PDA

View Full Version : Conservatives vs. Libertarians: Through the Lens of Heller and McDonald


navyinrwanda
06-14-2010, 6:43 PM
There's a great article (http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/08/conservatives-v-libertarians) over at Reason.com (http://reason.com/) about the split between conservatives and libertarians over judicial activism. And it uses the Heller and McDonald cases to illustrate these divisions (including the NRA/Clement vs. Gura oral argument drama).

Here's a short excerpt — it's a fairly long article, so follow the link (http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/08/conservatives-v-libertarians) to read it all:



It’s hard to imagine a greater victory for the conservative legal movement than the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which overturned D.C.’s ban on handguns. Not only did the Court definitively settle the long-contested question of whether the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, but it did so using the language of “originalism”—the school of thought, long championed by conservatives, that says the Constitution should be read according to its original public meaning.

It was therefore surprising when a leading conservative jurist, Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, denounced the ruling as a shameful piece of judicial activism. Heller, Wilkinson wrote (http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=239) in the Virginia Law Review, “encourages Americans to do what conservative jurists warned for years they should not do: bypass the ballot and seek to press their political agenda in the courts.” [Note: Alan Gura responded (http://uclalawreview.org/?p=91) to Wilkinson's criticism in the UCLA Law Review.]

It was a classic conservative complaint, except that Wilkinson’s targets sat on the right side of the bench. And this was no isolated incident. With John Roberts coming into his own as chief justice of a right-leaning Court, conservative anxiety about libertarian-flavored judicial activism has been heating to a boil.

In the 2010 campaign finance reform case Citizens United v. FEC, for example, the high court overturned parts of multiple precedents that had upheld restrictions on political speech. In response, Stuart Taylor Jr., a legal commentator widely respected on the right, said the Court’s conservatives had “forfeited whatever high ground they once held in the judicial activism debate.” By overturning precedents and nullifying portions of federal law, Taylor worried, the Court’s conservative majority had set an example that liberals would be all too happy to follow.

The most visible split yet occurred in the run-up to the March 2010 oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, in which the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Windy City’s handgun ban. With the Court preparing to rule for the first time on whether the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments (Heller applied only to the federal government, which oversees Washington, D.C.), conservative and libertarian groups openly battled one another over legal strategy and constitutional interpretation. In the end, the conservative National Rifle Association successfully lobbied the Supreme Court to take 10 minutes of argument time away from the libertarian lead attorney, Alan Gura (who had successfully argued Heller), and hand it over to the NRA’s Paul Clement, who as George W. Bush’s solicitor general had angered gun rights activists (including the NRA) by urging the Court to adopt a relatively deferential approach to gun control. The oral arguments in McDonald, which highlighted differences over how the Second Amendment should be applied to the states, left many libertarians deeply angry at the Roberts Court and wondering if the conservative-libertarian legal alliance was finally coming apart.

“Now that conservatives form a majority on the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts, the fault lines are emerging between religious conservatives and libertarians, moderates and radicals, originalists, proponents of judicial restraint, and result-oriented conservatives,” says Doug Kendall, the president and founder of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank that has worked with—and against—many figures in the conservative legal movement. “The challenge for conservatives, now that they are in charge, is to figure out what they truly believe in, rather than simply what they oppose.”

They won’t be reaching a consensus anytime soon. Although libertarians and conservatives are routinely lumped together, even by seasoned legal journalists, there are profound differences between them over matters of law. With both libertarians and conservatives increasingly turning to the courts to advance their agendas, and with major legal battles brewing over contentious issues like gay marriage, health care, financial reform, and terrorism, these fault lines have the potential to reshape the legal landscape and affect the life, liberty, and property of every American for generations to come.

...

diginit
06-14-2010, 7:09 PM
Someone needs to read the constitution. The right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed. PERIOD! Long,short or type is of no consequence. We HAVE the right to posses and carry. Anyone who misconscrews the 2nd ammendment is just that. Misconscrewed...
Sorry if I sound rash, But I get teed every time I hear of someone attempting to depribe us of any of our constitutional rights. This is SUPPOSED to be a free country! Do you think politicians may realize that another revolution may be on the horizon and are simply attempting to disarm the public?

