Social Conservatives: Just a few questions

[Stunt]

The US government has just come off a huge election and a lot of fingers have been pointing to the religious right for putting Bush over the top. There's no denying that Bush DID reap the benifits of social conservatives this time around.

I therefore want to ask these people who did vote Bush or would have due to moral or social issues a couple questions:

Bush has been in power for over 4 years now, what policies has he implemented to show his socially conservative outlook?

What will he implement that will give you the satisfaction of voting for him?

If no policies have or are going to be developed do you feel used as it was a topic that had zero effect on actual policy?

Besides social issues, what republican values parallel your belief system?

Also, look at the democrat platform, do their values parallel your belief system?

So have at it...enlighten me, because i've been having a tough time understanding the Social Conservative mindset.

 

[slyedog]

just pull your head out of the sand. its all there for you to see.

 

[Steeplerot]

There is none they stand up for their bush-boi just like the local football team or their favorite pro-wrestler.
The part you don't get is there is no thinking about the issues it is counterproductive to the repugs agenda. (and unpatriotic to boot)

 

[CycloWizard]

Social issues are not typically decided on 'policy' but by the courts (at least, this is how the progression towards social liberalism has progressed, whereas the social conservative agenda was promoted through the legislature, which is the proper procedure). Thus, to enable a socially conservative agenda, judges and justices must be replaced with those who favor a socially conservative viewpoint.

Two cases come to mind: homosexual marriage and abortion. Every state had laws banning abortion prior to Roe v Wade. Most (if not all) states had/have laws banning homosexual marriage. These laws have been enacted through legislation, which is the proper form of policy enactment. Liberal-leaning courts have effectively bypassed legislation by declaring such legislation unconstitutional using spurious (at best) interpretations of the constitution.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Social issues are not typically decided on 'policy' but by the courts (at least, this is how the progression towards social liberalism has progressed, whereas the social conservative agenda was promoted through the legislature, which is the proper procedure). Thus, to enable a socially conservative agenda, judges and justices must be replaced with those who favor a socially conservative viewpoint.

Two cases come to mind: homosexual marriage and abortion. Every state had laws banning abortion prior to Roe v Wade. Most (if not all) states had/have laws banning homosexual marriage. These laws have been enacted through legislation, which is the proper form of policy enactment. Liberal-leaning courts have effectively bypassed legislation by declaring such legislation unconstitutional using spurious (at best) interpretations of the constitution.

Actually, court systems are in place partly to ensure that minority rights are never trumped by majority votes. That's the difference between direct and constitutional democracy (one of the differences at any rate).

The proper way to define social policy is through legislation which does not conflict with your constitution - but in many of your states, lawmakers, and even public opinion directly conflict with protected rights. Therefore there is a continuing cycle of attempts to legislate rights out of existence using progressively more obscure language, and the courts consistently throw out the bad laws.

Sadly, not many states (or countries - Canada is still trying to deal with gay marriage, marajuana, and even abortion) have politicians with enough courage to normalize the situation.

Say, instead of banning abortions altogether, and having the law thrown out, a mandatory program of counselling before an abortion, outlawing second trimester abortions except for seerious health reasons, limiting women to one 'free' abortion before they have some serious questions to answer if they want another one, etc.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Actually, court systems are in place partly to ensure that minority rights are never trumped by majority votes. That's the difference between direct and constitutional democracy (one of the differences at any rate).

The proper way to define social policy is through legislation which does not conflict with your constitution - but in many of your states, lawmakers, and even public opinion directly conflict with protected rights. Therefore there is a continuing cycle of attempts to legislate rights out of existence using progressively more obscure language, and the courts consistently throw out the bad laws.

Sadly, not many states (or countries - Canada is still trying to deal with gay marriage, marajuana, and even abortion) have politicians with enough courage to normalize the situation.

Say, instead of banning abortions altogether, and having the law thrown out, a mandatory program of counselling before an abortion, outlawing second trimester abortions except for seerious health reasons, limiting women to one 'free' abortion before they have some serious questions to answer if they want another one, etc.

