pointless issues where the team mentality is created. It couldn't get more basic than that. Once the "team" is created, the issue is no longer important, what's important becomes winning. The price of which we all pay for.

Why we allow them to get away with this needs to be addressed.

I've got liberal opinions about a lot of civil issues, equal rights, protecting endangered species and the environment, and I've got conservative opinions about the Constitution and monetary policy..

Claiming one is a trap. A false political dichotomy.

 

[ChChoda]

When the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the Republican Party did not exist. How far the Republicans have strayed from their origins?

Pretty motherfucking far.

Your confusion at such a straightforward concept is not my responsibility.

At least you've started bolding more judiciously...

It's a start...

 

[BigTitLvr]

Isn't that the issue with politics these days? The labels.

For anyone to call themselves 100% democrat or 100% republican, and likewise 100% liberal or 100% conservative - is incorrect. Each of us hold liberal opinions and conservative opinions regarding different issues.

These people we vote into office use the terms against us so we fight about pointless issues where the team mentality is created. It couldn't get more basic than that. Once the "team" is created, the issue is no longer important, what's important becomes winning. The price of which we all pay for.

Why we allow them to get away with this needs to be addressed.

I've got liberal opinions about a lot of civil issues, equal rights, protecting endangered species and the environment, and I've got conservative opinions about the Constitution and monetary policy..

Claiming one is a trap. A false political dichotomy.

Agreed. This is exactly my point: The divisive behavior of far right and left politicians serves their interest, not ours. If they can keep American's divided on 'party' lines we will never rise as one voice to demand the real changes this country needs.

Everyone is a mix of conservative and liberal: There are the 'blue dog' democrats, and McCain believes in global warming.