Lone_Gunman
06-14-2010, 7:16 PM
They need to point out that these "conservatives" are actually big government Neocons.

OleCuss
06-14-2010, 7:19 PM
I think the author made a bit too much of the NRA/Gura thing - or too little.

Gura was quite willing and able to handle the Due Process oral arguments which the NRA wanted to press. My best guess is that the NRA pressed for oral argument time mostly so that they would have the appearance of relevance in the case (not saying that they weren't relevant anyway but that they desired the visibility).

That said, there has always been a difference between those who favor government interference in our lives and those who don't. But real conservatives are pretty indistinguishable from libertarians. I'm registered as a Libertarian but you get me a good conservative Republican and we'll agree on almost every (if not every) point. The real difference is between Libertarians and those who are not conservative.

7x57
06-14-2010, 7:21 PM
The more useful thing would be to point out that a deferential judiciary is clearly contrary to the Original Public understanding of the role of the court.

But then, I think Libertarians often read their ideology into it as well even when they think they are Originalists, so nobody likes my opinions.

7x57

OleCuss
06-14-2010, 7:34 PM
The more useful thing would be to point out that a deferential judiciary is clearly contrary to the Original Public understanding of the role of the court.

But then, I think Libertarians often read their ideology into it as well even when they think they are Originalists, so nobody likes my opinions.

7x57

Yeah, just be quiet and go away! ;)

Naw, I actually enjoy your opinions. I've learned a lot from many who post on Calguns and it has changed my opinions/perspective to a significant extent.

chris
06-14-2010, 7:44 PM
i'm anxiously awaiting the McDonald decision to come down.

C.G.
06-14-2010, 8:56 PM
The term "libertarian" is defined very loosely nowadays and in some circles it has become fashionable to be one. I have a friend who is to the left of Obama, but considers himself "libertarian".

bulgron
06-14-2010, 9:17 PM
So if I'm reading the argument correctly, liberals are free to read whatever they want into the constitution, and so can come out with some pretty horrible decisions based on their own personal politics. But if at some point down the road a conservative court uses originalism to set the record straight and overturn the liberal's judicial activism, that's horrible, bad, wrong, awful and the end of western civilization as we know it.

That's sort of like saying the bad guys are free to carry whatever guns they want in their efforts to rob and intimidate us, but we'd better not do the same in self defense because that would be just plain mean.

I don't buy it.

Texas Boy
06-14-2010, 9:24 PM
The term "libertarian" is defined very loosely nowadays and in some circles it has become fashionable to be one. I have a friend who is to the left of Obama, but considers himself "libertarian".

And "liberal" used to mean a person who supported individual freedoms (i.e. liberty) and had nothing to do with supporting a socialist government. What's next? will the eco-socialists call themselves "conservatives" since they want to "conserve" the environment?

wildhawker
06-14-2010, 10:09 PM
7x57 is exactly on target - deference created the mess that only an active judiciary, with a strong preference for OPM, can remedy.

rysmithjr
06-14-2010, 10:13 PM
hey conservatives, what are your opinions on abortion, marriage equality, immigration, drug legalization, military actions in other countries, or the US being a "christian nation"?

N6ATF
06-14-2010, 10:54 PM
This may DQ me, but...
abortion: if humans can establish a Uniform Determination of Death, humans can certainly establish a Uniform Determination of Life, which is the opposite of Death. No abortions past that point, unless medically necessary to save the mother's life, or spare the child an incredibly painful and short life outside the womb. Rape victims exempt.

marriage equality: no more marriage. Any two people of any age or gender who judges, JPs, etc... find to be competent in contract law and under no duress can enter into a binding partnership, for whatever reason and duration the contract specifies. Can include renewal terms and escape clauses, such as immediate dissolution upon one partner swearing a domestic violence complaint against the other.

immigration: drop all aliens at the furthest point from the U.S. in their country of origin, if not known, default is on a naturally uninhabited island. Send kids with alien parents, kids are still born U.S. Citizens, but cannot act as anchors and cannot return until age 18, alone. Seize all assets of aliens upon expulsion as gains of criminal enterprise.