Actually, court systems are in place to uphold the Constitution, not legislate rights or anything else. Of course, the courts should always uphold the rights of the minority - as they exist in the Constitution. Legislation existing in ALL states at the time of an amendment's passage is a good indication of the true spirit of said amendment. Unfortunately, courts have often ruled contrary to the spirit of the law through completely absurd verbatim translations. In the case of abortion, the USSC legislated rights out of existence through just such a translation. I'm not familiar enough with what the Constitution says regarding homosexual marriage to say one way or the other whether the courts have acted appropriately or not.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Actually, court systems are in place to uphold the Constitution, not legislate rights or anything else. Of course, the courts should always uphold the rights of the minority - as they exist in the Constitution. Legislation existing in ALL states at the time of an amendment's passage is a good indication of the true spirit of said amendment. Unfortunately, courts have often ruled contrary to the spirit of the law through completely absurd verbatim translations. In the case of abortion, the USSC legislated rights out of existence through just such a translation. I'm not familiar enough with what the Constitution says regarding homosexual marriage to say one way or the other whether the courts have acted appropriately or not.

So on the one hand strict verbatim is bad, but on the other hand, if the constitution says nothing about homosexuals, they shouldn't be protected?

Legislation is normally a good measure of public opinion at the time a law is passed. According to that, the 'spirit' of the constitution should allow blacks to still have 2/3rds of a vote and sit at the back of the bus. SOrry, your argument is not valid, nor convincing.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So on the one hand strict verbatim is bad, but on the other hand, if the constitution says nothing about homosexuals, they shouldn't be protected?

Legislation is normally a good measure of public opinion at the time a law is passed. According to that, the 'spirit' of the constitution should allow blacks to still have 2/3rds of a vote and sit at the back of the bus. SOrry, your argument is not valid, nor convincing.

I never said anything of the sort, so kindly stop putting words in my mouth - it's not a valid substitute for an argument. Homosexuals receive the same protections as everyone else under the Constitution. You'll note that heterosexuals aren't mentioned either, nor marriage.

Legislation existing at the time an amendment is passed is a good indication that the two were not meant to conflict. Sorry, but you misunderstood the argument.

 

[DealMonkey]

The duty of the judicial branch includes: Interpreting our laws, deciding how our laws apply in specific cases and determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. Anyone who misinterprets these acts as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," as generally decried by social conservatives when their social conservative views aren't upheld by the courts, simply doesn't understand the duties of the judicial branch. Checks and balances people, checks and balances.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So on the one hand strict verbatim is bad, but on the other hand, if the constitution says nothing about homosexuals, they shouldn't be protected?

Legislation is normally a good measure of public opinion at the time a law is passed. According to that, the 'spirit' of the constitution should allow blacks to still have 2/3rds of a vote and sit at the back of the bus. SOrry, your argument is not valid, nor convincing.

I never said anything of the sort, so kindly stop putting words in my mouth - it's not a valid substitute for an argument. Homosexuals receive the same protections as everyone else under the Constitution. You'll note that heterosexuals aren't mentioned either, nor marriage.

Legislation existing at the time an amendment is passed is a good indication that the two were not meant to conflict. Sorry, but you misunderstood the argument.

I'm well aware that the majority of Americans would like to ban gay marriage, and that any legislation or amendments passed are likely to do so. This doesn't mean that legislation or those amendments will not conflict with the existing constitution, and it wouldn't be the first time that social progress in the United States has been driven by a court willing to stand by the protected rights in your constitution, against the will of the people.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The duty of the judicial branch includes: Interpreting our laws, deciding how our laws apply in specific cases and determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. Anyone who misinterprets these acts as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," as generally decried by social conservatives when their social conservative views aren't upheld by the courts, simply doesn't understand the duties of the judicial branch. Checks and balances people, checks and balances.

