Justice Souter to retire from SCOTUS?

[JollyRoger]

And today?

We get a flurry of proposed constitutional amendments to expand the power of the government.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is not that one wants big government and the other wants small government, it is that liberals want government to protect people and the conservatives want government to control people.

How true, especially if you substitute the word 'neocon' for "what convervatives have sadly become over the past few decades".

 

[Cutlass]

I don't see how small government/non government control describes either party.

It doesn't. What's more, it never really did. It's one of the enduring myths of American politics that there ever was a "small government" movement at any point after the ink was dry on the Constitution. Still, most of the FFs came close than anyone since. But when they were in power they never let that stop them from doing what they wanted.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

There was certainly a push towards small government under Thomas Jefferson, but Hamiltonians were still there to oppose it. There hasn't been much hope for shrinking government since Andrew Jackson, although Coolidge did move in that direction.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That is simply not true. It is only recently (last 30 years or so) that conservatism has been perverted by the neocons to mean low tax / high government spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

 

[Cutlass]

That is simply not true. It is only recently (last 30 years or so) that conservatism has been perverted by the neocons to mean low tax / high government spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism

At the federal level. Prior to the Civil Rights movement conservatives were big government at the state and local levels and small government at the federal level. In fact the Civil Rights movement was substantially about reining in conservative state and local big government activism.

 

[Gooblah]

Yeah, why do those bad libruls try to keep the good conservatives from increasing govmunt

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is not that one wants big government and the other wants small government, it is that liberals want government to protect people and the conservatives want government to control people.

...eh...no. A horrendously biased opinion, my friend. Conservatives want society to return to the 'good old days', implying that the morals of the past are superior or preferable to those of today. Liberals want change in all directions, perceiving the future to be superior to what is offered by the present, and thus more willing to spend taxpayer money to meet those goals.

Neither is necessarily a bad thing - it's just that the extremes of either viewpoint are.

 

[GoodGame]

And then, the very next day, it would no longer be "updated for the times." But if you just keep in mind that the Constitution is a constitution*, and not an exhaustive list of things the government may or may not do, then it isn't a problem anymore.

Cleo

*See

That was exactly my point and justification for why constructivism exists. And in way, the Constitution does try to outline the stronger, fundamental rights, else they wouldn't have seen fit to throw in a Bill of Rights so fast.

Really wouldn't hurt to update the Constitution like every 20 years.

 

[IglooDame]

Yeah, without any of the salient details...

I find it hilarious how much AA bothers most reactionaries even though the vast majority have never been in a position where it was used to their disadvantage.

You're right, people should never get worked up about any issue unless it affects them personally. Or am I missing your point?

I wonder how you would feel if you were from an oppressed minority which is still suffering from de facto segregation in most places in the US. Where there is still a sizeable IQ gap between the races which grows as the child gets older. Where 1 in 21 males die from being murdered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/20/national/20blackmen.html

You can hope the problem eventually goes away by ignoring it while actively supporting the dismantling of AA and other programs. Or you can try to correct the basic problems by providing some desperately needed help so that everybody benefits.

"Or am I missing your point?"

You have certainly missed mine, which is that dismissing or mocking someone's opinion on an issue because they're not personally affected by that issue is complete BS. It's BS in this case as surely as it is regarding opposition to torture, warrantless wiretapping, gay marriage, or any number of other issues.

 

[El_Machinae]

Maybe a difference is there if someone else is being hurt vs. if they're getting some extra benefit?