military actions in other countries: recall all U.S. forces. Put Army and Marines in a Red Rover line 1 yard inside Mexican border to avoid posse comitatus, Navy blockades international waters and does preliminary checks of container ships before they get to Customs, which probably still won't check them well enough to keep bad people/stuff out, Coast Guard focuses on rescues and policing in American waters, Air Force runs AWACS and develops a way to stop hostile flights without blowing planes up. If Mexico continues its enemy aggression, advance and annex them with everything we've got.

drug legalization: abolish all gun (victim disarmament) laws first, then I might feel safe enough to allow a test of the utopian theory that legalizing drugs will be great.

U.S. being a "Christian" nation: schools can make note of students' certificates they get from their religious leaders (if at all) but that's it. The less I hear about religion in Government, the better.

bulgron
06-14-2010, 11:44 PM
hey conservatives, what are your opinions on abortion, marriage equality, immigration, drug legalization, military actions in other countries, or the US being a "christian nation"?

None of that has any room for discussion in this particular subforum.

Why are you bringing it up here?

bigstick61
06-14-2010, 11:47 PM
hey conservatives, what are your opinions on abortion, marriage equality, immigration, drug legalization, military actions in other countries, or the US being a "christian nation"?

Okay, I'll bite...

Abortion: The child is a person and has a right to life, same as the rest of us. The child is not responsible for being in the womb; other people are, even in rape cases. There is no justification to end an innocent life, especially summarily. Period. Now, if the child's continued existence threatens the life of the mother (or limb in a serious way), that's another story, but it should be up to the mother. If the child is developed enough where having it be born early is a viable option it must be pursued in liue of abortion.

I guess my underlying thought here is that if we are to hold in such high esteem the dignity of the individual person, we must apply this to all innocent persons, to include the unborn, and this means the right to life trumps the convenience of the mother.

Also, if abortions are to be legal beyond this, there is no reason why the father cannot have a say since it is his child just as much as it is the mother's and also no reason why the parents of the mother should not have a say if she is a minor.

Unlawful abortions should be punished harshly. A long prison sentence should be the bare minimum; death should not be taken off of the table. I've never understood how people who love liberty could support the violation of another's most fundamental rights for the convenience of another; even worse is that they turn around and call that liberty.

Marriage: I don't believe in changing the longstanding definition of terms for the convenience of people who wish to live an immoral lifestyle and have it be recognized publicly. If they want to have a relationship (a same-sex couple), they certainly have every right to, but they don't have a right to have everything changed to suit them and they don't have a right to societal acceptance. Not changing the defnition of marriage to suit them does not violate their rights; they are still quite free to have a relationship and even enter into a contract with one another. A marriage license is also not a right.

I believe when it comes to the moral sphere, the state must follow the creed that states, "First, do no harm." Altering the definition of marriage in the public sphere in this way violates this. If there is any historical basis for a change to current laws on the matter, it is in regards to polygamy, since in many cultures more than one mariage was and in some cases is acceptable. My understanding is that there is a practical aspect to this that makes a change here unlikely. While I am open to getting the state out of marriage, the state does have an interest in this institution, and it has always been both religious and legal in its aspects; there is a reason why the state and the law has for ages had some level involvement in marriage.

Immigration: We need to seriously ut back on immigration levels. We also need to majorly limit immigration from Latin American countries. I think going back to the old quota system to some degree would be beneficial. I think the focus at this point should be on getting immigration from Europe, the English-speaking world, and similar places, with major emphasis on skills and education. We have more than enough unskilled people. We need to crack down hard on illegals and deport as many as it is humanly possible to do so while staying within the constraints of the law. We need to have the military at our southern border and maybe even help revive and utilize State militias for this purpose, and even turn the Border Patrol into a military branch, the Border Guard (kind of like a gendarmerie). No amnesty for illegals. Knowingly aiding and abetting illegals in their eneavors (getting a job, getting public services, identity theft, forgeries, etc.) should of course be a crime. No public benefits for illegals. Pass legislation putting a stop to anchor babies. Those who already have them, deport them and give them the option of taking the kid, putting him up for adoption, or leaving him with aguardian here; he of course could reenter as an adult if he left with his parents.

