| Revision as of 22:38, 26 November 2006 editJtpaladin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,168 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:43, 28 November 2006 edit undoJtpaladin (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,168 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}} | {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}} | ||
| :{{la|Constitutional Conservatism}} | :{{la|Constitutional Conservatism}} | ||
| This article borders on patent nonsense. Google pops up only so it is not a widely-used term. |
This article borders on patent nonsense. Google pops up only so it is not a widely-used term. | ||
| ::'''Retain''', Perhaps it is patent nonsense to you but to someone who is an adherent of this philosophy, I assure it is not what you think it is. | |||
| , but again, this is either a term used in political rhetoric (not a scholarly term) or it's used to describe ] or ] in interpreting the Constitution. | |||
| ::Yes, it is ], but it is also far more. There is history, there are writers, there are followers. All of which deserve to be discussed. | |||
| Since both are also advocated by some Liberal scholars, the term, "Constitutional Conservatism," is a contentious term and not particularly widely-used. | |||
| ::What liberals advocate and how they view the Constitution was a massive bone of contention during such periods as the FDR years where the Supreme Court struck down law after law that liberals had set up as law but because of their flawed understanding of the Constitution, the Supreme Court did the right thing. In this very matter, there is certainly plenty of room for discussion of how ] view the Constitution vs. how liberals view the same document. The term is not used as often simply because it is usually included as part of the the ] philosophy. The problem is that even traditional conservatives don't know their "roots" well enough to make a "constitutionally-based argument" and end up getting caught up in some nonsensical tanget. This is where this article would provide the necessary ammunition, so to speak, in order to carry on such a discussion. | |||
| The claim that the Founding Fathers were "pro-life, pro-religious freedom, pro-fair trade, pro-gun rights, and are almost universally strong supporters of private property rights," is an unscholarly, uncited, highly controversial, and wholly unfounded claim. ] 12:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Robocracy, that statement couldn't be further from the facts. Again, a reading of the materials relevant to ] would clear all that up. ] 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Delete''', as it fails ] since there are no sources at all, except a single link to latterdayconservative.com, which doesn't seem very official to me. ] 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | * '''Delete''', as it fails ] since there are no sources at all, except a single link to latterdayconservative.com, which doesn't seem very official to me. ] 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::No, there are far more sources than merely that. ] 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :*This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | :*This AfD nomination was ]. It is listed now. ] 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Delete'''. This term does seem to be in some usage, but as it stands there isn't enough ] and ] material around to support even a stub. Possibly this is meant to advertise for the only external link in the article, which has no apparent bearing on the meaning of the term "constitutional conservatism". ] 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | * '''Delete'''. This term does seem to be in some usage, but as it stands there isn't enough ] and ] material around to support even a stub. Possibly this is meant to advertise for the only external link in the article, which has no apparent bearing on the meaning of the term "constitutional conservatism". ] 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Retain'''. There are far more sources than you think. Everytime an ] uses the U.S. Constitution as a basis for their argument, that is a source. Considering often classical authors use this format, you would have plenty of sources. Just because ] (by the way, that article is a mess and needs alot of help itself) includes use of the Constitution in its arguments, it is not as essentially to the thinking of a Constitutional Conservative. ] 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Retain'''. Even though this is actually a redundant term because the essence of Conservatism includes a belief in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, it should be retained. In fact, this article should be expanded because the aspect of "Constitutionalism" in Conservatism is often taken for granted. Since the underlying principles upon which Conservatives base their belief system is the U.S. Constitution, and the current article on "Conservatism" lacks a detailed analysis of this aspect of Conservatism, this article should not only be retained but also should be expanded upon. Either that, or someone needs to undertake the task of adding a "Constitutional" description to the article on "Conservatism". Anyone who has read the "Federalist Papers" and related documents will easily find that the Founding Fathers were in fact, pro-States Rights, pro-religious freedom, pro-free market, pro-private property ownership, pro-Second Amendment to the extent that this included private ownership of weapons deemed basic to a people's-based militia, and the argument can be made that the Founding Fathers left matters like "abortion" as a matter for the States to determine legality. Since true "Constitutional Conservativism" is not something that is supported by true liberalism, it is a belief system that needs better clarification either as a stand-alone article or incorporated strongly into the article of "Conservatism". Even a small yet well-defined political party in the U.S. exists that is almost a perfect adherent to "Constitutional Conservatism". Check out: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php. The "U.S. Constitution Party" prides itself on following the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. So, in summary, this topic, whether it remains a separate article or is incorporated into Conservatism must be included as a basis for Conservatism. ] 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | * '''Retain'''. Even though this is actually a redundant term because the essence of Conservatism includes a belief in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, it should be retained. In fact, this article should be expanded because the aspect of "Constitutionalism" in Conservatism is often taken for granted. Since the underlying principles upon which Conservatives base their belief system is the U.S. Constitution, and the current article on "Conservatism" lacks a detailed analysis of this aspect of Conservatism, this article should not only be retained but also should be expanded upon. Either that, or someone needs to undertake the task of adding a "Constitutional" description to the article on "Conservatism". Anyone who has read the "Federalist Papers" and related documents will easily find that the Founding Fathers were in fact, pro-States Rights, pro-religious freedom, pro-free market, pro-private property ownership, pro-Second Amendment to the extent that this included private ownership of weapons deemed basic to a people's-based militia, and the argument can be made that the Founding Fathers left matters like "abortion" as a matter for the States to determine legality. Since true "Constitutional Conservativism" is not something that is supported by true liberalism, it is a belief system that needs better clarification either as a stand-alone article or incorporated strongly into the article of "Conservatism". Even a small yet well-defined political party in the U.S. exists that is almost a perfect adherent to "Constitutional Conservatism". Check out: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php. The "U.S. Constitution Party" prides itself on following the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. So, in summary, this topic, whether it remains a separate article or is incorporated into Conservatism must be included as a basis for Conservatism. ] 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 18: | Line 26: | ||
| :::::Both. ] 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | :::::Both. ] 22:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' without the actual ] to sufficient independent and reliable sources, this ] can not be adequately ].-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' without the actual ] to sufficient independent and reliable sources, this ] can not be adequately ].-- ] <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::'''Retain''', danntm, there are numerous sources to uphold this title. You can start with the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, as some among many documents that set down the concept of someone who is a strict adherent to the Constitution and does not veer from what the ] established as the laws of the U.S. Republic. I have called myself a C.C. since I was "politically aware" back in the 1980's. There are many people who do consider themselves as such. Consider that the ] is a political party that has as its' very basis it's platform on these "Americanist" documents while opposing some traditional conservative schools of thought. So, yes, by all mean, not only does this article deserve to remain but persons so motivated should expound upon what it means to be a Constututional Conservative. | |||
Revision as of 15:43, 28 November 2006
Constitutional Conservatism
- Constitutional Conservatism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article borders on patent nonsense. Google pops up only 832 results for the term "Constitutional Conservatism," so it is not a widely-used term.
- Retain, Perhaps it is patent nonsense to you but to someone who is an adherent of this philosophy, I assure it is not what you think it is.
The term, "Constitutional Conservative" pops up 77,000 results, but again, this is either a term used in political rhetoric (not a scholarly term) or it's used to describe Originalism or Textualism in interpreting the Constitution.
- Yes, it is Originalism, but it is also far more. There is history, there are writers, there are followers. All of which deserve to be discussed.
Since both are also advocated by some Liberal scholars, the term, "Constitutional Conservatism," is a contentious term and not particularly widely-used.
- What liberals advocate and how they view the Constitution was a massive bone of contention during such periods as the FDR years where the Supreme Court struck down law after law that liberals had set up as law but because of their flawed understanding of the Constitution, the Supreme Court did the right thing. In this very matter, there is certainly plenty of room for discussion of how Constitutional Cnservatives view the Constitution vs. how liberals view the same document. The term is not used as often simply because it is usually included as part of the the American Conservative philosophy. The problem is that even traditional conservatives don't know their "roots" well enough to make a "constitutionally-based argument" and end up getting caught up in some nonsensical tanget. This is where this article would provide the necessary ammunition, so to speak, in order to carry on such a discussion.
The claim that the Founding Fathers were "pro-life, pro-religious freedom, pro-fair trade, pro-gun rights, and are almost universally strong supporters of private property rights," is an unscholarly, uncited, highly controversial, and wholly unfounded claim. Robocracy 12:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Robocracy, that statement couldn't be further from the facts. Again, a reading of the materials relevant to Constitutional Conservatism would clear all that up. Jtpaladin 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, as it fails WP:V since there are no sources at all, except a single link to latterdayconservative.com, which doesn't seem very official to me. Jayden54 15:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, there are far more sources than merely that. Jtpaladin 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 16:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This term does seem to be in some usage, but as it stands there isn't enough WP:NOR and WP:V material around to support even a stub. Possibly this is meant to advertise for the only external link in the article, which has no apparent bearing on the meaning of the term "constitutional conservatism". Sandstein 16:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Retain. There are far more sources than you think. Everytime an American Conservative uses the U.S. Constitution as a basis for their argument, that is a source. Considering often classical authors use this format, you would have plenty of sources. Just because American Conservatism (by the way, that article is a mess and needs alot of help itself) includes use of the Constitution in its arguments, it is not as essentially to the thinking of a Constitutional Conservative. Jtpaladin 15:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
