Conservatives Are (Mostly) Not Libertarians

philly rabbit said:
It didn't get the majority it needed, no.

So if the southern states had to vote for it in order to get back into the union, how does that make it constitutional?

I thought the southern states never left the union in the first place.
Click to expand...

Where is your proof it did not pass in congress? Are you arguing that it failed in the House Senate or both?

Who says they did not leave the union?

No matter what you argue the 14th is a recognized part of the Constitution.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Where is your proof it did not pass in congress? Are you arguing that it failed in the House Senate or both?

Who says they did not leave the union?

No matter what you argue the 14th is a recognized part of the Constitution.
Click to expand...


I already told you:

Where were the Democrats in congress when this thing was ratified?

It didn't get the 2/3 majority vote it needed to get to be ratified.

The southern states were forced to vote for it in order to get back into the union as a condition after they were told that they never left the damn union in the first place.
 
philly rabbit said:
The libertarian cause is killing itself on the drugs issue.

Leave legalizing to the different states and decriminalize drug usage federally. The people in the states should determine drugs being legal or not and using something like pot should be no greater a crime than a nickel card game.
Click to expand...

Go back to complaining about losing the Civil War, bitch.
 
philly rabbit said:
Batshit crazy?

Did the 14th amendment get the necessary votes in congress for it to be ratified?

I understand that the 14th trumped amendments 1 through 10 for you lefties over states rights but how was it not unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Seriously, buy a dictionary.
 
Professor Baxter said:
IMO, Krugman gets this one (mostly) right. Stopped clock?

Conservatives DO NOT share libertarian ideas on free markets. They only care about privilege and getting handouts from the state for well to do white Christians.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/17/conservatives-are-mostly-not-libertarians/?_r=1&

...most conservatives are not libertarians, even if they like to use libertarian rhetoric now and then.


Think about it: the modern Republican party may be the party of deregulation and low taxes, but it’s also the party of social illiberalism. Someone like Rick Santorum firmly believes that the government has no right to tell business owners what they can do in the workplace, but has every right to tell ordinary citizens what they can do in the bedroom. William Buckley’s God and Man at Yale was in large part a diatribe against the notion that colleges were teaching students about unemployment and how to fight it; but what Buckley wanted was, in effect, for those colleges to get back to their proper role, which was religious indoctrination. In its heyday National Review was a staunch supporter of free markets; but it was also a staunch supporter of Jim Crow — which wasn’t just about the right of white business owners to discriminate against blacks, it was about a system of laws designed to protect white privilege.


All of this makes no sense if you think of liberalism versus conservatism as a simple argument about the size and role of the state. But it makes perfect sense if you follow Corey Robin, who sees it as being all about the protection of traditional hierarchy:


For that is what conservatism is: a meditation on, and theoretical rendition of, the felt experience of having power, seeing it threatened, and trying to win it back.
Click to expand...


conservative: conserving what is in their perceived best interests.


the problem with conservatives is they are now blind and will try to conserve whatever they are told to try and conserve by the top tier.


Cons are a lost cause.


Libertarians are a little better but they still back half science and back historically failed ideas.

the right in this country has gone insane
 
philly rabbit said:
I already told you:

Where were the Democrats in congress when this thing was ratified?

It didn't get the 2/3 majority vote it needed to get to be ratified.

The southern states were forced to vote for it in order to get back into the union as a condition after they were told that they never left the damn union in the first place.
Click to expand...

Does the Constitution say that there must be a certain number of Democrats present in congress before an amendment can pass?

Again, ratification is not done by congress.

Your argument is just a chain of non sequiturs, nonsense and misinformation. That is typical of conspiracy theories. You don't know what you are talking about.

You don't want the 14th to be Constitutional. But like it or not, it is.
 
The problem is the co-mingling of the libertarians and the GOP, a problem I trace back to Ron Paul having to run as a republican because there is no recognized status for any third party, especially with regards to the media. Plenty of intelligent dems were interesting in Dr. Paul's ideas initially (not so much any more, as he is clearly suffering from a degenerative brain disease at this point).

Rand is an arrogant asshole though he did prove some worth with his sole filibuster move, but he is garnering little if any support from the left with his extreme right stances in some areas.

The situation is this, Libertarians must, for the good of the party and the movement, denounce social conservatism on every level and emerge completely independent of the GOP.
The libertarian party will never be a national force as long as the perception of the party repels the majority of liberals, as it does now, due to the intermingling of TP, GOP and social conservative ideologies.
 
philly rabbit said:
Is that so?

Tell me how it was ratified?

How many Democrats were in congress when it was ratified and what was used as a bribe to allow the southern states remittance into the union?

Did it get the necessary majority vote?
Click to expand...

It was ratified by 3/4 of the states. While most Southern states did not support it, it nevertheless was ratified. Even if you don't like the politics that were behind the ratification the reality is 3/4 of the states ratified the reconstruction Amendments. The Constitution doesn't say that it is invalid if there were politics involved, only that 3/4 of the states must ratify it to make it part of the Constitution.

Whether or not you think it should be there, or that it was "unconstitutional" before it was ratified, it is now part of the actual constitution, exactly as much as the first ten Amendments we so readily praise. (You should read the politics behind that one, it was more difficult than you think to get those added.)
 
Damocles said:
It was ratified by 3/4 of the states. While most Southern states did not support it, it nevertheless was ratified. Even if you don't like the politics that were behind the ratification the reality is 3/4 of the states ratified the reconstruction Amendments. The Constitution doesn't say that it is invalid if there were politics involved, only that 3/4 of the states must ratify it to make it part of the Constitution.

Whether or not you think it should be there, or that it was "unconstitutional" before it was ratified, it is now part of the actual constitution, exactly as much as the first ten Amendments we so readily praise. (You should read the politics behind that one, it was more difficult than you think to get those added.)
Click to expand...


......... with no Democrats in congress.

So if the southern states never left the union, why did they have to vote for it in order to get back in the union that they allegedly never left?

It wasn't politics, it was what the constitution stated what was necessary to ratify an amendment. You know damn well that if the Democrats were in congress which they weren't, it would have never passed. They weren't there because they never left.

That's according to your logic.
 
Last edited:
Legal scholar Gene Healy has made a powerful argument in favor of abolishing the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the US Constitution. When a fair vote was taken on it in 1865, in the aftermath of the War for Southern Independence, it was rejected by the Southern states and all the border states. Failing to secure the necessary three-fourths of the states, the Republican party, which controlled Congress, passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867 which placed the entire South under military rule.

The purpose of this, according to one Republican congressman, was to coerce Southern legislators to vote for the amendment "at the point of a bayonet." President Andrew Johnson called this tactic "absolute despotism," the likes of which had not been exercised by any British monarch "for more than 500 years." For his outspokenness Johnson was impeached by the Republican Congress.

The South eventually voted to ratify the amendment, after which two Northern states-Ohio and New Jersey-withdrew support because of their disgust with Republican party tyranny. The Republicans just ignored this and declared the amendment valid despite their failure to secure the constitutionally-required three-fourths majority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top