Drugs: Legalize completely at Federal level. Eliminate the DEA. Only leave importation-related restrictions/regulations in place. Leave the crux of the issue up to the States. At the State level, there should be legalization, but some regulation of the more dangerous drugs, and a continuance of banning drugs that simply make one an inherent threat to those around them, like PCP. Our approach to enforcement should not be anything close to what it has been in the so-called war on drugs (which should be ended). In schools and public health notices, drugs should of course continue to be discouraged.

Military and foreign plicy: Quite simple. Our military is a tool to pursue national interests abroad, to include national defence. If it is in our interest to go to war or to participate in an intranational conflict (which is not a war proper), so be it. If it is in our interest to have bases abroad or to have overseas territories, so be it. When it comes to geopolitics, this is not the U.S. of the 1780s. The geopolitical circumstances are vastly different. Don't believe in theories like that of blowback, but niether do I believe in things like the democratic peace theory, spreading democracy, etc., or attacking regimes solely beause of the form of government they have. It is almost never in our national interests anyways, and has proven at times to be quite detrimental, or at the least detrimental to others while not benefitting us (such as what we did after the two World Wars, policies in southern Africa, etc.).

U.S. as Christian nation: Well, we are not a Christian state in the sense that we do not have a national religion; this is actually proscribed by the Constitution. However, the large majority of Americans are Christians, our ethics have solid Christian roots (even for the majority of atheists), Christianity has played a role in the history of our nation, and most importantly (the aforementioned are mostly trivial), it is a key component of Western civilization, which our nation was at the Founding pretty close to being the epitome of what Western civilization had come up with to that point; currently we are moving backwards. I believe in prserving the great Western Tradition and that Western civilization and its course of development is the greatest thing of its kind known to man. It is worth preserving. Does this make us a Christian nation? Not exactly. But we would be wrong to simply dismiss it as well.

bigstick61
06-14-2010, 11:53 PM
And "liberal" used to mean a person who supported individual freedoms (i.e. liberty) and had nothing to do with supporting a socialist government. What's next? will the eco-socialists call themselves "conservatives" since they want to "conserve" the environment?

Well, our political terms largey arise out of abuse of terminology by the Left during the Progressive Era. The devolved classical liberals had embraced leftism for fear of being left behind and made irrelevant, while clinging to only a couple of their tenets held at the time (women's rights/liberation, opposing the death penalty, freedom below the belt, etc.). But despite having pretty much abandoned liberalism, they stubbornly clung to the term, the the rest of the right, mainly in the U.S., but to some extent in the rest of the English-speaking world, for some reason acquiesced and started calling themselves conservatives or even (later on) libertarians to differentiate themselves, despite the fact that most of them were true liberals. Some continued to and continue to call themselves liberals though (some even saying, as I do, that they are conservative liberals). Most abandoned classical liberalism though, since by moving away from a religious basis for its principles and going to things like utilitarianism classical liberals sewed the seeds for the demise of liberalism at the time. If I recall correctly, the next wave of true liberals called themselves neo-liberals and are more in keeping with the traditions of the liberals predating the classical ones.

SigSoldier
06-15-2010, 12:44 AM
Okay, I'll bite...

Abortion: The child is a person and has a right to life, same as the rest of us.

I agree with your opinion on abortion. Regardless of the circumstances the right thing to do is let that child have a chance at life even if you choose to not be a part of it. Abortion is a way for chicken ****s to get out of doing the right thing. There is a singer in a popular underground band who was the product of a rape. His fans are glad that he was given the chance to live even though many would say he deserved to never exist because of circumstances out of his control.

Your foreign policy disturbs me the most and I wonder if you notice the parallels between what you wrote and what tyrants throughout history have said to justify their hegemony.

goodlookin1
06-15-2010, 6:43 AM
The real difference is between Libertarians and those who are not conservative.

Not so sure about this last part. I see the biggest difference in the set of morals to abide by. Where conservatives traditionally hold "Judeo-Christian" values and morals (although this is largely going by the way-side now), Libertarians say "It's up to you to decide which moral compass you live by".

