Do Conservatives believe in a United States or a united States of America?

1. 85

   My Esotericposted 12 years ago

   Do Conservatives believe in a United States or a united States of America?
   
   The Declaration of Independance refers to the united States while the Constitution uses the phrase United States, with a capital 'U'.  The Ariticles of Confederation and the Continental Congress epitomize a united States of America with a true "limited" central government, while the Constitution envisions a United States of America with much broader, but not limitless, powers given to the central government.  Which form of government do you think today's Conservatives actually believe in?

   replyreport
2. 59

   thebigbagblogposted 12 years ago

   Wow, hard to say. I am not a conservative, but I can see that they are many factions within this camp. Many are trying to reinvent themselves, while others on the opposite end of the spectrum seem to want to get back to their constitutional "fundamentals". I think if I HAD to give an overall OPINION on this, I'd say that the majority of conservatives don't believe in much central government at all. So, I guess that would be "none of the above"? It just seems that somewhere along the way, "government" simply became synonymous with "BIG government" (which is a core taboo for that camp).

   replyreport
3. 92

   Faceless39posted 12 years ago

   Small government; emphasis on local government; the ideals of Thomas Jefferson.

   replyreport
4. 66

   xethonxqposted 12 years ago

   Wow...excellent question. I get the impression that it is the latter of the two...united States of America. I hear a lot about the rights of the States and less about the collective States when conservatives are talking. Hell, most of the time I hear more about the rights of individuals than anything when they're talking. Again, excellent question!

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That is because that is the proper order...personal, local, State and then federal except where specified explicitly in the Constitution.

      replyreport
5. 59

   elisereneeposted 12 years ago

   Definitely a fascinating question. I consider myself to be a conservative, and most conservatives believe that a central government is necessary in order to protect our rights and country. However, that same government that can just as easily stop protecting our rights and start infringing upon them. Conservatism today is a result of what they believe to be too many years of big government and a desire to give the necessary rights back to the state and individual. But hey, I'm sure you've heard this all before. I believe in the United States of America because that is what we are, but I also highly value my state's rights and individual liberties.

   replyreport
6. 0

   Angie497posted 12 years ago

   Speaking to the historical issue - while it seems to be a current trend to spout off about state's rights whenever it's convenient, it's worth noting that the US quite deliberately ditched the Articles of Confederation with it's virtually nonexistent central government. The Constitution was adopted with its stronger central government specifically because the Articles of Confederation *did* *not* *work*.
   
   I believe that there's actually a wide disconnect between what many conservatives say they want and what they actually want. They protested against any notion of health care reform because 'government shouldn't be running health care' while also saying 'keep your hands off my MediCare' as though *that* isn't a government program.
   
   Conservatives demand government 'small enough to drown in a bathtub' while still expecting highways and bridges, mail delivery 6 days a week, standing armed forces, help after a natural disaster (as long as it's help for *their* community and not someone else's - look at the efforts to end relief for the Joplin MO area after last spring's devastating tornado), and scores of other projects. And conservatives also want government to make decisions regarding such private matters as getting married and having children. Although I'm not saying that all conservatives are hypocrites, it does leave an impression of hypocrisy when it seems that someone is actually in favor of a government big enough to do all the things they need/want, but that they're not so worried about everyone else.
   
   We often hear claims about what the founders wanted or getting back to their original ideals. That sounds good, except of course, their original ideals included a few things that don't sound quite so rosy today - for instance, voting rights only for white male landowners. Slavery. Public flogging as punishment for minor offenses. I don't notice the same people talking about 'original intent' also saying that we should give up the advances made in the last 200+ years to return to living in the late 1700s - 13 states, mostly rural and agricultural, little education and lots of hard work. The Constitution was intended as a living document that could be changed as necessary; in fact, the rights that many conservatives carry on about the most were added to the Constitution as an afterthought. Should we do away with the Bill of Rights in favor of 'original intent'?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It seems you are confusing Conservatives and Republicans...most Rpublicans are not Conservatives, or at least not conservative enough...
      A trueConservative/Libertarian would be consistent across ALL laws, Departments etc..Amendment X...

      replyreport
   2. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You are quite right, Mitch, Conservatives and Republicans are not the same thing anymore and I wish Conservatives would form their own party so that I could rejoin the Party of Abraham Lincoln once more.

      replyreport
   3. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I wish there were more true Conservatives in the party so there could be a stronger point of difference between the parties...mostly we have two parties fighting over who can run an unConstitutional government and it's programs "better".

      replyreport
7. 80

   Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

   As a Constitution Conservative/Libertarian I believe in a small, Amendment X federal government...the word States is capitalized for a reason.  Each State was meant to be a soveriegn Republic with a Federation...A government closest to the people is the most effecient and resposible to it's people.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, that was assumed in my question, but do conservatives think the 'u' in united States of the Declaration of Independence remain uncapitalized, which signfizes one thing, or capitalized as in the Constitution, which means something different?