Well said. :beer:

The judiciary is one of the three branches of government and has an important role in the checks and balances system. There is a reason why the US Supreme Court is the final say in determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. If not, we would have a lot of lop sided laws which are generally a knee jerk reaction to events whether local or national.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The duty of the judicial branch includes: Interpreting our laws, deciding how our laws apply in specific cases and determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. Anyone who misinterprets these acts as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," as generally decried by social conservatives when their social conservative views aren't upheld by the courts, simply doesn't understand the duties of the judicial branch. Checks and balances people, checks and balances.

yeah, a lot of folks seem to forget the interpretation aspect and then come up with that loaded and BS "legistlating from the bench" buzz-phrase rather than actually contemplate what they are saying.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
The duty of the judicial branch includes: Interpreting our laws, deciding how our laws apply in specific cases and determining the constitutionality of laws passed by our legislative bodies. Anyone who misinterprets these acts as "legislating from the bench" or "judicial activism," as generally decried by social conservatives when their social conservative views aren't upheld by the courts, simply doesn't understand the duties of the judicial branch. Checks and balances people, checks and balances.

Anyone who says what you just said hasn't read this. If you want, I can tell you what it says and why it is not judicial review, but effectively legislation.

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I'm well aware that the majority of Americans would like to ban gay marriage, and that any legislation or amendments passed are likely to do so. This doesn't mean that legislation or those amendments will not conflict with the existing constitution, and it wouldn't be the first time that social progress in the United States has been driven by a court willing to stand by the protected rights in your constitution, against the will of the people.

It matters not whether a Constitutional amendment conflicts with the existing Constitution (as long as the amendment and constitution are on the same level - i.e. state or federal). That's the whole idea of an amendment - you make something constitutional or unconstitutional. I was speaking more towards abortion anyway because, as I said, I don't know much about how the Constitution might deal with homosexual marriage.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
It matters not whether a Constitutional amendment conflicts with the existing Constitution (as long as the amendment and constitution are on the same level - i.e. state or federal). That's the whole idea of an amendment - you make something constitutional or unconstitutional. I was speaking more towards abortion anyway because, as I said, I don't know much about how the Constitution might deal with homosexual marriage.

Of course it matters - if the constitution says two conflicting things, how is the USSC supposed to decide a case?

As for abortion, yes I think an amendment could be made that would clearly and in a non-conflicting way ban abortion. If I were a voter in the US, I think it's the only time I might vote on a single issue, against the party or parties supporting such a measure.

As I've said, within the context of legal abortions, I think there's a great deal of clarification possible, and most of it could and should restrict the timeline for abortions, create mandatory counselling, etc.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Of course it matters - if the constitution says two conflicting things, how is the USSC supposed to decide a case?

It goes with the more recent. I highly recommend reading the amendment regarding prohibition. Then, read the next amendment repealing that one.

As for abortion, yes I think an amendment could be made that would clearly and in a non-conflicting way ban abortion. If I were a voter in the US, I think it's the only time I might vote on a single issue, against the party or parties supporting such a measure.

There's no need for an amendment banning abortion. It's already unconstitutional with the Constitution as-is. The fact that all fifty states disallowed abortion, then passed the Fourteenth Amendment is indicative of this fact, yet the USSC used this very amendment in Roe v Wade to allow abortion.

As I've said, within the context of legal abortions, I think there's a great deal of clarification possible, and most of it could and should restrict the timeline for abortions, create mandatory counselling, etc.

I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but this is one issue where no compromise is acceptable. I can tell you why if you're really interested, but gotta go to work now.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Of course it matters - if the constitution says two conflicting things, how is the USSC supposed to decide a case?

It goes with the more recent. I highly recommend reading the amendment regarding prohibition. Then, read the next amendment repealing that one.

As for abortion, yes I think an amendment could be made that would clearly and in a non-conflicting way ban abortion. If I were a voter in the US, I think it's the only time I might vote on a single issue, against the party or parties supporting such a measure.