This is why I am still staunchly "true" conservative. I like the ideals of Libertarianism as far as the law is concerned, but unfortunately society has become so immoral that without a set of moral guidelines, it would quickly crumble. I am beginning to think we have already gone past the point of no return in this regard, however. Of course, there are many that would disagree with me due to having a different world view: It's all based on perspective....

M. D. Van Norman
06-15-2010, 8:50 AM
I think Libertarians often read their ideology into it as well even when they think they are Originalists, so nobody likes my opinions.

Good point, but as you’ve demonstrated many times, the Founders read their own differing ideologies into the Constitution as written.

M. D. Van Norman
06-15-2010, 8:56 AM
Why are you bringing it up here?

Probably because conservatives who claim to be libertarians usually aren’t.

Sinixstar
06-15-2010, 8:57 AM
So if I'm reading the argument correctly, liberals are free to read whatever they want into the constitution, and so can come out with some pretty horrible decisions based on their own personal politics. But if at some point down the road a conservative court uses originalism to set the record straight and overturn the liberal's judicial activism, that's horrible, bad, wrong, awful and the end of western civilization as we know it.

That's sort of like saying the bad guys are free to carry whatever guns they want in their efforts to rob and intimidate us, but we'd better not do the same in self defense because that would be just plain mean.

I don't buy it.

I think the author was just pointing out the pot/kettle scenario that's playing out. The 'conservatives' have been arguing against 'judicial activism' for years and years - but when put in a place to take advantage of it themselves, they jump all over it.

It's not right for either group to do it - but they both do anyways.

yellowfin
06-15-2010, 9:59 AM
I think the author was just pointing out the pot/kettle scenario that's playing out. The 'conservatives' have been arguing against 'judicial activism' for years and years - but when put in a place to take advantage of it themselves, they jump all over it.That maybe be, but largely because the 'conservatives' didn't or couldn't define more precisely what "judicial activism" was in a way that could allow for proper corrective action to proceed and inappropriate action addressed as such and squelched. Instead they simplified too much and put both sides in straitjackets, locking in the bad precedent rather than removing it. The rulings like Slaughterhouse and Cruikshank certainly should be eradicated so jumping at the chance to do so isn't something you should paint as bad.

It's not right for either group to do it - but they both do anyways.That's like what bulgron was pointing out to be wrong, equating both sides as a cop out instead of determining merit and truth.

Californio
06-15-2010, 10:15 AM
hey conservatives, what are your opinions on abortion, marriage equality, immigration, drug legalization, military actions in other countries, or the US being a "christian nation"?

Conservative is an abused word. I am a Fiscal Conservative, one of many flavors of Conservative thought. My conservative values revolve around economic issues not social ones. The word Conservative is used with much too wide a brush stroke. What do you call a Libertarian leaning fiscal Conservative with pragmatic Christian values? Way to complex to put people into nice neat boxes. Heller is about preexisting Rights, even a modern liberal should be able to see that, by reading the Founders. Either the country still believes that Natural Rights preexist Government or they don't. This is more about the big picture than guns.

jl123
06-15-2010, 10:21 AM
What do you call a Libertarian leaning fiscal Conservative with pragmatic Christian values?

It depends on if they want to force those values on others by force (of law or otherwise).

Legasat
06-15-2010, 11:14 AM
hey conservatives, what are your opinions on abortion, marriage equality, immigration, drug legalization, military actions in other countries, or the US being a "christian nation"?

Trolling are we????

yellowfin
06-15-2010, 11:50 AM
It depends on if they want to force those values on others by force (of law or otherwise). Exactly how do you propose I uphold my rights without demanding that they be respected by those who ordinarily don't? That's like attempting to enforce pacifism.

ENTHUSIAST
06-15-2010, 12:26 PM
This:
They need to point out that these "conservatives" are actually big government Neocons.

kcbrown
06-15-2010, 12:46 PM
Exactly how do you propose I uphold my rights without demanding that they be respected by those who ordinarily don't? That's like attempting to enforce pacifism.

