cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

'We the people" are the central concern of the Constitution, as well as its opening words, since it is a Constitution for a self-governing nation. But "we the people" are treated as an obstacle to circumvent by the current administration.

At the time when it was written, however, the Constitution was a radical departure from the autocratic governments of the 18th century.

Since it was something so new and different, the reasons for the Constitution's provisions were spelled out in "The Federalist," a book written by three of the writers of the Constitution, as a sort of instruction guide to a new product.

The Constitution was not only a challenge to the despotic governments of its time, it has been a continuing challenge — to this day — to all those who think that ordinary people should be ruled by their betters, whether an elite of blood, or of books or of whatever else gives people a puffed-up sense of importance.

While the kings of old have faded into the mists of history, the principle of the divine rights of kings to impose whatever they wish on the masses lives on today in the rampaging presumptions of those who consider themselves anointed to impose their notions on others.

The Constitution of the United States is the biggest single obstacle to the carrying out of such rampaging presumptions, so it is not surprising that those with such presumptions have led the way in denigrating, undermining and evading the Constitution.

While various political leaders have, over the centuries, done things that violated either the spirit or the letter of the Constitution, few dared to openly say that the Constitution was wrong and that what they wanted was right.

Progressives' Role

It was the Progressives of a hundred years ago who began saying that the Constitution needed to be subordinated to whatever they chose to call "the needs of the times."

Nor were they content to say that the Constitution needed more Amendments, for that would have meant that the much disdained masses would have something to say about whether, or what kind, of Amendments were needed.

The agenda then, as now, has been for our betters to decide among themselves which Constitutional safeguards against arbitrary government power should be disregarded, in the name of meeting "the needs of the times" — as they choose to define those needs.

The first open attack on the Constitution by a President of the United States was made by our only president with a Ph.D., Woodrow Wilson.

Virtually all the arguments as to why judges should not take the Constitution as meaning what its words plainly say, but "interpret" it to mean whatever it ought to mean, in order to meet "the needs of the times," were made by Woodrow Wilson.

Wisdom Of 'Experts'

It is no coincidence that those who imagine themselves so much wiser and nobler than the rest of us should be in the forefront of those who seek to erode Constitutional restrictions on the arbitrary powers of government.

How can our betters impose their superior wisdom and virtue on us, when the Constitution gets in the way at every turn, with all its provisions to safeguard a system based on a self-governing people?

To get their way, the elites must erode or dismantle the Constitution, bit by bit, in one way or another. What that means is that they must dismantle America.

This has been going on piecemeal over the years, but now we have an administration in Washington that circumvents the Constitution wholesale, with its laws passed so fast that the public cannot know what is in them, its appointment of "czars" wielding greater power than Cabinet members, without having to be exposed to pubic scrutiny by going through the confirmation process prescribed by the Constitution for Cabinet members.

Now there is leaked news of plans to change the immigration laws by administrative fiat, rather than Congressional legislation, presumably because Congress might be unduly influenced by those pesky voters — with their Constitutional rights — who have shown clearly that they do not want amnesty and open borders, despite however much our betters do.

If the Obama administration gets away with this, and can add a few million illegals to the voting rolls in time for the 2012 elections, that can mean re-election, and with it a continuing and accelerating dismantling of America.

One way of circumventing the people is to rush legislation through Congress so fast that no one knows what is buried in it. Did you know that the so-called health care reform bill contained a provision creating a tax on people who buy and sell gold coins?

You might debate whether that tax is a good or a bad idea. But the whole point of burying it in legislation about medical insurance is to make sure "we the people" don't even know about it, much less have a chance to debate it, before it becomes law.

Did you know that the financial reform bill that's been similarly rushed through Congress, too fast for anyone to read, has a provision about "inclusion" of women and minorities? Pretty words like "inclusion" mean ugly realities like quotas. But that too isn't something "we the people" are to be allowed to debate, because it too was sneaked through.

Not since the Norman conquerors of England published their laws in French, for an English-speaking nation, centuries ago, has there been such contempt for the people's right to know what laws were being imposed on them.

Yet another ploy is to pass laws worded in vague generalities, leaving it up to the federal bureaucracies to issue specific regulations based on those laws. "We the people" can't vote on bureaucrats. And, since it takes time for all the bureaucratic rules to be formulated and then put into practice, we won't know what either the rules or their effects are prior to this fall's elections when we vote for (or against) those who passed these clever laws.

The biggest circumvention of "we the people" was of course the so-called "health care reform" bill. This bill was passed with the proviso that it would not really take effect until after the 2012 presidential elections. Between now and then, the Obama administration can tell us in glowing words how wonderful this bill is, what good things it will do for us, and how it has rescued us from the evil insurance companies, among its many other glories.

But we won't really know what the actual effects of this bill are until after the next presidential elections — which is to say, after it is too late. Quite simply, we are being played for fools.

Much has been made of the fact that families making less than $250,000 a year will not see their taxes raised. Of course they won't see it, because what they see could affect how they vote. But when huge tax increases are put on electric utility companies, the people will see electricity bills go up. When huge taxes are put on other businesses as well, they will see the prices of the things those businesses sell go up.

If you are not in that "rich" category, you will not see your own taxes go up. But you will be paying someone else's higher taxes, unless of course you can do without electricity and other products of heavily taxed businesses. If you don't see this, so much the better for the administration politically.

This country has been changed in a more profound way by corrupting its fundamental values. The Obama administration has begun bribing people with the promise of getting their medical care and other benefits paid for by other people, so long as those other people can be called "the rich." Incidentally, most of those who are called "the rich" are nowhere close to being rich.

A couple making $125,000 a year each are not rich, even though together they reach that magic $250,000 income level. In most cases, they haven't been making $125,000 a year all their working lives. Far more often, they have reached this level after decades of working their way up from lower incomes — and now the government steps in to grab the reward they have earned over the years.