There's no need for an amendment banning abortion. It's already unconstitutional with the Constitution as-is. The fact that all fifty states disallowed abortion, then passed the Fourteenth Amendment is indicative of this fact, yet the USSC used this very amendment in Roe v Wade to allow abortion.

As I've said, within the context of legal abortions, I think there's a great deal of clarification possible, and most of it could and should restrict the timeline for abortions, create mandatory counselling, etc.

I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but this is one issue where no compromise is acceptable. I can tell you why if you're really interested, but gotta go to work now.

No I understand why - the difference between our positions is not one that can reach a compromise, and I recognize that 'making the best' of an unacceptable situation isn't really the best at all. In fact, this suggestion isn't really a matter of compromise - I honestly find 2nd trimester abortions, freely accessed repeated abortions, and a few other abortion liberties to be over the top, and unecessary from the perspective of protecting women's rights.

I feel the same way with the gay marriage / civil union 'compromise'. From where I'm standing, it's not a compromise.

For the constitution though - does it 'go with the most recent' or does it have to repeal language specifically? Either is possible, thinking about it logically, and I'm no expert on American constitutional law.

 

[Moonbeam]

CycloWizard is of course correct. There can be no compromise of abortion. The emotionally imagined and projected rights of an individual in potential, a fetus that is simply a life-form on the level of an amoeba or hydra, or thousand year old duck egg people eat for breakfast in China cannot be allowed to preempt the real and actualized rights of women. We cannot enslave women because some people are not able to rise above their fantasies, imagining themselves to be the victims or some Satanist's abortion vacuum cleaner. These fantasies are created and sustained by the emotionally ignorant, unconscious individuals who have no introspective capacity and do not realize that what they project is happening to the fetus is what, emotionally, happened to them as children. We all feel aborted, don't know it, are terrified to know that we do, and remain unconscious all our lives of the massive trauma we all died from in childhood. Instead we uselessly waste our lives trying to change 'our there' when the cure can only be had 'in here'. In order to heal you have to re-suffer consciously what has already happened to you.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Of course it matters - if the constitution says two conflicting things, how is the USSC supposed to decide a case?

It goes with the more recent. I highly recommend reading the amendment regarding prohibition. Then, read the next amendment repealing that one.

As for abortion, yes I think an amendment could be made that would clearly and in a non-conflicting way ban abortion. If I were a voter in the US, I think it's the only time I might vote on a single issue, against the party or parties supporting such a measure.

There's no need for an amendment banning abortion. It's already unconstitutional with the Constitution as-is. The fact that all fifty states disallowed abortion, then passed the Fourteenth Amendment is indicative of this fact, yet the USSC used this very amendment in Roe v Wade to allow abortion.

As I've said, within the context of legal abortions, I think there's a great deal of clarification possible, and most of it could and should restrict the timeline for abortions, create mandatory counselling, etc.

I appreciate your willingness to compromise, but this is one issue where no compromise is acceptable. I can tell you why if you're really interested, but gotta go to work now.

No I understand why - the difference between our positions is not one that can reach a compromise, and I recognize that 'making the best' of an unacceptable situation isn't really the best at all. In fact, this suggestion isn't really a matter of compromise - I honestly find 2nd trimester abortions, freely accessed repeated abortions, and a few other abortion liberties to be over the top, and unecessary from the perspective of protecting women's rights.

I feel the same way with the gay marriage / civil union 'compromise'. From where I'm standing, it's not a compromise.

For the constitution though - does it 'go with the most recent' or does it have to repeal language specifically? Either is possible, thinking about it logically, and I'm no expert on American constitutional law.

It doesn't just go by the most recent language. Conflicting language has to specifically be repealed.

