The term gets thrown around allot these days. Most people automatically assume that the term is synonymous with Republican. This is not true. Republicans are a political party. Conservatism is an ethos, an ideology, even a way of life. While people of particular political parties follow the directions of their party leaders, conservatives are bound not by these edicts but by a set of core principals. By implementing these principles in our politics and our lives we seek to make a better tomorrow. What are these core beliefs? There are 6 main ideals to Conservatism.
PART 2 -THE RULE OF LAW
2. The Rule Of Law: Almost everything in this world is subjective. Is rap better than country? How many McNuggets is too many? Here in America almost everything is open to interpretation, but there is one constant. One thing is supposed to be a rock, that which keeps freedom from spiraling downwards into anarchy. That thing is the law. Without laws to dictate how things are to be done we wouldn’t have a society at all. From the early civilizations of Greece to the halls of Congress the law is supreme. Many times in history there have been laws that were unjust, out of date or that have needed to change for the times. A law stating that a smith may not shoe horses on Sunday is not one that need be on the books anymore. Even when laws need to change, there is law to dictate how that change comes about.
A corrupt court is the precursor to the collapse of a nation. In third world countries where courts nullify elections and attempt to appoint leaders, revolution is but a step behind. The United States is far from being beyond individuals and institutions attempting to hijack the judicial process to further their interests. They use activist judges to sidestep the law, selectively enforce the law, in some cases they even attempt to write law from the bench. One example of this is the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Their rulings when appealed to the Supreme Court and heard are overturned over 80% of the time. This causes parties to lose respect for the rulings of the lower court, even to flaunt its rulings as they are bound to be overturned anyway. Then there is the favorite rally point of the left, the 2000 election debacle.
we recognize that even if you don’t agree with a ruling you have to comply with it because cherry-picking compliance only leads to anarchy
The founding fathers in their great wisdom created a system that dictated procedures to handle a wide variety of situations that might arise in elections. Had they been followed, the situation in Florida wouldn’t have ended up being a national issue. You see, if a candidate is dissatisfied with the results of an election he/she can request a recount. This happened many times each time resulting in victory for Bush. The other side would not bring themselves to accept them though. In their minds Florida was supposed to be a democrat lock, the fact it was even close made their skin crawl. They knew they couldn’t allow the process to continue to its next step because that meant it would be handed to the Florida State legislature. The republicans held a majority in both houses. But they saw another state entity that wasn’t, the Florida State Supreme Court. It was packed to the gills with democrat plants and they knew that the justices would be willing to bend or break any law necessary in order to cause a judgment in their favor. First they wanted to invalidate all the absentee votes still to be counted, since most came from military personnel overseas which were bound to be mostly for Bush. When that failed they tried to get only cherry picked counties certified in the statewide recount. Some parties sued saying the ballots were confusing and wanted a revotePalm Beach County voters claiming that a confusing ballot caused them to vote for reform party candidate Pat Buchanan instead and that they wanted their votes changed to the Gore total. Once again there is no method for this to be done in accordance with election laws. Additionally, the format of the ballot had been approved months before by both political parties. Many claim that Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris used political partisanship when she finally certified the vote count that favored Bush on Nov 26th. She had no choice though since in accordance with federal election law if it had not been certified by then the entire state’s votes would not count toward the presidential election. Someday I’ll get more into this topic, for now I’m going too long.
Many of us on the right don’t agree with the removal of Christian symbols across the nation such as the 10 Commandment monuments but for now we comply with the rulings. On our side we recognize that even if you don’t agree with a ruling you have to comply with it because cherry-picking compliance only leads to anarchy. The law is the law. If it’s to be changed then those changes need to come about in accordance with the procedures dictated by the law. Governor Bush in Florida recently saved Terri Schiavo not by refusing to allow the decision of the court go forward but instead worked inside the framework of the law to get new legislation passed to change the situation. While he could have asserted state’s rights and kept the feeding tube from being removed via his authority over the Florida State Patrol he respected the rule of law.
The law is our rock.
Next Segment,
Want passionate stories and buckets of happiness delivered to you?
Well maybe teacups of happiness. Subscribe to Passionate America today.
What is Conservatism - Series:
Loading ...
What is RSS?
witch
Law from the police on up is gradually swinging away from truth towards power look at the recent NC Nifong case, we as citizens need to exert ourselves and demand that it be enforced equitably!
