While the specific rantings that you give as examples of speech have to a great degree been addressed by the Supreme Court, and, generally require proximity and ability to commit physical acts, your post is exemplary in spotlighting the political-philosophical diffeences that spit our country today.
Traditionalists, or conservatives, place more faith in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence than do folks like yourself, Progressives or liberals.
You have stated a main theorem of the Progressives of the early 20th century, let me list them:
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c. The outdated concepts of checks and balances were obstacles for the Progressives agenda.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 new view attacked the social compact and natural rights of citizens theory embodied by the Constitution.
f. The rights of the collective, the state, surpass those of the individual.
The overriding weakness as my side sees your perspective is the dimunition of the individual as the most important denominator of society.
While it is difficult to predict exactly when your perspective will destroy our society, it is clear from history, that totalist viewpoints do just that.
Should any of the above list require elucidation, I would be only too happy to provide same.
Please don't hesitate- as this is a discussion of primary importance.
Before any amendments were passed there was probably as much debate as there was in the Federalist Papers which formed the basis of the original Constitution. It should be no surprise to anyone that the same types of ideological debates have continued over time, and right up until today. Ironically, I believe it is precisely that type of debate that the framers hoped would establish a middle ground. And THAT is what remains perfect about the Constitution.
Ah, the old Maggie has returned!
Good to see this one.
"...continued over time..." An excellent vertex for this discussion!
The preeminence of my perspective was the period of the ratification of the Constitution, until the Civil War.
For the Progressive, from the Civil War to the present.
The salient point is that the pendulum swing is beyond that of a normal lifespan. Thus, we must apply more than individual experience to decide the benefits of each.
That said, then you do confess there ARE benefits of "each," yes?
"...establish a middle ground..." is impossible!
100%, of course not. But the reason separation of power is explicit in many clauses of the Constitution is an attempt at finding middle ground. Without that attempt, a dictatorship (or monarchy) would have taken place almost immediately. "We the people" are the operative words in the Constitution, meaning no distinction between political persuasion or any other characteristic. (Of course, that had to be expanded upon almost immediately, however.)
Either one or the other will prevail...and the benefits of conservativism, free market and the superiority of the individual have been shown to benenfit society, while progressivism, socialism and statism, as seen in the totalist supremacies of the past century have resulted in torture, mass murder, enslavement and poverty.
One or the other prevails in almost all election cycles because the one outgoing has been deemed NOT to be of benefit to the people. And I wouldn't be mentioning regimes that promote torture, mass murder or poverty as being exclusive of liberalism. I think you could just casually ask your average Iraqi trying to pick up the pieces from our great adventure in "liberating" them about that.
I appreciate your endeavor of linking modern liberalism to an assumed interest by the Founders, but I fear this is more founded in your desires as a good person, than in any real desire by true progressives to fulfull the promise of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
I simply believe "freedom" means different things to different classes of people.
No, my friend, there are too many syncretic inconsistencies between the two.
For one, the source of our "inalienable rights."
We believe that all are born with them, and they come from, as stated in the Preamble,
Laws of Nature and of Natures God. Locke stated as much.
Woodrow Wilson essay Socialism and Democracy Limitations of public authority must be put aside; the state may cross that boundary at will. The collective is not limited by individual rights.
I don't know if you saw the seminar at Hillsdale College called "Reviving the Constitiution," but if you wish to see it, you can on line, or you can purchase the DVD. An excellent presentation.