Respecting someone else's rights is simply a matter of not interfering with that person when they exercise those rights.

Forcing values upon others by force doesn't have any real meaning unless it involves passage of laws which place restrictions on those who disagree with those restrictions, or taking other actions to achieve the equivalent result.

An example of the latter would be passage of a law forbidding homosexuals from entering into a binding social cohabitation contract (a.k.a., "marriage"). Some people believe such marriages are "wrong" and therefore wish to forbid, by force of law, others from engaging in them. Clearly, that has nothing to do with others "respecting" the rights of the believer -- the believer still has the right to believe such marriages to be wrong. But by taking action based on that belief, the believer is attempting to place restrictions on the freedom of others. The belief in question has no real-world basis, as it is strictly a religious belief -- it cannot be proven correct nor incorrect, nor can the real-world harm of the contracts in question be shown.

So it becomes a question of whether or not a group of people has the right to restrict the freedom of others only on the basis of their own unprovable beliefs.

That's vastly different from respecting someone's rights, which means respecting their freedom to exercise those rights, which means allowing them to exercise those rights without interference.

See the difference?

jl123
06-15-2010, 2:27 PM
Exactly how do you propose I uphold my rights without demanding that they be respected by those who ordinarily don't? That's like attempting to enforce pacifism.

The threat of retaliation.

stix213
06-15-2010, 2:48 PM
Can we just fast forward to the McDonald decision already???!!! :p

(stupid DVR has made me impatient)

BigDogatPlay
06-15-2010, 3:36 PM
I think the author was just pointing out the pot/kettle scenario that's playing out. The 'conservatives' have been arguing against 'judicial activism' for years and years - but when put in a place to take advantage of it themselves, they jump all over it.

FWIW... logically interpreting the law against the prism of the constitution and issuing rulings based on reason (see Terry v. Ohio) is not judicial activism.

Making an entirely new "right" out of whole cloth (see Roe v. Wade) is judicial activism.

I'm a conservative, but I respect the choice of abortion, and I can still see a big difference between the two above.

rysmithjr
06-15-2010, 3:36 PM
None of that has any room for discussion in this particular subforum.

Why are you bringing it up here?

in response to "But real conservatives are pretty indistinguishable from libertarians. I'm registered as a Libertarian but you get me a good conservative Republican and we'll agree on almost every (if not every) point. The real difference is between Libertarians and those who are not conservative."

yellowfin
06-15-2010, 4:13 PM
Respecting someone else's rights is simply a matter of not interfering with that person when they exercise those rights.

Forcing values upon others by force doesn't have any real meaning unless it involves passage of laws which place restrictions on those who disagree with those restrictions, or taking other actions to achieve the equivalent result.

An example of the latter would be passage of a law forbidding homosexuals from entering into a binding social cohabitation contract (a.k.a., "marriage"). Some people believe such marriages are "wrong" and therefore wish to forbid, by force of law, others from engaging in them. Clearly, that has nothing to do with others "respecting" the rights of the believer -- the believer still has the right to believe such marriages to be wrong. But by taking action based on that belief, the believer is attempting to place restrictions on the freedom of others. The belief in question has no real-world basis, as it is strictly a religious belief -- it cannot be proven correct nor incorrect, nor can the real-world harm of the contracts in question be shown.

So it becomes a question of whether or not a group of people has the right to restrict the freedom of others only on the basis of their own unprovable beliefs.

That's vastly different from respecting someone's rights, which means respecting their freedom to exercise those rights, which means allowing them to exercise those rights without interference.

See the difference?I see the difference, but tell the millions of faux-do-gooder leftists (and some on the other side) the difference when they think they have a right to tell other people what to do and me not doing what they tell me is somehow violating their imaginary right.

kcbrown
06-15-2010, 4:57 PM
I see the difference, but tell the millions of faux-do-gooder leftists (and some on the other side) the difference when they think they have a right to tell other people what to do and me not doing what they tell me is somehow violating their imaginary right.

Oh, well, such people don't know what rights are anyway, as evidenced by the zeal with which they attempt to place restrictions on them.

