Steve, you make some excellent points, and I agree with much of what you say.  Let me explain why I focus on the conservative threat.

I fully agree that the leftists/liberals are also intent on driving the stake of statism irreversibly through the heart of America.  However, there is an important difference: the liberals are not posturing as defenders of freedom, capitalism and limited government, as are the conservatives.  

Decades of such posturing has left much of the American electorate with the impression that conservatives are indeed defenders of capitalism -- and this is what makes them so dangerous.  Americans (for the most part) see liberals for what they are -- power-hungry politicians that want to expand government – and are appropriately suspicious of their proposals.  Unfortunately, they do not realize that the same is true of conservatives.

Thus, as John Lewis points out, when a Hillary Clinton proposes a "government-funded national healthcare plan", the public sees it for what it is: a blatant power-grab and the establishment of socialized medicine.  And seeing it as such, the American people (most anyway) reject it.

But let a George W Bush propose a prescription drug benefit that promises to bankrupt us, and the public (by and large) does not object.  Just as they do not object when he and a Republican-controlled congress expand government spending to levels the liberals can only dream of, and would never get away with. Just as they do not object when he firmly cements the federal government’s influence over the content of our children’s education (at least for those of us who cannot afford private schools).  Just as they do not object when this purported champion of free trade imposes tariffs on steel imports.  Just as they do not object when he signs into law the so-called Campaign Finance Reform act, provisions of which blatantly violate the first amendment. 

Had the liberals pushed these same programs, I believe there would have been significant public resistance.  (I realize that some conservatives are up in arms over these things; but they are a minority, as far as I can tell.)

In defense of conservatives (on a limited point):  I agree with the conservative view that the Supreme Court has become a force that is not bounded by the constitution.  At times the court is a 5 vote dictatorship.  That is why many conservatives are fighting for "strict interpretation" and/or "original intent" to put some limits on the courts power.

Perhaps, but is it really the court’s power they seek to limit?  If you listen to the objections coming from conservatives over the Miers nomination, what do you hear?  You hear that they want assurances that the nominee will be a “truly reliable conservative” that can be counted on to do the following:

1) Vote to abolish a woman’s right to control her own reproductive functions (by voting to overturn Roe v. Wade)

2) Vote to put prayer back into the public schools and the Ten Commandments back into courtrooms (by voting to overturn lower court rulings to the contrary)

3) Vote to abolish homosexual’s right to marry (by overturning lower court rulings to the contrary)

4) Vote to uphold the constitutionality of laws banning cloning and stem-cell research.

5) Vote to uphold the requirement that children say the pledge of allegiance, and vote to keep the phrase “under God” in that pledge.

These are the sort of issues where conservatives (at least the ones I read) get upset about court "excesses".

Now, conspicuously absent from their concerns are the nominee’s views on two recent, disastrous SCOTUS rulings: namely the ruling upholding eminent domain in Kelo v. New London, and the ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Campaign Finance Reform act.  If conservatives are truly interested in putting limits on government power, they should be demanding a nominee that would vote against these two decisions, instead of demanding a nominee that will uphold additional restrictions on our freedoms.  Yet, in the numerous articles I have read about the Miers nomination, I’ve yet to see a conservative mention these two decisions.

Have the conservatives launched an effort to amend the constitution and outlaw (or at least limit) eminent domain?  No, but they launched an effort to amend the constitution to outlaw gay marriage (see the Federal Marriage Amendment).  Have the conservatives tried to repeal the Campaign Finance Reform act?  No, but they have tried to amend the constitution to outlaw abortion (see the Human Life Amendment).  The examples are numerous.

Who poses the greater threat to liberty: conservatives or liberals?  For many years, I believed that the liberals were more dangerous.  However, the conservatives are rapidly changing my mind.  They have a talent for verbally championing freedom, limited government and capitalism -- while actively destroying all three.  And they seem to get away with it.

Decades of such posturing has left much of the American electorate with the impression that conservatives are indeed defenders of capitalism -- and this is what makes them so dangerous. 

You seem to demean strict interpretation and original intent, do you see a better method of restricting the judicial dictatorship?

 Steve, here are the potential problems I see with the notions of “strict interpretation” and “original intent”. 

