What is a liberal?

[The Real Hawkeye]

Liberal = rubbish!

Welcome aboard. I see that you, broadly speaking, have your head on straight, but might I suggest that you read all the posts before commenting. The issue is somewhat more complicated than your equation would suggest.

 

[ctdonath]

Are you suggesting an authority higher than Congress? Care to expand this concept?

Some of what Congress passes as law is what many consider plainly unconstitutional. The President has a duty to execute the laws according to the Constitution - if a law is plainly unconstitutional, the Executive branch cannot execute that law in good faith. The question then is: what of laws that were signed by a prior President, and are in effect?

Examples:
- W. signed McCain-Feingold (flat prohibition of political speech) with the full expectation that it would be overturned by SCOTUS. IMHO, he did so just to get the whole issue resolved and done away with. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now. It's plainly unconstitutional, and SCOTUS won't overturn it until they see a better case, which could be a while.
- Regan signed the prohibition of machineguns 922(o). Indications are he, and much of Congress, was blindsided by it and didn't realize what was being signed; considering the subject matter and the supporting legislation, few cared to sufficiently oppose it.

Strictly speaking, these laws can't be executed. "Shall not restrict freedom of the press" is simply incompatable with "shall shut up everyone except elite media 2 months before an election"; "shall not be infringed" is simply incompatable with "soldiers can have M4s, but not citizens".

Bad law exists. It's not going away until Congress revokes it, SCOTUS overturns it, or the President neglects it.

My suggestion is that, as President (which ain't happening 'cuz I'd tick off too many people), I would form a commission to wade through the entire US Code to identify plainly unconstitutional law (a hard task, given the obfuscation), identify those laws as unexecutable because doing so would violate higher laws (Constitution), refuse to execute it (because they can't and shouldn't be executed), and let someone who actually cares enough about that law to file suit explaining why it can and should be executed.

Just because Congress and a prior President enacted the impossible doesn't mean the sitting President has to do it.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Some of what Congress passes as law is what many consider plainly unconstitutional. The President has a duty to execute the laws according to the Constitution - if a law is plainly unconstitutional, the Executive branch cannot execute that law in good faith. The question then is: what of laws that were signed by a prior President, and are in effect?

Examples:
- W. signed McCain-Feingold (flat prohibition of political speech) with the full expectation that it would be overturned by SCOTUS. IMHO, he did so just to get the whole issue resolved and done away with. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now. It's plainly unconstitutional, and SCOTUS won't overturn it until they see a better case, which could be a while.
- Regan signed the prohibition of machineguns 922(o). Indications are he, and much of Congress, was blindsided by it and didn't realize what was being signed; considering the subject matter and the supporting legislation, few cared to sufficiently oppose it.

Strictly speaking, these laws can't be executed. "Shall not restrict freedom of the press" is simply incompatable with "shall shut up everyone except elite media 2 months before an election"; "shall not be infringed" is simply incompatable with "soldiers can have M4s, but not citizens".

Bad law exists. It's not going away until Congress revokes it, SCOTUS overturns it, or the President neglects it.

My suggestion is that, as President (which ain't happening 'cuz I'd tick off too many people), I would form a commission to wade through the entire US Code to identify plainly unconstitutional law (a hard task, given the obfuscation), identify those laws as unexecutable because doing so would violate higher laws (Constitution), refuse to execute it (because they can't and shouldn't be executed), and let someone who actually cares enough about that law to file suit explaining why it can and should be executed.

Just because Congress and a prior President enacted the impossible doesn't mean the sitting President has to do it.

So, you agree with me on this then. Welcome aboard. Just need to persuade a few million more and we'll be well on our way.

 

[BADUNAME4]

Americans are essentially conservative on most issues. Modern liberals would rather change that than accurately represent our culture.

 

[bobhaverford]

A liberal believes in no absolute set of values. He accepts no higher authority than himself. He establishes himself as the arbiter of right and wrong. He see no inherent value in tradition. He has no immutable principles. The liberal does not ordinarily believe in God, or if he does, more often than not he is paying lip service to the "notion" of God. For at the end of the day, the liberal sees himself and those of his utopian ilk as gods.

