Law
AcademicsSubject: RE: what does the right REALLY think of
Roberts?
On the one hand you
say that [some] economic liberties are expressly contained in the written
Constitution. On the other you abhor substantive due process. But
didn’t Lochner defend the economic (contract) libertie
: Re: what does the right
REALLY think of Roberts?
Bobby Lipkin says that I can't be what I say I am,
because a "libertarian/social conservative" is an oxymoron (kind of
like Subtantive Due Process, maybe?).
Almost no one is a 100% libertarian. Lots of liberals
who
sometimes we find things that we don't like when we try to think
about the Constitution through the prism of experience.
-Original Message-
From: Samuel V [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 5:15 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: what does th
In deference to the repeated requests of our moderator, I'll let
Professor Lipkin have the last word. I guess I'll just have to run
the continued risk that, in my future secret meetings with either the
social conservatives or the small "l" libertarians, I might get thrown
out of there.
Sam Ventol
In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:44:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
My sense
is that most of the opposition to overruling Bowers was basedon a
perception that the Court was acting lawlessly (a peception Idon't
necessarily share), and a concern that the precedent
ECTED]
On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 9:02
AMTo: religionlaw@lists.ucla.eduSubject: Re: what does the
right REALLY think of Roberts?
In a message dated 7/26/2005 11:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, most social lib
In a message dated 7/26/2005 11:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By the way, most social liberals who consider themselves
libertarian do not support gun rights, school choice, low taxes, freedom
of contract and other economic liberties, etc. So even if I am n
Sorry to be a bother, but please recall that this is a list
aimed at the discussion (from an academic perspective) of the law of
government and religion. Questions about how Judge Roberts' appointment
may affect Religion Clauses doctrine are on-topic; questions about how
the nomination may
DuncanSent: Monday, July 25, 2005 11:20 PMTo: Law & Religion issues for Law AcademicsSubject: Re: what does the right REALLY think of Roberts?
I am a libertarian/social conservative (I like the liberties that are expressed in the Constitution, the ones I have trouble with are the deadly on
Samuel V wrote:
Anybody, not just a libertarian, can contend that the government
should support certain liberties, but admit that these liberties are
not necessarily protected by the Constitution. So, such a person (if
he or she is a strict constructionist) would support Constitutiional
decis
On 7/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> During
> my lifetime such social conservatives as Pat Buchanan, William Bennett,
> Phyllis Schafly, various clergy persons, and so forth have all supported the
> majority's right to criminalize homosexuality. Just review cable TV shows
> di
Bobby Lipkin says that I can't be what I say I am, because a "libertarian/social conservative" is an oxymoron (kind of like Subtantive Due Process, maybe?).
Almost no one is a 100% libertarian. Lots of liberals who consider themselves libertarian support all sorts of laws restricting economic lib
In a message dated 7/26/2005 10:06:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On
homosexuality, most social conservatives do not favor lawsprohibiting
sodomy, but they do resist employment and housing lawswhich require them
to "accept" the "lifestyle."
Contention
On 7/26/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How in the world can a libertarian be a social conservative?
Actually, a libertarian view would be very consistent with social
conservativism. On what issues do you think they are inconsistent?
On homosexuality, most social con
Law Academics
Subject: Re: what does the right
REALLY think of Roberts?
I am a libertarian/social conservative (I like the liberties that are
expressed in the Constitution, the ones I have trouble with are the deadly
ones the liberals on the Court have invented), and I think the
Roberts nomina
In a message dated 7/25/2005 11:21:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
am a
libertarian/social conservative (I like the liberties that are expressed in
the Constitution, the ones I have trouble with are the deadly ones
the liberals on the Court have
invented),
One very obvious way to understand what the Constitution's religion commandments
mean is to ask the primary source individual who helped write them. The words
"no religious test shall ever be required" (Art. 6., Sec. 3.) and "no law
respecting an establishment of religion" are as understandable
I am a libertarian/social conservative (I like the liberties that are expressed in the Constitution, the ones I have trouble with are the deadly ones the liberals on the Court have invented), and I think the Roberts nomination is a great choice. There is nothing wrong with a Catholic Republican Boy
On Jul 25, 2005, at 6:07 PM, Gene Garman wrote: Words mean things or the Constitution is nothing more than a blank piece of paper. This is a faulty dilemma. Of course words mean things. But they are not so hard-edged and clear as to be incapable of multiple meanings and there are always things th
Words mean things or the Constitution is nothing more than a blank piece
of paper.
The wording of the religion commandments of the Constitution are very specific:
1. "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office
or public trust under the United States" (Art. 6.,
the original meaning of the copyright clause could not have included:
movies
records
CDs
videos
webpages
TV
Radio
etc.
"Original meaning" is a something to understand, but one cannot be
bound by it in a meaningful way.
The world has changed. And the Constitution is a living one.
This is not
Well necessary criteria would be that the decision (1) is based on the
language of the Constitution itself, and the original meaning of those
words, (2) does not rely on some extra-Constitutional basis, such as
modern social policy or foreign law, unless that policy or law is
incorporated by the Co
In a message dated 7/25/2005 4:37:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
(Since
this is a religion list, what exactly does it mean to "enforce
theConstitution as written" when it comes to the religion
clauses?)
A distinct but equally
important question is thi
Well, this "enforce the Constitution as written" vs. "judicial fiat"
stuff isn't
much help because it's little more than cable TV buzz phrasery. Many of C.J.
Rehnquist's shallowly reasoned opinions can easily be labeled "judicial fiat,"
even though those who like the results he reaches probably
Well, I guess I might be described as a social and religious
conservative, despite some maverick views on a thing or two. Anyway,
I think you'll find that social and religious conservatives really
don't care about whether Roberts is a social or religious
conservative. Instead, they're looking for
To try and understand what conservatives who are Christians FIRST think about
John Roberts, you might want to visit, please, Peroutka2004.com, click on the
first story and listen to our radio show on this subject. Thanks. And God bless
you all. John Lofton, co-host "The American View," syndicate
26 matches
Mail list logo
