Republican 2012 Candidates

[Livewire]

Court decisions are not always correct. It is not uncommon for the Court to overturn its prior decisions. Was Plessy v. Ferguson correct in its time? For some more recent examples: Is Citizens United correct? Was the Court's ruling that the Constitution can knowingly allow an innocent person to be executed correct?

You dodged my point again, however. He claims to be a strict constructionist, yet he's trying to do the very thing he was accused of - bending the constitutional reality to fit his own methods and means. Rather than uphold the constitutional ruling, that it is indeed legal, he's subverting it here due to his own ideological perceptions.

 

[Lalapizzame]

The Supreme Court can be bent to the political stances of its justices. John Marshall was a Federalist, and his decisions established the precedence essential for strengthening the authority, with the authority and training of a judge to ensure legality. Interstate commerce and transportation seem to be particular concentrations of court decisions increasing federal authority, and the decisions of the 1950s and 60s were with the consent of each justice's political principles.

I have not read up on social security etc. from the Supreme Court's point of view. The Supreme Court's interpretation has undisputedly changed over the years, as its justices have been replaced by others. Its initial reaction to the policy of "separate was equal" ruled legislation was unable (and unwilling) to enforce social equality but was to ensure political equality, and that the law was fairly applied. By the time of the 1950s, the Supreme Court had mellowed and abandoned this precedence.

It is also necessary to note that Roosevelt launched his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill that very same year. Due to their continued resistance to Roosevelt's New Deal programs, he finally launched a political campaign to pass that bill and flood the Court with new justices more favorable towards the New Deal. We see here a significant amount of pressure applied to ensure the Supreme Court complied with Roosevelt's plans, and one of them was Social Security. The measure failed due to a series of fortunate events, but the Supreme Court was undoubtedly forced to alter its opinions regarding the New Deal.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You dodged my point again, however. He claims to be a strict constructionist, yet he's trying to do the very thing he was accused of - bending the constitutional reality to fit his own methods and means. Rather than uphold the constitutional ruling, that it is indeed legal, he's subverting it here due to his own ideological perceptions.

Did Lyndon Johnson bend the Constitution when he passed the Civil Rights Act even though the Court ruled that separate but equal was constitutional? My point is that Social Security being ruled constitutional does not make it good policy. Congress and the President can repeal legislation for political reasons even if the court has upheld that legislation. A Court ruling isn't the end of the matter. We have a system of checks and balances. Congress can repeal legislation even if it has been ruled constitutional, and they can amend the Constitution to nullify a ruling or have it re-argued in Court years later.

 

[Netto Azure]

That brings us to the main point. What's the sense of strict constitutionalism if the Constitution will be interpreted either way?

There's no "right way" to read the constitution because it's just a framework for how the country should be run. There's a whole other part of the system established by judicial precedent, the U.S. Code, International treaties and unofficial agreements.

 

[Nick]

Ron Paul is the only constitutional conservative one that list. The rest are either war hawks, neo-cons, religious fanatics, or liberals.

What's so wrong with being a liberal, if I may ask?

 

[Lalapizzame]

The same reason some people detest Republicans and Conservatives. They do not fit with one's ideology and political principles.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That brings us to the main point. What's the sense of strict constitutionalism if the Constitution will be interpreted either way?

There's no "right way" to read the constitution because it's just a framework for how the country should be run. There's a whole other part of the system established by judicial precedent, the U.S. Code, International treaties and unofficial agreements.

You are correct. While the courts do tell us what the Constitution means, they don't determine what our public policy will be. Congress does that. If Ron Paul becomes President and convinces Congress to privatize SS and Medicare, he'd be well within his authority to sign the bill.

What's so wrong with being a liberal, if I may ask?

As you may have noticed, I'm a conservative. I was speaking from a personal perspective as to why I don't support certain candidates. I don't agree with the agenda that most liberals have.

 

[Lalapizzame]

I am interested in which candidate you would choose after Ron Paul, Freakylocz. Personally, I find none of them appeal to me, although Ron Paul has his fair share of disagreeability as well. Rick Perry is, if I'm forced to choose, my second option, but he has a notorious voting record and once supported healthcare (how the politician changes like the winds going by!). He is not averse to corruption either, although Bachmann was incredibly incompetent at playing on that and ventured too far into the vaccine's actual medical aspects.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I am interested in which candidate you would choose after Ron Paul, Freakylocz. Personally, I find none of them appeal to me, although Ron Paul has his fair share of disagreeability as well. Rick Perry is, if I'm forced to choose, my second option, but he has a notorious voting record and once supported healthcare (how the politician changes like the winds going by!). He is not averse to corruption either, although Bachmann was incredibly incompetent at playing on that and ventured too far into the vaccine's actual medical aspects.

Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman seem palatable. Johnson is actually pretty libertarian, but is outshined by Ron Paul among the libertarian base. Ron Paul also has Tea Party support. The Tea Party has factions that are backing Bachmann, and factions that are backing Paul.

 

[Lalapizzame]

Jon Huntsman is a very nice person, certainly a gentleman. Unfortunately, he's too moderate to gain much traction. As I have said previously, I believe he has no chance of winning the primary and will drop out soon. A pity, since he's very agreeable.

Gary Johnson is also reasonable. As I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I am naturally sympathetic towards his views. The media has given him virtually no attention, which is unfortunate. He would be my favorite candidate, with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman following.

If I recall, the Tea Party was founded on fiscal conservative grounds, but has had its ranks flooded with social conservatives. This dampens the Tea Party's reputation outside of its core and with moderates considerably, regardless of the sensibility of its fiscal conservatism.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Jon Huntsman is a very nice person, certainly a gentleman. Unfortunately, he's too moderate to gain much traction. As I have said previously, I believe he has no chance of winning the primary and will drop out soon. A pity, since he's very agreeable.

Gary Johnson is also reasonable. As I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal, I am naturally sympathetic towards his views. The media has given him virtually no attention, which is unfortunate. He would be my favorite candidate, with Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman following.

If I recall, the Tea Party was founded on fiscal conservative grounds, but has had its ranks flooded with social conservatives. This dampens the Tea Party's reputation outside of its core and with moderates considerably, regardless of the sensibility of its fiscal conservatism.

I identify as a social libertarian, not a social liberal. The term liberal implies that I believe it is the government's job to step in and correct perceived social wrongs. I take the opposite approach. I believe that getting the government out of social matters in order to maximize individual liberty and freedom.

The original Tea Party are Ron Paul's 2008 supporters. While there a socially conservative wing has branched off (represented by Michele Bachmann's candidacy), there are still many libertarian Tea Party members.

 

[Lalapizzame]

I'm not sure whether or not government intervention in social affairs on behalf of a disgruntled party is the right thing to do. It could create a slippery slope, so perhaps government's intervention in society should be to ensure order and the enforcement of the laws.

Michelle Bachmann's candidacy has been squashed by Rick Perry's arrival. I believe this is an auspicious incident in some ways, but a lesser evil is still an evil. This is especially so when I have another candidate that fits my ideals. Such a decriable environment the Tea Party has, since it conjures up images of social conservatism in the eyes of most Americans. The Tea Party deserves a better reputation, except for its social conservatives.

 

[Esper]

I heard this morning that Huntsman and Romney are polling very high (relatively for Huntsman anyway) in New Hampshire at the moment thanks in part to the large numbers of independents there. I have no idea what this actually means in the long run though except that Huntsman might stay in the race longer.

Also, I don't think you can hold on to the idea that the Tea Party is still a group of fiscal conservatives any more than you can compare the current Republican party to the one from decades ago. There are too many neo-cons and social conservatives in its ranks and when you get down to it there's little difference between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment now.

 

[-ty-]

I think that some of these Conservatives contradict themselves. The government should not be interfering with our personal lives; you know, that is supposedly part of the Republican platform - less government. That is why Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Pawlenty will never have my vote; they all believe that it is the government's job to enforce their religious views upon everyone else. Clearly, being in support of NOM shows that they do not understand the concept of federalism. It is not the federal government's job to dispute any type of marriage legislation, that is a reserved power. This "general welfare" has been exercised to an extreme, in both Republicans and Democrats; it is unproductive and unnecessary involvement. I think that the Constitution is very important, and it was never intended to be taken advantage of as it has. I mean there should be some elasticity, but the usurpation of power has gone WAY too far.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I think that some of these Conservatives contradict themselves. The government should not be interfering with our personal lives; you know, that is supposedly part of the Republican platform - less government. That is why Romney, Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, and Pawlenty will never have my vote; they all believe that it is the government's job to enforce their religious views upon everyone else. Clearly, being in support of NOM shows that they do not understand the concept of federalism. It is not the federal government's job to dispute any type of marriage legislation, that is a reserved power. This "general welfare" has been exercised to an extreme, in both Republicans and Democrats; it is unproductive and unnecessary involvement. I think that the Constitution is very important, and it was never intended to be taken advantage of as it has. I mean there should be some elasticity, but the usurpation of power has gone WAY too far.

Ron Paul, John Huntsman, and Gary Johnson oppose the NOM Marriage Pledge and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. Ron Paul even voted against it in Congress. He also voted to repeal DADT. When he says he stands for limited government and individual liberty, he really means it.

