Why are you a Conservative, Liberal, Socialist, Communist, Centrist etc..

[Em]

hkem1, by stating that anything not covered in the Constitution is covered by the States, is horse poop. If that were the case, pretty much everything would be considered, "Constitutional."

Again, if every person is granted equal education, why are some schools teaching students more than other schools? Are the schools in violation of the Constitution?

 

[idlewind]

American leaders pre-1900 would be horrified by the direction the federal government has taken in the last 100+ years. They understood that power concerntrated is inevitably power abused. The Department of Education is just one example of non-productive, expensive grabs for power. The best people to decide how to educate our children is the local school board, not some technocrat in Washington or Tallahasee.

 

[beachkids]

American leaders pre-1900 would be horrified by the direction the federal government has taken in the last 100+ years. They understood that power concerntrated is inevitably power abused. The Department of Education is just one example of non-productive, expensive grabs for power. The best people to decide how to educate our children is the local school board, not some technocrat in Washington or Tallahasee.

The quandary the founders had was how to unite the colonies with a small but effective central government. They were united around fear of a powerful federal government but understood the need to be united around some causes and principles.

They believed that the larger and more powerful the central government became, the less freedom citizens would have. I don't think they ever envisioned the founding documents would used to create the mammoth federal government we have today.

 

[hkem1]

hkem1, by stating that anything not covered in the Constitution is covered by the States, is horse poop. If that were the case, pretty much everything would be considered, "Constitutional."

I don't see why this is so difficult of a concept to grasp. And i definitely don't see what it has to do with horse poop.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I didn't write that, it's in the constitution. I don't know what you mean by "covered" but this amendment does not make everything constitutional.

It only means that the states retain certain rights that are not covered in the constitution. Note the phrase "[nor prohibited by it/B], so if it is against another part of the constitution the state cannot do it.

What do you think this amendment says? This is not usually a very debated amendment.

The issues surrounding this amendment are some of the most contested though with Gay marriage and Abortion.

Again, if every person is granted equal education, why are some schools teaching students more than other schools? Are the schools in violation of the Constitution?

DON'T TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, JUST READ THE CONSTITUTION.

no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

So yes, if one public school is teaching more than another public school then that means the state is in violation of the constitution. (unless it's a magnet or charter school)

What does the Supreme court say about this?
Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.

SEE.. equal education is a RIGHT!!! I have been correct this entire time, but you will probably still find a way to question me... and the constitution...and the supreme court, but you probably know more than all of us. Right?

 

[hkem1]

The quandary the founders had was how to unite the colonies with a small but effective central government. They were united around fear of a powerful federal government but understood the need to be united around some causes and principles.

They believed that the larger and more powerful the central government became, the less freedom citizens would have. I don't think they ever envisioned the founding documents would used to create the mammoth federal government we have today.

First, the constitution was written because the drafters felt that the Articles of Confederation would never work because they did not create a strong enough central government.


Once again, people lump all the founding fathers in together and say they all believed in small government.

Which ones are you talking about?

There had been rebellions in the years leading up to the constitution being written and the government did not have the power to stop it. The drafters of the constitution were every bit as worried of tyranny from below, as they were tyranny from above

When the constitution was written a lot of government was not required. People lived far apart and on farms. Everyone was ok with racial segregation and sexism up the u know what.

But during the Gilded age, when markets began to grow and people started to interact with each other more than they ever had government was needed to protect its citizens.

Not to mention big government solved that whole segregation and women not having equal rights thing... but whatever.

One more thing, the Founding fathers set up the system of government that has allowed government to become what it is today. So as long as their system has been followed throughout history, they can't complain.

 

[WaltonIsOne]

Wrong side of history? Obviously history has been rewritten.

I am a liberal because conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history. Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo, to keep the power w/ the current rich & powerful. The following battles were won by liberals vs. conservatives: The Magna Carta, slavery, segregation, child labor, 40 hr. work week, women's rights, reproduction rights, gay rights, Social Security, Medicare. What are the conservative victories that match these?

Hmm, "conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history".

Well, here some battles won by "constitutional conservatives" to consider: The Revolutionary War, Slavery (President Lincoln was a conservative who believed freedom was the right of all, no matter the color, and was a major supporter of the capitalist system necessary to win the Civil War), World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

Then we can move on to "medical" wars that have been or are being fought by conservative "capitalists" that are being won: AIDS, Cancer, Polio, and numerous others.

These are just a few examples of "conservative" battle wins.

And in terms of segregation, one could hardly characterize one of the greatest patriots of our time, Doctor Martin Luther King, a "liberal". Especially since he gave up his life for others to be free. Dr. King believed in self-government based on truth and moral law as well that the importance of "faith-based" associations in an individual's and a communities' "life". If one reviews Dr. King's speeches and writings in detail, he was truly a conservative and believed in the rights bestowed upon all Americans as outlined in the Constitution. Dr. Kings efforts clearly "unwound" the grip of segration on Black Americans.

Liberals tend to "demand" freedom through "protest" and media battles, whereas constitutional conservatives will give up their lives to free "others" in a real battle field not matter its form. Dr. King is such an example.