June 19th, 2007 at 11:25 pmShadowFox
LOF: You know, I could think of a place where you can put your increasingly “helpful” and “positive” opinions… If you think the paragraphs need to be broken up more, point out where and how it would improve the article. But if it’s more of this, shipping instructions will follow shortly. Sorry if I don’t write enough half baked fluff.
Bill: Thanks for the graphic man! It looks cool.
June 20th, 2007 at 8:31 pmWild Bill
LOF, please do not ask me to choose sides in what is seeming like a brewing feud between the contributers here. If we can’t get along as a team I’ll go back to a team of one. I love having you guys/gal here contributing to the website and if we can work together Passionate America will continue to get better and better. I don’t have time to mediate fights between the contributors. Work it out!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:48 amRoberto
Conservatives respect the rule of law? Tell that to Richard Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Ken Lay, and Scooter Libby. There’s no more respect for the law on the right than there is on the left.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:20 amSmokey
Roberto:
“Conservatives respect the rule of law? Tell that to Richard Nixon, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Ken Lay, and Scooter Libby. There’s no more respect for the law on the right than there is on the left.”
How about the Clintonistas and White Water? How about documents down a certain pair of pants being taken from the national archives (Sandy Berger)? How about perjury before a grand jury (on the part of the President no less)?
NO ONE in the current crop of politicians instill much confidence from me. But, if I seem to remember, Republicans seem to find their way out the door (on their own or not) after “issues arise”, yet liberals seem to get a pass. How about our new Speaker of the House PROMISING (heck, all BUT signing a contract guaranteeing) earmark reform, and then simply renaming the process, and letting one of her own change the rules to FURTHER HIDE earmarks from votes, other representatives, the public……….
June 21st, 2007 at 5:37 pmShadowFox
Robert, remind me again what Col. North was convicted of again? Oh yeah, nothing. Scooter Libby, gee ya got me since he was convicted of outing a secret agent. Oh wait, you didn’t because he wasn’t. He didn’t leak her, wasn’t connected with the leaker and didn’t know who leaked. Fitzgerald wanted a White House conviction to pad his resume and got Libby on a process crime unrelated to the investigation. He could have convicted Fred Durst of “obstructing justice” in the Plame non-outing if he’d asked him enough questions. You’re batting 0-2 here buddy.
What does Ken Lay have to do with the post? He’s a businessman who’s irrelevant to the discussion. Strike 3, you’re out. But just to knock you out of the park who has EVER said that Nixon was a Conservative? For those who failed English Comprehension it says right there in the opening paragraph of EVERY installment of this series that being Conservative and being Republican are NOT the same thing. On your way over the outfield wall take that desperate reach of Liddy with you too. Nobody has ever said he was a Conservative.
June 21st, 2007 at 9:17 pmRoberto
Smokey- I agree entirely with what you said. I think that liberals do not get enough criticism for there legal transgressions, just look at what’s going on with William Jefferson. I’m just not sure that either side can say it respects/follows the rule of law more than the other. I think that kind of absolutism is a huge problem with contemporary discourse.
Fox- When did I say North was ever convicted of anything? do you honestly think that everyone that has broken the law is found guilty? Even if we disregard the actual arms sale, North admitted to lying to Congress which means he, just like Clinton, broke the law.
Libby was found guilty of obstructing justice, plain and simple. He broke the law, regardless of whether or not you think Plame was a covert agent.
How is Lay irrelevant to the discussion, besides the fact he’s dead? You never stated in your piece that only elected conservatives follow the rule of law, but that conservatives in general respect it. Lay was as influential as the equally detestable George Soros before his fall. He had little respect for corporate law despite the fact that he was a true conservative.
Nixon may not have been as conservative as contemporary Republicans, but he was still a conservative. I’d point to his support for Pinochet as one highlight of a conservative foreign policy, though I’d agree that his domestic policies were certainly more liberal. He’s probably not the best example of a typical conservative so I’ll withdraw that one.
Liddy, however, was/is certainly a conservative. Have you ever listened to his talk show?
Listen, I’m not saying being a conservative makes you a bad guy. In fact I like and respect all the men here with the exception of Lay. Nor am I saying that only conservatives break the law. Liberals can be and are equally as adept at bending the rules, corruption, and general malfeasance. I just don’t believe that this sort of moral absolutism is accurate.
I did enjoy your piece, even though I don’t agree with it.
June 21st, 2007 at 10:15 pm