There was a time when most Americans would have resented the suggestion that they wanted someone else to pay their bills. But now, envy and resentment have been cultivated to the point where even people who contribute nothing to society feel that they have a right to a "fair share" of what others have produced.

The most dangerous corruption is a corruption of a nation's soul. That is what this administration is doing.

34 Replies
Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

 

Re; all of those "erosive" Ammendments......

 

You are aware of just what is involved in the ammending of The Constitution, aren't you. How many votes ae required, in every state? I'ts worth remembering that none of the ammending was done, or done, lightly.

 

And all of those sneaky laws? Passed by democraticly elected representatives of the people.

 

Only way you can change much is to displace that elected body and fill it  with suitable replacements, and that's what you state that you are trying to do. It isn't going to happen on command or by edict. And Newt and Sarah and numerous extremist members of Congress have been throwng wrenches into your works as fast as they can get them out fo the toolbox.

 

 

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

Not even to mention the "erosive" amendments that THEY would like to see added.  But, I forgot, THEIR amendments are fair and just.

Highlighted
Advisor

Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

Amendments are difficult,designed to be, should be difficult.   It protects the minority from the tyranny of majority rule.

 

Sneaky laws, yes.  Apparently Obama thought so, he campaigned on transparency, said he would posted bills online, for what 5 days, so the public would get a chance to review them.  How long did that promise last?  Tossed out the day he took office wasn't it?  

 

Most of our democratically elected officials have no clue what they are voting on, which really wouldn't matter so much if, as Sowell points out, the SCOTUS was enforcing the constitution not interpreting the needs of the times.   Honestly, with the commerce clause decisions,  any freedom assured us by the constitution was tossed out.   We are serfs of the oligarchy, we exist to serve their needs.   Look how congress handed the population to the insurance companies with the health care law, we are required under penalty of law to purchase their products.    These scum sucking bottom dwellers think they have the right to tell me what private commerce I must engage in?

 

You suppose people will be surprised to find that new box on their W-2's next year with the value of their benefits outlined?   No tax on that number yet, but its coming.    One sneaky step at at time.

Highlighted
Veteran Contributor

Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

6. In the Beginning: The Process of Power

[Notice the compromise needed to build the power base. Yet, since pragmatism has eroded all values, it's simply a matter of ends justifying means]

 

"From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams... only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues.... Until he has those means and power instruments, his 'tactics' are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor Unions, corner gangs, or as individuals."

     "Change comes from power, and power comes from organization." p.113

"The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are  to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new." p.116

"An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent... He must create a mechanism that can drain off the underlying guilt for having accepted the previous situation for so long a time. Out of this mechanism, a new community organization arises....
    
 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2249577/posts

"The tenth rule... is you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.... p.36

Notes from an article by Phyllis Schalfly titled " Alinski's Rules: Must Reading In Obama Era," posted at www.ibdeditorials.com (2-2-09)

       "The qualities Alinsky looked for in a good organizer were:

  • ego ("reaching for the highest level for which man can reach — to create, to be a 'great creator,' to play God"),

     

  • curiosity (raising "questions that agitate, that break through the accepted pattern"),

     

  • irreverence ("nothing is sacred"; the organizer "detests dogma, defies any finite definition of morality"),

     

  • imagination ("the fuel for the force that keeps an organizer organizing"),

     

  • a sense of humor ("the most potent weapons known to mankind are satire and ridicule"), and an

     

  • organized personality with confidence in presenting the right reason for his actions only "as a moral rationalization after the right end has been achieved.'...

     

  • "'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

     

    from Rules for Radical Saul Ailnsky

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Highlighted
    Veteran Advisor

    Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

    As a deeply commited right winger, out to change many things that you don't like and very likely supportive of politicians and public figures who have that same goal you don't smell the deep irony in pinning this method exclusively on to folks who line up to the left of you?

     

    "'The organizer's first job is to create the issues or problems,' and 'organizations must be based on many issues.' The organizer 'must first rub raw the resentments of the people of the community; fan the latent hostilities of many of the people to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act. . . . An organizer must stir up dissatisfaction and discontent.'"

    That could come right out of Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, John Bolton, Liz Cheney or Glen Beck's resume.

    Highlighted
    Veteran Advisor

    Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

    I have to admit, those are the same methods that I use to break down allegiance to liberal groups and attempt and have successfully helped build new "power blocks" in our area to smash liberal growth.

    Hey, the Leftists have shown us the way that works, so.... why re-invent the wheel, do what works, get the job done, and steer those looking for direction toward Conservatism.

    Our biggest problem, is that Conservatism is about individual advancement.  It is double hard to take folks who like to pull themselves up by their Own bootstraps and blend them into an "army" of activists.  Dems do that naturally as most of them are like sheep looking for a flock to belong to, in order to matter.

    Highlighted
    Advisor

    Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

    The fact that you recognize that, but don't recognize why a democracy of the majority is a bad thing, is disturbing.  As long as my INDIVIDUAL inalienable rights are protected it does not matter what Alinski, or Newt think or do.    The moment the collective is allowed to violate those rights, which include private property, is when the worries begin.    Living document people, like yourself, are meerly arguing about who gets to be the oppressor.

    Highlighted
    Advisor

    Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

    Why is evrybody having such a hard time calling this guy what you call most who don't agree with President Obama?  I mean if he diagrees he is obviously racist.  Have funSmiley Happy

    Highlighted
    Veteran Contributor

    Re: Constitution Is Big Barrier To Liberal Agenda

    The exception though lies in that they (Palin, etc) chose to adhere to the Constitution, the left seeks to change it.  The rules for radicals  are endorsed wholeheartedly by these guys...http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/907/1/4/