I understand where you're coming from much better now. Here's my question then: To be "An American", you are expected to uphold the founding laws and principles of the country and its laws, right? So does that make liberals wanting to circumvent parts of the constitution not Americans? Food for thought.
You're inventing things that are not true here. To be "an American" only stipulates that you were either born in or earned a citizenship in America. American prisoners remain American even despite failing to 'uphold the founding laws'. This expectation is clearly not a part of being 'an American' considering that it is expressly given to police officers, judges and politicians. If the demand to uphold the Constitution was an expectation of being born in America, it would be wholly unnecessary to demand such an oath before become a public servant.
The description of someone who holds the Constitution in high esteem is not 'an American' it is a 'Constitutionalist'. This is the basis for the entire American legal system, that for a law to remain on the books, it needs to be tested against the rules established in the Constitution. However, James Madison did go to the trouble of writing an amendment process for the Constitution for a reason. If you're going to talk about the founders, you should start by reading a biography about Madison. The most brilliant lawyer of the modern era.
(I'm sure you're about to label me as a lib boat te terk er gerns, but I actually oppose the nonsense Feinstein has been saying.)
Also annoying: The eeeevil conservatives that it's so trendy to villainize these days oppose many programs and laws floated by the Government because they contradict the founding law of our country (the constitution), and are rarely racist. In fact, real conservatives are the ones who fought to end slavery and supported the Civil Rights Act (opposed vehemently by Democrat Robert Byrd), yet for some reason these conservative caricatures are always white racists. Sure there are some dumb hillbillies that are conservative racists, but Icalso know plenty of well educated and extremely liberal folks who will send a check to the NAACP but wouldn't DREAM of having a black man watch their house while they're gone.As far back as you can go in American history, it is littered with examples of the Democratic party fighting against equal rights. When did the public decide to ignore history and proclaim that conservatism and racism go hand in hand?
You do not have the understanding of American history you think you do. Because in 1850, the Republican party was the liberal, urban Northeast party and the Democrats were conservative, rural Southerners. That's why the conservative Democratic (Jacksonian) south rebelled and attempted secession in order to hold onto their slaves. The Republican liberals expanded the role of federal government and limited state power more than any administration in history (remember, they called him 'King' Lincoln as an epithet, not an honorific). And it was these Radical Republicans who led the abolitionist charge. It was this way for the better part of a century, until the Roosevelts attracted the labour unions and built small Democratic strongholds in the north, relying on poor Northerners and rural Southerners for votes over the 'elitist Republicans'. Even until the 60s it remained largely this way until Barry Goldwater, another person you should probably read about if you think you know a lot about conservative politics, united the social conservative southern Democrats (like Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Zell Miller) with the fiscal conservative northern and Western Republicans to form what we know as the modern conservative platform (leaving Democrats with the urban North, labour and social liberals). He ultimately lost that election, and conservative Barry Goldwater had to fight against liberal Lyndon B. Johnson's Civil Rights Act, alongside those Southern conservative pro-segregation Democrats. It was something he would live to regret, as by the time he was reaching the terminus of his political life, he had seen his staunchly libertarian and fiscal conservative party overrun with the religious right, declaring that his party was now ran by and for crazy people.
You seem to have this idea that the Republicans were always conservative, and the Democrats always liberal, and it's simply unfounded in history. I love history by the way, so when I see people profoundly misunderstand it like so it's terribly frustrating.
Log in to comment