For one thing, there are errors in the constitution.  What, for example, is the strictly interpreted meaning of statement 1 in section 8 of Article I, which states the “Congress shall have the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, and provide for….. the general welfare of the United States”.  One can argue that it authorizes a whole host of welfare-type programs.   And then there is statement 8: “Congress shall have the power….to regulate commerce among the several states.”  That statement would seem to authorize antitrust laws and the whole nightmarish collection of federal business regulations.

However, assuming the errors are corrected, I would certainly favor strict interpretation – provided we interpret the Constitution to be a limit on government power.  But with those errors in place, strict interpretation can work against us as well as for us. 

My main objection is to those that argue that "strict interpretation" means the states can pass any law that does not infringe the rights explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments.  A leading spokesman for this position is the judicial darling of the conservatives, Judge Robert Bork.

Bork disagrees vehemently with the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut.  This case marked the first mention by SCOTUS of a right to privacy.  It involved a challenge to a Connecticut law that made the possession of contraceptives by married couples illegal.  Think about that.  A law that made it illegal for married couples to own rubbers.  SCOTUS said that a right to privacy was implicit in other rights and overturned the law on that basis.

As far as Bork is concerned, such a law is perfectly acceptable.  If the state decides that you cannot use contraceptives, then that is the state’s prerogative, because a "strict interpretation" of the constitution does not reveal any right to privacy.  (As an aside, I agree that “right to privacy” is not the best articulation of the principle involved.  It would have been far better to declare that government’s only legitimate function is defending individual rights and since no violation of rights is involved in using contraceptives, it is none of the government’s damn business.)

So as far as Bork is concerned (and a large collection of conservatives), state laws against contraception, abortion, pornography, gay marriage, teaching evolution, genetics research, etc are fine, because the constitution – strictly interpreted – does not grant anyone the right to these things.

Explaining why he opposes Roe v Wade and the recent decision that threw out the Texas sodomy law, Bork said:  “The Constitution has nothing in it that would prevent a state from allowing homosexual sodomy, from allowing abortion or from disallowing homosexual sodomy and disallowing abortion. Those are topics simply not addressed by the Constitution.”

As far as Bork is concerned, since a “strict interpretation” of the constitution says there is no right to be homosexual, the state of Texas can throw you in jail for it; they can give you a cell next to the criminal who was caught teaching evolution..

If we endorse the concept of “strict interpretation”, how do we prevent the Borks & conservatives from using it to limit freedom instead of limiting government?

There are similar dangers with the notion of “original intent”.

Conservatives, for instance, have been talking up a new book by Philip Hamburger called, Separation of Church and State.  This book purports to prove that the founders, while objecting to the notion of religion running the government, did not believe in a strict separation of church and state.  Thus, according to conservatives, “original intent” means there is nothing wrong with school prayer, displaying the Ten Commandments in the court room, teaching creationism, etc.

Mr. Hamburger might be right about the founders “original intent”.  However, this does not invalidate the notion of strict separation of church and state.  So, one obvious problem with “original intent” is that fact that the founders were by no means philosophically perfect.

A similar end-run around the second amendment has been attempted  many times.  Most recently, an Emory University researcher published a book claiming to prove that gun ownership by private individuals was actually uncommon in the late 1700s.  So in all likelihood, the “original intent” of the second amendment, according to this argument, was merely to grant the state’s the right to equip a militia, not to grant an individual right to own firearms. 

Fortunately, the study was found to be full of lies and errors and was eventually discredited. Unfortunately, this seemed to be the only grounds anyone asserted for dismissing the book.  No one stood up and asserted the right to own a gun regardless of what the founders “originally intended”.

“Original intent”, then, commits us to the views of the founders, whatever they are determined to be.  While many of their views are quite rational, others are not, and I do not know enough about them to know whether we would be better off under an “original intent” doctrine.  As with “strict interpretation”, how do we keep our enemies from using “original intent” against us?

What solution is there for the problem of the anti-conceptual mentality?

If you are going to assert that certain ideas of the founders were not rational, you should take to time to 'know enough about them". 

Jefferson has a lot to say, for example, about promoting the general welfare.  As to the commerce clause in the founder's day regulate meant to make regular (consistent) not to control.

Why do you fear States making laws of which you do not approv?. The feds do the same.One can always depart the State, whereas leaving the country is a bit more onorous.