Mt. Vernon Statement
Conservatives had an event for the launch of the CPAC conference where they unveiled a new document called the “Mt. Vernon Statement.” This is a statement of conservative principles that they expect all Republicans to sign.
The Mount Vernon Statement
Constitutional Conservatism: A Statement for the 21st Century
We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.
These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics. The selfevident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.
Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new. But where would this lead — forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception?
The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.
The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.
A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.
A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.
* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose.
We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.
February 17, 2010
So, after reading that do you think Republicans are pro-choice and anti-DADT now? Also, doesn’t it just spell out their sense of victimhood?
Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics.
They are anti-university?
Personally, it sounds like a whole lot of nothing and even Richard Vigurie agrees with me:
This is embarrassing. If the people in the leadership of the conservative movement are going to put out pablum like this, the tea party people are going to make them seem irrelevant. And the tea party people are going to march to the forefront. This is almost as if the movements leaders were taken over by Tom DeLay and John Boehner.
Vigurie signed the document anyway.
Tags: Mt. Vernon Statement, Republican Crazy, Richard Vigurie
I know, these goals are so controversial.
* It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.
* It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
* It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
* It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
* It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.
and very vague, very general ideals that can be warped by people like the TeaBagz to support racism and hate. who defines what these terms mean? as long as someone claims the moronic crap they are selling is based in these “rules”, they can say whatever they want.
The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution
Take it to the Supreme Court or STFU.
This says it all:
It traces authority to the consent of the governed.
Dems won so STFU. If you can win back Congress in the voting booth, go for it, that’s the way it works.
“They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.”
Religious liberty? as long as it’s your religion (and not one of those other, icky weirdo ones) and you’re allowed to let it infiltrate our goverment and laws?
They are still looking for that nonexistent clause in the Constitution that says we can’t do stuff we voted for like tax the rich or spend on social services. These are basically people who flunked history and now think putting on a tri-corned hat makes them a Constitutional scholar.
Thinky brings it on over at delawarepolitics.
anon said: Take it to the Supreme Court or STFU.
Setting aside the fact that your position that political dissenters have to “STFU” is utterly unAmerican (hey, aren’t you the folks who used to claim that dissenters were more patriotic than the rest of Americans?), I’d like to point to the hypocrisy of that position. In the Citizens United case, one such example of the federal government ignoring the Constitution was taken to the Supreme Court, and the court struck down the unconstitutional actions of the federal government. Your response, and the response of every contributor here, was to declare that the ruling was illegitimate.
In other words, your real position is “STFU, and we don’t give a damn what the Supreme Court says.”
They aren’t controversial — they’re just Bullshit. Conservatives are not going to be small government advocates any more than Democrats will. They certainly aren’t going to tell all of those government behemoths around he DC beltway that they are getting rid of all of those contracts. But Daniel Larison (one of the few genuinely engaging conservatives out there, IMO, whose blog I read every day) notes:
“In other words, your real position is “STFU, and we don’t give a damn what the Supreme Court says.””
kind of like the right wing and the freedom of choice? it is so fun to see the right wing spiral into oblivion. i just hope they dont kill anyone on their way down like they are threatening to.
Your response, and the response of every contributor here, was to declare that the ruling was illegitimate.
Bullshit. The ruling is wrong, but nobody says it is illegitimate.
Take it to the Supreme Court or STFU.
OK, don’t STFU, keep yapping, it helps Democrats and provides some comic relief.
You say all these attacks on the Constitution are happening, but you can’t come up with one actionable case? HAH, HAH!!!
I just pointed to one, and you commented on it. Did you have a “senior moment” while you were typing?
Are you seriously telling us you want to sign manifestos and wear powdered wigs because of one Supreme Court decision that went your way? Surely you have something else on your list that shows us all these attacks on the Constitution.
This may be off topic–and it fact it is–but has the SCOTUS ever reversed a SCOTUS ruling? I’m thinkin’ about the STFU to SCOTUS mentioned above–and I tell you–I’m not real happy about personage essentially being assigned to corporations in regards to campaign contributions. I really need to dialogue this one out. Any of you at DeLib wanting to start a new thread about this again? The last one was really more just statements of “WOW”. Thanks.
Comment by anon on 18 February 2010 at 11:08 am:
Are you seriously telling us you want to sign manifestos and wear powdered wigs because of one Supreme Court decision that went your way?
No, I’m not. But you said that I provided no examples, and I was correcting you. And for the record, I’d argue that the “imperial judiciary” on both the state and federal level is responsible for just as much failure to abide by the Constitution as it is written as either of the elected branches of government.
But you said that I provided no examples, and I was correcting you.
A case that was brought to the Supreme Court and resolved is not an attack on the Constitution; it is an example of the Constitution still working. So you have still provided no examples of any actionable attacks on the Constitution.
Now you could argue that the Citizens United ruling sucks as policy, and probably is also an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution, and I would agree with you. But the fact that the ruling was argued and decided shows that the Constitution is being honored.
Since popular will is against the ruling, now it is back in the hands of Congress to resolve the matter politically. As the Constitution tells us we can.
Joanne –
I don’t know about reversal of a specific case, because my understanding is that once SCOTUS rules, that case is over – you can’t re-appeal it. It is, after all, the highest court in the land.
However, SCOTUS has certainly changed its mind on issues in different cases years apart … civil rights and abortion being two areas that jump out at me.
The Citizens United ruling DID overturn previous Supreme Court decisions.
That is why Senators grill nominees about their views on stare decisis. Apparently conservatives are OK with overturning precedents they disagree with.
Thank you anon–I know what you mean about “years” apart–but it appears to me it gets worded as a seperate wording, or decision–and not a “striking”, of what was the original piece. Know what I mean? That’s what I was wondering. Thank you for the input though.
Thank anon for stare decisis–very informative. We really are tough nuts to crack huh?
I’ll say it flat out — stare decisis is a valuable principle, but it cannot and should not be etched in stone.
If it were, Brown v. Board of Education would have held that public school segregation is just hunky-dory because of Plessy v. Ferguson.
Refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance in class would be illegal, and parents would be jailed if their kids refused.
What is my point? That as important as it is that precedent be upheld, it is sometimes more important that the Supreme Court go back and overrule a wrong decision (and the decisions that flowed from it) in order to get the Constitution right. Doing so is not “judicial activism”, but is instead fidelity to the Constitution.
I would like to hear Mount Verson discuss the impact of the Supreme Court’s view on one rather basic proposition, one the precedes the business about “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness:” All men are created equal.
When it comes to the political lists, and hence the election of our representatives to the republican government, I don’t feel equal to Citibank and its hidden ownership, nor do I think Jefferson felt equal to the mercantile interests in London he knew damned well were behind the tax on tea, stamps and more.
The decision srikes me as a step away from the Constitution and liberty — and an invitation to another sort of tyranny.
I could be wrong.
All the conservatives that now have a huge boner for the Constitution would have been nice to have around when Bush was making the document into confetti.
Donde estaban las personas de color?
In other words, just another screed from angry white princes in the hope to fool the
rubespaupers one more time in giving them a massive tax cut.selfish pricks.
that’s what it comes down to, people – not wanting to pay for services and still have them available to them.
“my taxes are too high! whaaaaa!!!”
What you’re paying now is more than half (in percent) than what you were paying 30 years ago.
anon was right, STFU selfish pricks.