I might add that there are more than a few people, even here in this forum, who appear to be rather selective about which rights/freedoms they support and the degree to which they support them.

The dearth of people who truly support maximum freedom for all is quite disheartening, though understandable: real freedom carries the price of risk.

jeffsenpai
06-15-2010, 5:14 PM
I respect Porkins

stix213
06-15-2010, 6:26 PM
http://sfscuba.com/flame_pics/stay-on-topic-stay-on-topic.jpg

Hunt
06-15-2010, 6:36 PM
They need to point out that these "conservatives" are actually big government Neocons.

+500 I have seen nothing about Conservatives or Tea party folk make me believe they really care about true freedom for others. Just like the cultish Liberal they want their belief system codified into law? That is not freedom.
They want to own guns for self protection but not someone they don't like? Freedom for me but none for thee.


challenge your paradigm if you dare http://freetalklive.com/

jl123
06-15-2010, 6:46 PM
+500 I have seen nothing about Conservatives or Tea party folk make me believe they really care about true freedom for others.

From what I've seen there are two factions of the Tea Party:

the angry neo-cons who get most of the press because MSM likes to demonize them and Fox News agrees with them. they co-opted the movement. Palin supporters.

the libertarians/liberty minded who actually got the ball rolling before the last election and are less visible unfortunately. Ron Paul supporters.

I just hope some of the libertarians can influence a few of the neos in the crowd.

Legasat
06-15-2010, 7:13 PM
Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have NOTHING to do with the Tea Parties, and nothing to do with this discussion.

The Tea Parties I have been to, and the many people I have had conversations with whilst there, is all about following the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.

Now back the real discussion: a deferential approach to gun control is how we got here in the first place. What we need from the Courts is total affirmation of the 2A, with the ability to restrict only in the most extreme circumstances (mental illness, etc), just like the First Amendment.

To me, that is something both Conservatives and Libertarians should be able to agree on.

jl123
06-15-2010, 7:39 PM
Ron Paul and Sarah Palin have NOTHING to do with the Tea Parties, and nothing to do with this discussion.

The Tea Parties I have been to, and the many people I have had conversations with whilst there, is all about following the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment.


Funny this is what RP has been saying for 30 years..........so I would say he IS representative of that portion.......and Sarah Palin is representative of the faction we see on TV.....Angry neo-cons.

bulgron
06-15-2010, 8:12 PM
The dearth of people who truly support maximum freedom for all is quite disheartening, though understandable: real freedom carries the price of risk.

I've seen a lot of guarantees written into the US and state constitutions, but somehow I've never found the place where we're guaranteed to be safe.

It must be one of those new rights that the Left "discovered" in the document.

Mulay El Raisuli
06-16-2010, 7:01 AM
http://sfscuba.com/flame_pics/stay-on-topic-stay-on-topic.jpg


I laughed because this is as funny as hell.

Then I cried because this card isn't played nearly often enough.


The Raisuli

Sinixstar
06-16-2010, 9:15 AM
FWIW... logically interpreting the law against the prism of the constitution and issuing rulings based on reason (see Terry v. Ohio) is not judicial activism.

Making an entirely new "right" out of whole cloth (see Roe v. Wade) is judicial activism.

I'm a conservative, but I respect the choice of abortion, and I can still see a big difference between the two above.

Agreed.

I wasn't saying the author was necessarily right or wrong - just that the "pot/kettle" argument is the point they were trying to make.

nicki
06-16-2010, 10:16 AM
Conservatives appear to blindly want to protect old court precedents, even if they are absolutely horrible and go against the actual values espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights regarding that we are all created equal and that we have inalienable rights.

America was predominately a Christian nation when it was founded, but the Chirstians recognized that mixing state/religion together was a disaster which is why the constitution specifically created seperation of Church and State.

They wanted to avoid the religious wars and persecution that plagued Europe for Centuries.

The reality is over the years the US Supreme court has made some really outrageous rulings that if they were being ruled on with no prior cases today, there would be no way they would be ruled the same way that they were in the past.

Some travesties of justice that come to mind that if given a chance, the courts should bury are.

Dredd Scott, uphled slavery.

