It would be considered liberal.
Anything modest and conservative.
I would say that banning text would be a conservative idea. Texting is considered to be a liberal and free idea, so banning it while driving would be conservative.
The things that are discussed at a conservative confrence would be the diplomatic matters of the United States of America and how to be the Democrats.
LIBERAL Actually, he would be considered Conservative in today's standard. The old Democratic Party used to be the more conservative of the Whig and early Republican Parties. Proof is in his beliefs, he supported laissez-faire capitalism, states' rights, and was an anti-federalist, and anti-national bank man (the national bank was designed to increase federal authority over the states). Every president before the 1900s was conservative.
Associate Justice William Cushing was a member of the US Supreme Court from 1790 - 1810, a time when terms like liberal, conservative and moderate weren't part of the political lexicon. Cushing supported abolition of slavery, which would certainly be have been considered a "liberal" position at the time. On the other hand, as a member of the Federalist party, Cushing favored a strong central government over states' rights, which was considered a more conservative position compared to the Democratic-Republicans' preference to allow states more autonomy. He was a strong supporter of the Constitution, but not of the Revolutionary War. Cushing could probably best be characterized as a political conservative with liberal views on select social issues.
At least nine states.
The electors who choose the President were considered to be representatives of the individual states. The states were allowed to determine their own method of choosing their electors, but I think the expectation was the state legislatures would choose them.
The colonies had constitutions that predate the US Constitution. My opinion is that States' constitutions would look somewhat like they do today, although there would be important differences also.
Because 'conservative' and liberal' have no fixed content in politics. Conservative politicians in for instance Scandinavia and The Netherlands would mostly be considered liberal, if not 'socialist' in the eyes of US politicians. And what with the whole political spectrum in the USA being much more to the right than that of many other Western countries, many US conservative politicians would find it hard if not impossible to find a local 'conservative' Party where they would feel at home - and US liberals would be considered to hold slightly right-wing conservative political views in those countries.
The Constitution was originally intended to amend the Articles of Confederation and the framers decided to replace it. It would be considered illegal because the Articles required all of the states to ratify amendments and the Constitution only required nine of 13.
This would be an anarchist. There are many contries that do not respect the values of the Constitution of the U.S. that would also be considered against the constitution. For example communism, monarchies etc...