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      My Eso,
      The capitalization of the S in States is far more important...the Constitution was set up to limit the federal government that the States were granting certain limit powers to.  We were meant to be a federation of States united...

      replyreport
   3. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Disagree.  There was a reason the creators of the Constitution, who were extremely careful with nuance, chose to use a "U", rather than a "u"; for it changes the meaning entirely as your comments clealy point out.  I get the feeling you want a 'u'.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, one of the main reasons for the Constitution and the bill of rights was to limit the federal government in both size and scope... and as a supporter of the Constitution and one who sees the value and reasons behind that idea...I am a "u" and "S"

      replyreport
   5. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      OK, now we are getting somewhere.  The group of founders who wrote the Constitution were a 'U' and 'S' set of founders.  The ones who wrote the Articles of Confederation were a 'u' and 'S' set.  The 'U' and 'S' group won the ratification battle.

      replyreport
   6. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, the Constitution more clearly DEFINES the federal government then did the Articles of Confederation, but it is still a LIMITING document. The "U" was used to show a unitary, but n ot a totalitar

      replyreport
   7. 85

      My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yes,that is one way of looking at it, I prefer a more common meaning of "all together". We have a hub,I posted all this at http://myesoteric.hubpages.com/hub/What … of-America

      replyreport
   8. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sorry, phone messed up my spelling etc..."U" for unity, not undistinguishable. The "Dept of Blank" is over-reaching. The founders wanted a STRUCTURED, but LIMITED federal government for the common defense and good of the States, but still STATES.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      Angie497posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Just one point - the only reason states isn't capitalized is because our modern rules of grammar didn't exist at the time. It's a reflection of the Germanic roots of the English language, where nouns were routinely capitalized.

      replyreport
   10. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Angie, States is capitalized...the question is about the word united/United being capitalized.

       replyreport
   11. 85

       My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Angie, I have to agree with Mitch, the phrase is "We the People of the United States..." and later on you find the words "... more perfect Union ...".  I think the capitalization is for emphasis by creating proper nouns, rather than correct grammer.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       Angie497posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Sorry - typo. My point, though, is that States isn't capitalized for symbolism or to indicate a desire for soveriegnty. It's just grammar. If the founders hadn't felt stronger central govt was needed, we'd still use Articles of Confederation.

       replyreport
   13. 85

       My Esotericposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       That one I buy, Angie, thanks.

       replyreport
   14. 80

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Strong, as in well defined and capable of executing it's limited powers for the benefit of the Union...yes.
       Strong, so as to take over the soveriegn powers of these (plural) United State...No.

       replyreport
8. 57

   andrew savageposted 11 years ago

   My understanding is that this nation is the United States of America... However I would correct it only by naming it the United States of the Americas as the federation reaches beyond land and sea with many territories throughout the world and Continental Americas.

   replyreport
9. 60

   jstfishinmanposted 10 years ago

   Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government we had, his reply was a republic, if we can keep it. That is still our struggle today.
   Originally the states took care of their own roads, and while the states and local governments had taxes, the federal government left the peoples income alone.
   WW I brought about our first federal income tax, and the federal side of the ledger began to take more and more money from the states.
   Now the states send most of their money to Washington, and pray that Washington gives them some of it back. The money Washington uses today is worth far less than yesterdays money, especially since we keep printing paper and are 17 trillion dollars in debt.
   Our forefathers feared that people would find out they could elect to have the government take care of them, and that is the society we live with today, as we slowly march into a european style of government.
   The states were originally to hold the purse strings of the federal government.
   Not the federal government dictate over the people and the states.

   replyreport
   1. 85

      My Esotericposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Then you don't agree with the change from the Articles of Confederation and the Continental Congress (what you described) to the Constitution (with its Supremacy Clause) and the United States of America , do I have that right?

      replyreport
   2. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The "Supremacy Clause" is only valid if the Congress is acting within it's Constitutionally authorized and enumerated powers. Why then have States (and individuals), if they are not protected by the Constitution and specifically the 10th amendment?

      replyreport
   3. 85

      My Esotericposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed Mitch, but the writers purposely left the interpretation vague, not exact.  Madison made sure of that when he kept the word "explicitly" or its synonyms out of the 10th.  He didn't want what you want, a literal interpretation of Article 8.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      Mitch Alanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The text of the 10th Amendment is pretty straight forward and clear, "The powers NOT delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR prohibited by it to the States, are RESERVED TO the States respectively, or to the people." (emphasis mine)

      replyreport
   5. 85

      My Esotericposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      There were those who wanted the wording of the 10th to be ""The powers NOT "explicitly" delegated ..."; thereby tying the meaning to the "exact" wording in the 8th.  Madison removed the word "explicitly" so that the wording in the 8th can be implied.

      replyreport