Slaughterhouse cases and Crunshiak effectively gutted the equal protection rights that the 14th amendment gave to the newly freed slaves and although they didn't return the freedmen back to slavery, it put set them up so that they weren't much better off.

US vs Miller Set the stage for ending our 2nd amendment rights till the Heller case came along.

Wickard and Raich: The first case expanded Federal power in our lives by claiming everything we do in our lives is interstate commerce, therefore the Feds have jurisdiction.

So much for "Limited Government".

Raich was an attempt to reign in, but since it was a "Medical Marijuana" case and it could open the door for some people to actually legally get "High", the SCOTUS ruled against Raich 6 to 3.

Scalia and Kennedy sided with the liberal wing to protect big government.
Thomas, Rhenquist and O'Connor sided with the Constitution.

Freedom is a package deal and that means you have to tolerate freedoms that you may not like.

We have problems today because both the Liberals and Conservatives want to crap rights they don't like.

My view as a pragmatic Libertarian is I will try to work with people on things I agree on and agree to disagree on other issues.

Hopefully my skin thickness will hold up for a few more decades.

Nicki

navyinrwanda
06-16-2010, 1:36 PM
I laughed because this is as funny as hell.

Then I cried because this card isn't played nearly often enough.


The Raisuli

No kidding.

The original article (http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/08/conservatives-v-libertarians/) (how many have actually read it* in its entirety?) focused exclusively on “the proper role of the (Article III) courts” in American law, and not on any particular individual's “opinions on abortion, marriage equality, immigration, drug legalization, military actions in other countries, or the U.S. being a ‘christian nation.’”

I thought this was the “2nd Amendment Politics and Laws” forum — not the bull**** lounge.

*Or Judge Harvie Wilkinson's critique (http://www.virginialawreview.org/articles.php?article=239) of Heller or Alan Gura's response (http://uclalawreview.org/?p=91) to Judge Wilkinson?

yellowfin
06-16-2010, 2:04 PM
To add to what Nikki appropriately covered, US v Carolene Products made for a disastrous pairing with the Wickard case, as it established rational basis and destroyed the 9th Amendment.

Old Timer
06-17-2010, 5:43 AM
hey conservatives, what are your opinions on abortion,Up to the individual states. marriage equality,Up to the individual states. immigration,Close the borders until we have full control, and the 20,000,000 present illegals have been dealt with. drug legalization,Up to the individual states. military actions in other countries,Avoid interventionist policies, but protect US and allied interests abroad. or the US being a "christian nation"?The establishment of any religion by the government is unconstitutional. All religions are politically on even ground (theoretically). No religious argument should ever be used to further a political cause.

IGOTDIRT4U
06-17-2010, 6:27 AM
So if I'm reading the argument correctly, liberals are free to read whatever they want into the constitution, and so can come out with some pretty horrible decisions based on their own personal politics. But if at some point down the road a conservative court uses originalism to set the record straight and overturn the liberal's judicial activism, that's horrible, bad, wrong, awful and the end of western civilization as we know it.



That's what I get from the article. A conservative court's "originalism" is viewed by some as "judicial activism". Huh, go figure. Sounds more like calling someone that voted for someone else other than Obama a 'racist'.

faterikcartman
06-17-2010, 9:24 AM
It would be hard for me to take the time to read the whole thing and take it seriously with the author claiming SCOTUS has a conservative majority.

Moreover, the comments in the excerpt stating originalists undermine themselves when they overturn precedent is absurd. What if the precedents were based on unconstitutional reasoning?

I could go on and on. Sigh.

yellowfin
06-17-2010, 9:35 AM
So if I'm reading the argument correctly, liberals are free to read whatever they want into the constitution, and so can come out with some pretty horrible decisions based on their own personal politics. But if at some point down the road a conservative court uses originalism to set the record straight and overturn the liberal's judicial activism, that's horrible, bad, wrong, awful and the end of western civilization as we know it.

That's sort of like saying the bad guys are free to carry whatever guns they want in their efforts to rob and intimidate us, but we'd better not do the same in self defense because that would be just plain mean.

I don't buy it.If it weren't for double standards, they'd have no standards at all.