More condescension. Very unbecoming. Why not just assert your intellectual dominance through logic and examples? For example you could give your definition of constitutional conservatism (that somehow doesn't involve the Constitution?).
I could, although that drags us a long way from that quote you claim you wanted to debate and still haven't. You could show your understanding of the complexity of the issues you sling about—and claim to want to discuss—by actually writing more than two line retorts and responding to every jab with your own. Tell us what's your understanding of TJ's Truism and how it applies today f'rinstance. See I'm a topic conservative, as well as a diet conservative and several other sorts too.
But this new term "constitutional conservatism' you've introduced has no Canadian roots or relevance, so I can only quote others (no idea how representative or authoritative):
constitutional conservatism puts liberty first and teaches the indispensableness of moderation in securing, preserving, and extending its blessings. The American Constitution that it seeks to conserve presupposes natural freedom and equality; draws legitimacy from democratic consent while protecting individual rights from invasion by popular majorities; defines government’s proper responsibilities while providing it with the incentives and tools to perform them effectively; welcomes a diverse array of voluntary associations in part to prevent any one from dominating; assumes the primacy of self-interest but also the capacity to rise above it through the exercise of virtue; reflects and at the same time refines popular will through a complex scheme of representation; and disperses and blends power among three distinct branches of government as well as among federal and state governments to provide checks and balances. The Constitution and the nation that has prospered under it for 220 years demonstrate that conserving and enlarging freedom and democracy in America depend on weaving together rival interests and competing goods.
Unfortunately, contrary to the Constitution’s lesson in moderation, the two biggest blocs in the conservative coalition are, in reaction to electoral debacles in 2006 and 2008, tempted to conclude that what is needed now is greater purity in conservative ranks. Down that path lies disaster.
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5580
All reasonable, I especially liked that last; nothing to do with this new cc-ism of yours, but sure speaks to why Canadian Cons have missed the boat. That "greater purity" stuff of course is not how we messy, difficult humans actually work. Thus the checks, balances and weaving together above.
Let me just note you responded about what specifics in The US Constitution should have prevented the bailouts in terms so general that they made not a ripple in House or Senate that reached this far. Clique or not those bodies are not in the habit of defying the obvious meaning of the Constitution. If it's only you and some buddies who share an opinion, you're free to petition the Supremes to decide what isn't so obvious to all. That's what they're for as in
Brown vs. the Board. The Constitution, whether you like it or not,
is what the Supreme Court says it is at any given moment. If it is not, then there is no law at all. All else is fungible, opinion and argument.
Anyway you have now made it abundantly clear, you have no intention of discussing your OP, and have only the extremely limiting platform of a US Constitutional Conservative that you're willing to speak from, and only on that topic. If you'd said so from the getgo, I'd not have bothered you. I'm outta here.
What is it about a Toronto Escort Review Board that US con-cons think it's fertile ground for their ideology anyway? Are similar US boards not so liberal?
Enjoy.
