Frankly, I wouldn’t want most of them in the Republican Party at any leadership level, but I sure would like to attract enough of their votes to keep the AIP off the ballot. Libertarians and hard-right conservatives went for Jack Coghill, Hickel’s Lt. Gov, in ’94 and thus elected Tony Knowles, sentencing us ultimately to two terms of Democrat misrule.

In regards to your posts about majority vote being “fair” and public opinion polls; if you really have a background in law (as you say you do), then you very well know that it doesn’t really matter what the majority says when it comes protected rights.

I don’t really understand your little tiddle about the “republic” and the “one king” because the phrasing is hard to follow, but I’m going to go ahead and assume that you’re stating that unless there is a dictator, majority rule will prevail.

I’m going to go ahead and refer to your stated law background, and refresh you on the fact that the United States is not a direct democracy, but a constitutional republic. Google the difference. Thus, the majority actually doesn’t always rule.

A good resource to look at when researching the US Constitution is John Locke’s second treatise of government. Read up on natural rights, and society’s duties towards an individual’s natural rights.

What else…oh, and I’m going to refer to your stated law background again when discussing personal autonomy. I’m not quite sure what you have in mind when you yourself use the term “personal autonomy,” but traditionally, personal autonomy means the right to rule over your own body. And as you learned in law school or whatever gave you a legal background, rights entail duties. Thus, the government would have the duty to respect that right, if such a right of personal autonomy existed.

Finally, marriage is not merely a definition. Marriage has separate properties, usually dealing with tax law, that other civil partnerships are not afforded. Thus, marriage is not merely definitional.

Now, AGAIN to your law background, you should know the difference between de jure and de facto. Just because marriage in some states (like California) entails the same rights as a domestic partnership does not entail equality. See Brown v Board of Ed. if separate but equal doesn’t ring a bell.

Now as for your remark about “democrats taking the fruits of my labor” I do agree. I’m a fiscon, and my libertarian ideology towards the economy is the only reason why I have hope the Republican Party will shape up for 2010.

While we’re on that trend, why don’t we add a dose of states rights arguments, and say that Loving was a horrible judgment because it overstepped the boundaries of federalism?

We need to recognize that it all is tied together.

That is now past, and maybe, human nature being what it is, it took the election of one of their own to bring home the “love back”. James Taranto echoes gamecock on the prospect that Blacks will now be freed of their Democratic past and cites the example of Catholics post-JFK and Deep South Southerners post-Carter.

It may be too optimistic to hope for major changes minority voting patterns in four years given that Obama will be running for re-election. But the work must begin in earnest now to recruit blacks and Hispanics to run as Republicans in 2010 to join these examples in elected office.

We don’t have to wait. For all the history-making thunder about Obama’s victory, lets not forget the african-Americans elected statewide in Texas the same day – Michael Williams energy commissioner, and 2 Texas Supreme Court justices.

We will need more to join their ranks. it will indeed be time to show the african-American community that they have ‘arrived’ as full partners in both parties.

But it is ALSO the time to use Obama’s election as a mark in the ground that we no longer need affirmative action quotas and that simple, clear “There shall be no discrimination on the basis of race” equal opportunity should be the way to go.

If we nominate Gov Jindhal in 2012, it will be our first non-white Republican nominee. he will also be the first Republican Catholic. The future of the Republican party lies in appealling to more of both groups, while keeping our base happy as well.

eh?

And marriage is a definition. Your concept of personal autonomy would open up that institution for re-definition in 3 billion ways, ie the number of adult persons with autonomy, on Earth.

try again

Our republic establishing self government was deemed an improvement over One King. Super majorities of our good people created minority rights. You see, unless one is ruled by a dictator, majority will prevail.

The real key was federalism to our miracle of Liberty. Capital L liberty is the right of the people to rule themselves.

Majority vote is fair. And if you don’t like it then use your free speech and then let’s vote.

more later

But it is you that mischaracterized my argument by less than clearly changing the subject. I hate to break it to you though: you speak for a tiny minority.

I speak by 60+%.

The tide of public opinion also happens to be on the so-con side in any event. 40+ states explicitely reject gay marriage and those under 40 are more pro-life than those over 40 save for over 65.

more later

You miss one point about your desire for local control, the narcotic called Federal dollars.

Any state, local school or whatever is free to forgo Federal dollars, and then teach what they want, well not really, but as long as schools take Uncle’s money, they get hooked into the game.

Libertarians feign that their love for fed courts is more liberty, but they have a very narrow focus.

more detail later

mikedevinelaw@yahoo.com

Faith-based Conservative Federalism

51% is a nation divided; 52% is a mandate for change. Huh?