“Where did justices get the power to decide whether laws enacted by the people or their elected representatives will be allowed to stand in this republic?”

Answer: It’s called “the Constitution,” which established the Supreme Court, and which subordinates laws to its dictates.

“Where did these nine justices get the right to be sole and final arbiters of what the Constitution and the laws say and do not say?”

Answer: It’s called “the natural implication from the Constitution that it is supposed to mean something (i.e., *be* a legal, enforceable instrument), and the natural implication that it established the Supreme Court to actually *do* something.”

Granted, the instrument probably made it too hard to be amended, and granted, the Framers of the 14th Amendment were incredibly sloppy, but blame *that* to a goodly degree too instead of just observing that judges are invariably going to make mistakes, go too far and etc. and so forth.

And beyond that, there’s Pat on the one hand, oozing over the tyranny of Leviathan saying to churches “*If* you give your employees insurance (which you don’t even have to), then you have to give them X coverage too,” …

… while, on the other, there’s Pat bemoaning Leviathan not being able to tell two people that they can’t get married.

(Just as, presumably—because it was struck down using the same doctrine essentially—he bemoans Leviathan not being able to absolutely ban the use of contraceptives, as it once did and which was reversed by the Supreme Court.)

You like Leviathan doing or outlawing X, okay. But watch where you’re planting your feet because someone else is gonna come along and use that same footing to mandate or ban Y.

If true libertarians believe that people are doing things that are destructive to themselves or society, they try to enlighten them through moral suasion . Conservatives, unfortunately, want to force them to change by passing laws that restrict personal behavior.

Now, their approval for the Obama administration has caused me realize that they were merely doing identity politics the whole time. How sad and boring.

It’s a shame that the Committee for the Republic was not able to get a larger room.

Libertarians have a long history of criticizing the conservatives.. just look at lew rockwell website.. rothbard calling reagan a warmonger.. ron paul, which you say is a conservative, saying reagan conservative agenda was a disaster http://www.therightscoop.com/ron-paul-reagans-conservative-agenda-was-a-disaster/

I think this website is called conservative, but is lead by libertarians who think themselves as conservative to mislead conservatives like me…

Can you imagine Matt Welch making an appearance at Netroots Nation, and having a similar argument vis a vis libertarianism and liberalism with someone like a Kevin Drum or a Matt Yglesias–let alone a Markos Moulitsas?

Me neither.

I was aware of the disputed translation, but I missed the article when it appeared. I highly recommend the article to anyone who has any doubts.

Old Saw,

do you wonder why no neocon cites George Washington as his favorite Founding Father? You find a lot of neocon fans of Alexander Hamilton but none of GW that I know of.

I appreciate your comment.

Ron Paul is the closest to a Pat Buchanan in this race (although, I know there are substantial differences).

I supported Pat Buchanan in ’96, but Arizona sunk his candidacy (I wish Pat had worn a white hat instead of a black hat on that cover piece).

Things have changed politically, I know, but I still feel “the Pat Buchanan approach” has the ability to be successful. Pat went after demographics regardless of party and in my mind that still can be done. In fact, Ron Paul is having some success reaching across party lines by standing for big ideas that Americans support regardless of party affiliation.

The Washington Establishment, irrespective of party, likes the current polarization and split in the American electorate: Each party has planks that play into the Global Establishment’s hand — and, yes, there is a Global Establishment and there ain’t much difference between it and the Washington Establishment — in many ways, it is one and the same.

Romney stated (paraphrase): “I don’t care about poor people, they have welfare, I care about the middle class.”

But how do we add to and build the middle class, but by having an economy that creates middle class jobs and, most important, blue collar & working class jobs that get Americans off the welfare dole (and dependency on government handouts) and, additionally, creates rungs of the ladder to those middle class jobs.

Romney’s unguarded remark tells me he really doesn’t understand what Reagan did for the Republican Party — appeal to the aspirations of Americans to have a society where you can climb the ladder. Reagan also inspired belief that you, personally, could climb the ladder.
And, that Reagan wanted you to have the opportunity to climb the ladder. He cared about the little guy in America.

You just don’t get that feeling from Romney.

Americans don’t insist everybody climb the ladder, but they insist the ladder be there for those who want to climb the ladder, even if they start at the bottom rung.

If there was one thing that Reagan had over Buchanan was the ability to inspire Americans, not just play to resentments. (I’m not saying Pat couln’t inspire Americans to believe in their aspirations, just that Reagan was better at it.)

Sadly, when Pat Buchanan bolted the party, it allowed the establishment to ignore and discredit his message by those in the party establishment who never believed in it in the first place.

But Pat’s message is the message that lead to the formation of the Republican Party in 1854 — the working man (and his family) on their own farm, and, thus, independent, were not to be run off the land by the Slave Power (family farmers of the upper Mid-West, say Michigan, knew that slave plantations and slave labor, generally, had a competitive advantage which in the end would force them off the land and working for an absentee owner — or not working at all).

Today, the Slave Power is the Money Power and it’s got the Republican Party by the throat.

Strange that a Southerner from Washington D. C. captured the sentiment which animated the formation of the Republican Party.

But maybe not: The Republican Party was the original anti-establishment party.

May it be that way again — go Ron Paul…

http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-israel-teams-with-terror-group-to-kill-irans-nuclear-scientists-us-officials-tell-nbc-news

Anyone who ever doubted the wisdom of George Washington need look no further than our byzantine involvement with Israel for proof that our greatest President knew what the hell he was talking about when he warned:

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens,) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake; since history and experience prove, that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of Republican Government. “

Haha. The real question then is whether “conservatives” are part of the “conservative movement”.

Can anyone tell me please: what is “conservative” about free market capitalism? It undermines every local custom, every particularity, undermines the traditional family, undermines social stability and order in every way – on purpose. What is old, traditional, and exists currently can’t be sold – capitalism needs perpetual “new and trendiness” to sell things to people. What is free market capitalism “conserving”?

Second question: did anyone discuss Russell Kirk’s essay on libertarians? (Called “Chirping Sectarians” – you can download it) Curious as to whether that was mentioned.