The liberal, despite his lip service to tolerance and moderation, is an inflexible misanthropic close-minded hater. He hates everyone and every thing that he perceives as better than himself. And that obviously includes nearly everyone and everything.

The liberal does in fact hate America and its traditions. And how could it not be so? For the liberal, as mentioned above, respects no tradition. Not even the traditions embodied in our sacred Constitution. The liberal "loves" all mankind but is merely engaging in moral exhibitionism. For our liberal hates all real humans.

The liberal is a utopian meddler with only his own ideas and reason to guide him. He rejects the accumulated wisdom of better men who have gone before him. The liberal rejects his humanity and the humanity of others preferring instead the his own idealized version of what humans are.

The liberal is an odious creature who rejects the concept of original sin and the imperfectability of man. He instead prefers his own notion of the perfectible man in "his" (the liberals) own image. The liberal prefers big government because it is an instrument of his own bidding. He loathes human independence and self reliance. He ridicules all men better than himself and that would include nearly everyone.

The liberal is a vacuous creature who prefers the meretricious and fatuous to that which is genuine rational and meaningful. The liberal employs sophistry trickery and deceit to support his debased ideology.

But the liberal is at his very core a miserable puny popinjay, a wretched windbag, a gaseous nincompoop, a piffling half-wit who trades in hokum and moonshine and whose only claim to excellence is in his nearly inexhaustible capacity for hatred. The liberal is a hater and a hypocrite.

 

[RealGun]

In the 1980s it looked like the Republican Party was beginning to transform into an acceptable vehicle for Conservatism, but then the neocons and the big tent Republicans stepped in and put the Kibosh on that.

In order to have a base big enough to elect them (beat the Democrats).

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

In order to have a base big enough to elect them (beat the Democrats).

"But if the salt has lost its savor, wherewith shall it be salted? It is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot."

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

A liberal believes in no absolute set of values. He accepts no higher authority than himself. He establishes himself as the arbiter of right and wrong. He see no inherent value in tradition. He has no immutable principles. The liberal does not ordinarily believe in God, or if he does, more often than not he is paying lip service to the "notion" of God. For at the end of the day, the liberal sees himself and those of his utopian ilk as gods.

The liberal, despite his lip service to tolerance and moderation, is an inflexible misanthropic close-minded hater. He hates everyone and every thing that he perceives as better than himself. And that obviously includes nearly everyone and everything.

The liberal does in fact hate America and its traditions. And how could it not be so? For the liberal, as mentioned above, respects no tradition. Not even the traditions embodied in our sacred Constitution. The liberal "loves" all mankind but is merely engaging in moral exhibitionism. For our liberal hates all real humans.

The liberal is a utopian meddler with only his own ideas and reason to guide him. He rejects the accumulated wisdom of better men who have gone before him. The liberal rejects his humanity and the humanity of others preferring instead the his own idealized version of what humans are.

The liberal is an odious creature who rejects the concept of original sin and the imperfectability of man. He instead prefers his own notion of the perfectible man in "his" (the liberals) own image. The liberal prefers big government because it is an instrument of his own bidding. He loathes human independence and self reliance. He ridicules all men better than himself and that would include nearly everyone.

The liberal is a vacuous creature who prefers the meretricious and fatuous to that which is genuine rational and meaningful. The liberal employs sophistry trickery and deceit to support his debased ideology.

But the liberal is at his very core a miserable puny popinjay, a wretched windbag, a gaseous nincompoop, a piffling half-wit who trades in hokum and moonshine and whose only claim to excellence is in his nearly inexhaustible capacity for hatred. The liberal is a hater and a hypocrite.

Excellent description of the modern, so called, "liberal."

 

[LawDog]

Well, that was interesting, but enough is enough.

Nothing to see here, folks, move on along.

LawDog