Ugabugu might just want to dust off and review books that actually contain real historical facts before assigning liberal or conservative "wins" to a historical battle "event".

 

[hkem1]

Slavery (President Lincoln was a conservative who believed freedom was the right of all, no matter the color, and was a major supporter of the capitalist system necessary to win the Civil War)

Lincoln must be considered one of, if not the greatest president this nation has ever had. His maintaining the union is so remarkable that he deserves the highest praise.

That being said, he was often criticized by radical republicans who did not think he was tough enough on slavery and human rights.

He was a very strong supporter in the lead up to his election of the "un-amendable amendment" (also known as the Corwin Amendment). That amendment would make it illegal for slavery to ever be outlawed in states where it already exists. The amendment actually passed the house and senate, but was never fully ratified by the states because it did not move fast enough. Although presidents don't really have any role in amending the constitution, Lincoln sent letters to governors encouraging them to ratify the amendment quickly before war would break out.

The amendment read, No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Lincoln was more against the spread of slavery into new terrertories than, ending it in the south.

I think all this stuff that Lincoln did was really just to win the war and keep the union together. When he issued the emancipation proclamation it did not even apply to union states that had slaves (Kentucky and Maryland). He could not lose Maryland because then the Confederacy would surround Washington D.C. and Kentucky had a lot of valuable Railroads. Lincolns first goal was always to keep the union together, then to end slavery if he could. He said "If I could reunite the union without freeing one slave, I would. It was not until he saw the opportunity to cripple the southern economy by going after slavery, that he decided to make the war about "the new birth of freedom".

I love Lincoln, and I would call him the greatest president we have ever had because of his ability to keep the union together. But, there are many people with cleaner records on wanting to abolish slavery.

 

[GoodWitch58]

I am doing this for a school project and think it may be fun to do here on Sowal.

So why are you a (whatever you are).

P.S. before anyone thinks their creative and says "I am an American," of course you're allowed to do that, but I think it's against the spirit of democracy to just agree and end debate. Read what Madison wrote in the Federalist papers: there is supposed to be intense debate and chair throwing; but what makes our democracy great is that after all the intense debate we have peaceful transitions of power.
*******
Hkem1:

This OpEd piece today reminded me of your project. One of the big differences between the Rs and the Ds, is, IMO, the Ds are much more diverse and the Rs not so much. This info speaks to that and offers up so other interesting data:

Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/03/opinion/03blow.html?hp

Which political party?s members are most likely to believe that Jesus will definitely return to earth before midcentury? The Republicans, right? Wrong. The Democrats.

I

 

[ugabuga]

Hmm, "conservatives are consistently on the wrong side of history".

Well, here some battles won by "constitutional conservatives" to consider: The Revolutionary War, Slavery (President Lincoln was a conservative who believed freedom was the right of all, no matter the color, and was a major supporter of the capitalist system necessary to win the Civil War), World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

And in terms of segregation, one could hardly characterize one of the greatest patriots of our time, Doctor Martin Luther King, a "liberal". Especially since he gave up his life for others to be free. Dr. King believed in self-government based on truth and moral law as well that the importance of "faith-based" associations in an individual's and a communities' "life". If one reviews Dr. King's speeches and writings in detail, he was truly a conservative and believed in the rights bestowed upon all Americans as outlined in the Constitution. Dr. Kings efforts clearly "unwound" the grip of segration on Black Americans.

Ugabugu might just want to dust off and review books that actually contain real historical facts before assigning liberal or conservative "wins" to a historical battle "event".

Our disagreement--like many others--seems to be largely based on semantics: we are almost surely starting with different definitions of "liberal" and "conservative."

We seem to agree in applauding the outcomes of the Magna Carta, American Revolution, Civil War (freed slaves), Civil Rights (ended segregation), Women's Suffrage, child labor laws...etc. However, I call them victories for liberalism & you call them victories for conservatism.

My definition of "conservative" is one who wants to CONSERVE power for those who are currently powerful. A liberal, by contrast, wants to take power for himself or his group from those who have it.

By MY definitions then, the following are liberals:
those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta,
American Revolutionists,
women suffragettes,
those who fought for an end to slavery/segregation,
child labor, etc.
In all these cases, power was taken from those who had it, enhancing the power of those who had less.

So, all I mean by characterizing certain historical events as liberal victories, is that these events resulted in the migration of power from groups that had it to those who didn't.

I'd gladly entertain your definitions of liberal/conservative.
I'm sure that by some definition of Conservative, I'd call myself one.

Even though I consider myself a liberal, & you consider yourself a conservative, I'll bet we want basically the same things for ourselves, our families, our country & our world.

I'll bet if we could agree on definitions, we'd discover that we agree on most issues.

 

[futurebeachbum]

I tend to think of liberal and conservative relative to individual rights.

I see conservatives as trying to conserve my individual rights and let me run my life.
I see liberals as working to transfer those rights to the government and reduce my ability to control my own life.

By my definition, anyone who voted for the Patriot Act, Healthcare, DMCA, etc.. is a liberal.