 

[Gen Stonewall]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CycloWizard is of course correct. There can be no compromise of abortion. The emotionally imagined and projected rights of an individual in potential, a fetus that is simply a life-form on the level of an amoeba or hydra, or thousand year old duck egg people eat for breakfast in China cannot be allowed to preempt the real and actualized rights of women. We cannot enslave women because some people are not able to rise above their fantasies, imagining themselves to be the victims or some Satanist's abortion vacuum cleaner. These fantasies are created and sustained by the emotionally ignorant, unconscious individuals who have no introspective capacity and do not realize that what they project is happening to the fetus is what, emotionally, happened to them as children. We all feel aborted, don't know it, are terrified to know that we do, and remain unconscious all our lives of the massive trauma we all died from in childhood. Instead we uselessly waste our lives trying to change 'our there' when the cure can only be had 'in here'. In order to heal you have to re-suffer consciously what has already happened to you.

What criteria have to be met in order to consider the termination of a human life murder rather than a right that must be protected?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: The Third Reich
CycloWizard is of course correct. There can be no compromise of holocost. The emotionally imagined and projected rights of an individual in potential, a Jew that is simply a life-form on the level of an amoeba or hydra, or thousand year old duck egg people eat for breakfast in China cannot be allowed to preempt the real and actualized rights of women. We cannot enslave Germans because some people are not able to rise above their fantasies, imagining themselves to be the victims or some Satanist's holocost vacuum cleaner. These fantasies are created and sustained by the emotionally ignorant, unconscious individuals who have no introspective capacity and do not realize that what they project is happening to the Jew is what, emotionally, happened to them as children. We all feel burned alive, don't know it, are terrified to know that we do, and remain unconscious all our lives of the massive trauma we all died from in childhood. Instead we uselessly waste our lives trying to change 'our there' when the cure can only be had 'in here'. In order to heal you have to re-suffer consciously what has already happened to you.

Your dehumanization rhetoric has been used before.

 

[imported_tss4]

who said anything about terminating 'a human' life?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: tss4
who said anything about terminating 'a human' life?

Exactly. Dehumanize it to make exterminating it more palletable.

 

[imported_tss4]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tss4
who said anything about terminating 'a human' life?

Exactly. Dehumanize it to make exterminating it more palletable.

Escuse me? Who died and made you god? Dp you get to define exclusively what qualifies as a human person? Are you an expert in biology? Why are you stopping there? Why isn't birth control of any sort dehumanizing? Its still human genetic material that you're ensuring the death of you cold blooded murderer! We should throw women that drink while pregnant or smoke in jail. They're harming and potentially killing a human life. I should get to claim the unborn fetus as a dependent for taxes since its a human life dependent on me (even if it doesn't come to term due to natural abortion). Are you ready to discuss the topic rationally or do you still want to throw mud?



Everything depends on when it changed form being human cells to "a person".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
CycloWizard is of course correct. There can be no compromise of abortion. The emotionally imagined and projected rights of an individual in potential, a fetus that is simply a life-form on the level of an amoeba or hydra, or thousand year old duck egg people eat for breakfast in China cannot be allowed to preempt the real and actualized rights of women. We cannot enslave women because some people are not able to rise above their fantasies, imagining themselves to be the victims or some Satanist's abortion vacuum cleaner. These fantasies are created and sustained by the emotionally ignorant, unconscious individuals who have no introspective capacity and do not realize that what they project is happening to the fetus is what, emotionally, happened to them as children. We all feel aborted, don't know it, are terrified to know that we do, and remain unconscious all our lives of the massive trauma we all died from in childhood. Instead we uselessly waste our lives trying to change 'our there' when the cure can only be had 'in here'. In order to heal you have to re-suffer consciously what has already happened to you.

What criteria have to be met in order to consider the termination of a human life murder rather than a right that must be protected?

Hehe, isn't the question 'What criteria have to be met before you can demand slavery from another?' Every woman constitutionally has ownership of her body. You want to take that away. It is you who should provide 'criteria', not me.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: tss4
who said anything about terminating 'a human' life?

Exactly. Dehumanize it to make exterminating it more palletable.

As per my previous post, it is you who begin the process of dehumanizing when you demand of another person, half the human race, that she and they become slaves to your fantasy. You humanize what is not to dehumanize what is.