- Retain. Even though this is actually a redundant term because the essence of Conservatism includes a belief in strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution, it should be retained. In fact, this article should be expanded because the aspect of "Constitutionalism" in Conservatism is often taken for granted. Since the underlying principles upon which Conservatives base their belief system is the U.S. Constitution, and the current article on "Conservatism" lacks a detailed analysis of this aspect of Conservatism, this article should not only be retained but also should be expanded upon. Either that, or someone needs to undertake the task of adding a "Constitutional" description to the article on "Conservatism". Anyone who has read the "Federalist Papers" and related documents will easily find that the Founding Fathers were in fact, pro-States Rights, pro-religious freedom, pro-free market, pro-private property ownership, pro-Second Amendment to the extent that this included private ownership of weapons deemed basic to a people's-based militia, and the argument can be made that the Founding Fathers left matters like "abortion" as a matter for the States to determine legality. Since true "Constitutional Conservativism" is not something that is supported by true liberalism, it is a belief system that needs better clarification either as a stand-alone article or incorporated strongly into the article of "Conservatism". Even a small yet well-defined political party in the U.S. exists that is almost a perfect adherent to "Constitutional Conservatism". Check out: http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php. The "U.S. Constitution Party" prides itself on following the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. So, in summary, this topic, whether it remains a separate article or is incorporated into Conservatism must be included as a basis for Conservatism. Jtpaladin 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please remember that our articles must be written from a neutral point of view, and not be original research. This means we can't just have an article say, "this is constitutional conservativism because that's how one should read the Federalist Papers". Rather, an article on this topic would be along the lines of "Constitutional Conservatism in the U.S. is understood by a) this notable organisation to mean its political position, which is XYZ, as reported by this reliable source, b) a term used by notable theorist J. Doe to mean ABC, as reported by this reliable source, etc." Do you see what I mean? Oh, and another thing to keep in mind: Misplaced Pages is an international project. There are constitutions and conservatives in other countries than the U.S., too. Sandstein 19:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, clean up and source. It is an actual term, although in all reality it is a political neologism for a traditional or paleoconservative. Considering the vast usage of political neologisms in academic and jounalistic work their use, once about anyone with a published medium does so, is impossible to erase as a historical label. A member of the Constitution Party of the US, amoung others, are Constitutional Conservatives. Serge Trifkovic and Antonin Scalia can be described as Constitutional Conservatives. NeoFreak 19:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if there were enough sourced information in this article to support even a one-sentence stub - but there isn't. And since I guess you're talking about the U.S., I suppose no U.S. Conservative would call themselves an "unconstitutional conservative", so this article would get rather unwieldy rather fast. Sandstein 20:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment just like no one is going to be anti-choice or pro-death? There are plenty of examples , , , of the phrase being used although I do hate to make exceptions to the neologism guildline. Honestly. NeoFreak 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Jtpaladin and Neofreak, as noted above, I recognize that the term is used in political discourse, and the term is a broad generalization about Conservatives' views of the Constitution. Well, being so, there's not enough to say about that to maintain an article. The entire article, if properly sourced, would contain one sentence only: "Conservatives in America tend to assert a belief in textualism, as a basis for their beliefs." Not exactly a lot of content. Also, as I also said, the term is ambiguous because there are people who agree the Constitution should be upheld literally as the text plainly says, yet share liberal views. And so, the article on textualism is sufficient, covering the topic in a politically neutral manner. In fact, in hindsight, I think it would've been better to simply edit the article and send a re-direct to textualism. Robocracy 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Robocracy, limiting an article on "Constitutional Conservatism" to a brief reference to "textualism" is equivalent to saying much the same thing about "Marxism". There's far more to C.C. than that and there is plenty to be discussed in its' historical origins, significance, differences between conservatism and C.C., differences between liberal thought vs. C.C., etc. I've considered myself a C.C. for many years and marked differences between those views and that of traditional conservatives and liberals since that time. As a side note, have you seen the size of the article on "paleoconservatism"? Unbelievably huge. Believe me, if someone can make a massive article of "paleoconservatism" the same can be done of "constitutional conservatism". Jtpaladin 22:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- QuestionDo you believe that the term is not used or unique enough to warrant a stub or do you think it is just a misused neologism that has a POV slant? Honest question. NeoFreak 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Jtpaladin and Neofreak, as noted above, I recognize that the term is used in political discourse, and the term is a broad generalization about Conservatives' views of the Constitution. Well, being so, there's not enough to say about that to maintain an article. The entire article, if properly sourced, would contain one sentence only: "Conservatives in America tend to assert a belief in textualism, as a basis for their beliefs." Not exactly a lot of content. Also, as I also said, the term is ambiguous because there are people who agree the Constitution should be upheld literally as the text plainly says, yet share liberal views. And so, the article on textualism is sufficient, covering the topic in a politically neutral manner. In fact, in hindsight, I think it would've been better to simply edit the article and send a re-direct to textualism. Robocracy 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment just like no one is going to be anti-choice or pro-death? There are plenty of examples , , , of the phrase being used although I do hate to make exceptions to the neologism guildline. Honestly. NeoFreak 20:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete without the actual citations to sufficient independent and reliable sources, this neologism can not be adequately verified.-- danntm C 22:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
- Retain, danntm, there are numerous sources to uphold this title. You can start with the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and the Federalist Papers, as some among many documents that set down the concept of someone who is a strict adherent to the Constitution and does not veer from what the Founding Fathers established as the laws of the U.S. Republic. I have called myself a C.C. since I was "politically aware" back in the 1980's. There are many people who do consider themselves as such. Consider that the Constitution Party (United States) is a political party that has as its' very basis it's platform on these "Americanist" documents while opposing some traditional conservative schools of thought. So, yes, by all mean, not only does this article deserve to remain but persons so motivated should expound upon what it means to be a Constututional Conservative.