 

[Gothitelle.]

Any of them are better than Obama right about now. However, I'd want a candidate that is truly conservative. There's Republicans in congress who are not true conservatives but really democrats with an R by their name.

While, I go with the liberation candidate here, I kinda question the social issues.

 

[-ty-]

Ron Paul, John Huntsman, and Gary Johnson oppose the NOM Marriage Pledge and oppose the Federal Marriage Amendment. Ron Paul even voted against it in Congress. He also voted to repeal DADT. When he says he stands for limited government and individual liberty, he really means it.

That's why I like him so much. He has all of those stances yet he personally believes that the bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman; that is why I see him as pragmatic and level-headed. He is able to make objective decisions. I cannot say the same for Obama, and his ever "evolving" ideologies, nor the neo-conservative candidates blatant despotic views, especially on this matter. I see a lot in Ron Paul in Gary Johnson; hopefully he runs for vice president alongside Ron Paul after he gets the nomination. haha.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

That's why I like him so much. He has all of those stances yet he personally believes that the bible states that marriage should be between a man and a woman; that is why I see him as pragmatic and level-headed. He is able to make objective decisions. I cannot say the same for Obama, and his ever "evolving" ideologies, nor the neo-conservative candidates blatant despotic views, especially on this matter. I see a lot in Ron Paul in Gary Johnson; hopefully he runs for vice president alongside Ron Paul after he gets the nomination. haha.

Paul/Rubio 2012!!!

Well, now that the latest debate is over, what are your guy's thoughts on it? It seems like these debates are turning into a bickering war between Romney and Perry.

 

[Lalapizzame]

I'm not surprised Perry and Romney are having their catfights on-stage. At least they've contained Bachmann's campaign.

 

[Anti]

I'm not sure whether or not government intervention in social affairs on behalf of a disgruntled party is the right thing to do. It could create a slippery slope, so perhaps government's intervention in society should be to ensure order and the enforcement of the laws.

Michelle Bachmann's candidacy has been squashed by Rick Perry's arrival. I believe this is an auspicious incident in some ways, but a lesser evil is still an evil. This is especially so when I have another candidate that fits my ideals. Such a decriable environment the Tea Party has, since it conjures up images of social conservatism in the eyes of most Americans. The Tea Party deserves a better reputation, except for its social conservatives.

The whole "slippery slope" thing is typically a fallacy, and indeed it is here as well. From a purely logical standpoint, you cannot connect government intervention in social affairs with...whatever exactly the slippery slope is sliding to (you didn't actually say), so it doesn't really hold water. Even in terms of common sense, our government is set up so that no one branch can become too powerful, and the entirety of the government itself has never been efficient enough, cohesive enough or, frankly, competent enough to seriously violate our civil liberties. Also, the courts help in this regard. I didn't mean to get sidetracked with this, but I feel like "well if we let the government do this, what other things might it do?" is a very flimsy argument since even without calling it a slippery slope, that is in essence what it is.

I agree about Bachmann though. She doesn't have mainstream appeal, and I believe that voters deserve a legitimate alternative to Obama, who has definitely had his struggles. I also agree that Perry isn't exactly an ideal replacement, but I just have a gut feeling that there's no way he will win. He just doesn't seem presidential. He has a gimmicky feel to me, kind of like a Sarah Palin type.

Paul/Rubio 2012!!!

Well, now that the latest debate is over, what are your guy's thoughts on it? It seems like these debates are turning into a bickering war between Romney and Perry.

I hope Romney wins the nomination. Whatever his flaws, he is clearly intelligent, refined, and is a more savvy politician than Obama was. I know most people view that as a negative thing, but I think that being able to work the system to get things done is quite alright. Obama constantly deferring to our mostly worthless Congress has not helped, even if it's not directly his fault. I feel like Romney is smart enough to understand that the best U.S. presidents weren't such passive and ineffective communicators...and if he's not, none of the potential nominees are.

As for Ron Paul, I think he's a decent choice. I actually think that his more radical positions that most people don't agree with won't matter a whole lot because I feel like the legislative and judicial branches could keep him in check if he ever went "too far." At least to me, his main appeal is the anti-militarism (his word, not mine) stance he takes against especially the Republicans. Also, as someone who is neutral on abortion and agrees with Paul on other social issues, I think he has legitimate appeal. However, I do think that his age is a downside, as is the fact that he has been anti-establishment for so long that I don't know how he would fare when suddenly he was the establishment.

In general, the Republican nomination process intrigues me because for people like me (annoyed with Obama's inability to stand up against certain extremely conservative positions and his lack of leadership at times), this really decides who I vote for. If they nominate someone like Bachmann, they've blown it. I really hope they don't.