PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
1. From the start, Progressives have been opposed to the American view of governance. Specifically, to checks and balances, and preventing all power from being accumulated in the hands of one person or one branch of government.
These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.
a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.
d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.
f. The German view of governance: The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).
Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.
With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.
Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???
Why?
These usurpers differed dramatically from the views of our Founders, in that, for the first time they professed open and direct criticism and disregard for the Constitution. This revolt from earliest traditions, and desire for totalitarian control, was the backbone of the Progressive movement.
a. The Constitution was ‘old,’ and not equipped to deal with ‘new social ills.’
b. Not limited government, but expansive government was necessary.
c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives’ agenda.
d. ‘Social Justice’ requires the redistribution of private property, and the Constitution stood in the way.
e. The Progressive's view attacked the social compact and 'natural rights of citizens' theory that is embodied in the Constitution.
f. The German view of governance: The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual. The Germans have a history of embracing authoritarian rule. As the German philosopher Hegel said, “The state says … you must obey …. The state has rights against the individual; its members have obligations, among them that of obeying without protest” (Ralf Dahrendorf, Society and Democracy in Germany).
Chief Justice Roberts, playing the role of Brutus to his legal obligations, has made it plain that the Supreme Court is no longer the guardian of the law.
With the ObamaCare decision, the Progressive's aim has been accomplished: The Executive Branch now enforces AND writes laws. The Judicial Branch has no real function other than rubber-stamping executive orders.
Why would we require a Supreme Court when it no longer has a de facto function???
Why?