Liberal Contempt for the Constitution

[Father Time]

Wilson was the poster-boy for progressivism

Once again I ask you to prove progressives made Wilson their poster boy. I've never heard them mention Wilson only you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

(1) PC has started falling back on personal attack when she cannot handled the facts of the argument.

(2) Her argumentative ability lacks understanding of the sophistication and nuance of American constitutionalism.

(3) PC proved herself intellectually shallow win #30 above.

(4) She ignored that the Founders got quite a bit wrong.

PC is flatly wrong in the OP from the get go.

When one can't bring anything to the table, this is the kind of post that allows one to claim, to use a synecdoche, skin in the game.

Congrats on producing one of the most insipid posts of the day.

Your insipidness is the password of the day, PC. Your OP, for the reasons, above is a no-go.

 

[antagon]

(1) PC has started falling back on personal attack when she cannot handled the facts of the argument.

(2) Her argumentative ability lacks understanding of the sophistication and nuance of American constitutionalism.

(3) PC proved herself intellectually shallow win #30 above.

(4) She ignored that the Founders got quite a bit wrong.

PC is flatly wrong in the OP from the get go.

When one can't bring anything to the table, this is the kind of post that allows one to claim, to use a synecdoche, skin in the game.

Congrats on producing one of the most insipid posts of the day.

Your insipidness is the password of the day, PC. Your OP, for the reasons, above is a no-go.

her insipidity, even!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Both are equally worthy of her insipid writing. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=insipidness

 

[midcan5]

I wonder if when PoliticalChic goes to bed she checks under the bed or in the closet to make sure that bogeyman 'Progressivism' isn't hiding there, waiting to convert her to the light side? Egads what a broken record, and for what, one wonders. I have been reading a history from the early thirties of the last century and it seems nothing changes for those who see change as bad. Imagine a magic wand, puff all liberal progressive change disappeared, where would we be I wonder? Probably nowhere. Time moves and the complainers move with it forgetting and disregarding its movement.

This is worth a listen on the moral dimensions of conservatives and liberals. Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives | Video on TED.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wilson was the poster-boy for progressivism

Once again I ask you to prove progressives made Wilson their poster boy. I've never heard them mention Wilson only you.

An indictment of you, and your lack of scholarship.

Pick up a book once in a while.

"Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924) was the 28th President of the United States, serving two terms from 1913-1919. As president of Princeton University and later as governor of New Jersey, Wilson was a leading Progressive, arguing for a stronger central government ..."http://www.shmoop.com/progressive-era-politics/woodrow-wilson.html

"In August of 1912, Democratic Party nominee Woodrow Wilson met with progressive lawyer Louis Brandeis to discuss how to combat Progressive Party nominee Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism."

Read more at Suite101: The New Freedom: The Progressive Program of President Woodrow Wilson The New Freedom: The Progressive Program of President Woodrow Wilson

"To understand the definition of "progressive" that applied to Woodrow Wilson, you have to understand the Progressive Era and the events leading up to it. The reason I suggest that is because by today's standards, in some ways President Wilson was not only not progressive, he was rather draconian--for example, his true opinions on women's suffrage..." How was woodrow wilson progressive? - Yahoo! Answers

"Wilson’s two terms in office provide the clearest historical window into the soul of progressivism. Wilson’s racism, his ideological rigidity, and his antipathy toward the Constitution were all products of the progressive worldview. And since “progressivism” is suddenly in vogue – today’s leading Democrats proudly wear the label – it’s worth actually reviewing what progressivism was and what actually happened under the last full-throated progressive president.
The record should give sober pause to anyone who’s mesmerized by the progressive promise.
But they don’t even understand their own intellectual history."
The First “Progressive” President - Transterrestrial Musings


"President Wilson is mostly remembered today as the first modern liberal president. Arriving on the scene with such promise for the progressives, and leaving them jilted, he is perhaps most responsible for the liberals of today."http://www.city-journal.org/2009/eon1122fs.html

BTW, that’s the ‘old time’ Progressive…not the current group. Right? Wrong.

a. Does President Obama believe in three separate branches of government? Well, Congress refused to pass his commission idea, so in the SOTU he said he’d just use executive order to create it. And he insisted that Congress overturn the Supreme Court decision…or, I guess, another executive order?

b. Ms. Clinton: “"I prefer the word ‘progressive,’ which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.” Hillary Clinton: I’m Not a Liberal

c. Axelrod claims the WH is Progressive:

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/j4PxJ4uH-t4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

At about 1:22..."WH progressive platform"

 

[antagon]

fail. thats not posterboy status. FDR is posterboy status.

 

[jillian]

It's so funny watching the pretend constitutionalists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The "pretend constitutionalists" would do better if they would read it (again? for the first time?) and ponder it.

 

[Douger]

Patriot act. Case closed.

 

[momonkey]

So it's your contention that the Patriot Act that was passed when Republicans controlled the House, Senate, and White House is the fault of the Democratic Party?

Can you think of a better example of bi-partisan legislation?

I'm sure that I could if I was so inclined. However, if the conservatives were opposed to the Patriot Act it wouldn't have happened. They controlled both chambers and the Presidency. Don't think I'm not aware that Democrats supported this legislation, but they don't pretend to be the party of limited government and fidelity to the Constitution.

Quote: Originally Posted by Kevin_Kennedy

There certainly is liberal contempt for the Constitution, but let us not forget the conservative contempt for the Constitution as well.

Examples?

Let's start with the Patriot Act.



????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[PoliticalChic]

fail. thats not posterboy status. FDR is posterboy status.

On the contrary, it doesn't fail at all.

It merely documents your ignorance.

Posterboy: a person who typifies or represents a particular characteristic, cause, opinion, etc http://www.thefreedictionary.com/poster+boy

FDR picked up where the original progressives led.

You seem to have misunderstood 'posterboy' for 'hero.'

BTW, both poor choices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It's so funny watching the pretend constitutionalists.

It has become so five-minutes-ago to pretend that you see humor in the opinion of whomsoever you disagree with...

nor did it ever take the place of actual debate.

Or does it identify you as a 'pretend intellectual'?

 

[antagon]

she looked up posterboy...

 

[PoliticalChic]

she looked up posterboy...

Which is what you should have done, and then you would have appeared less foolish.

 

[Luissa]

Most liberals have accepted some ‘modern’ or populist view of the correct direction of society, without addressing either the provenance, or the prognosis if this path is followed.

1. Where do our laws begin? The answer is not open to conjecture: it is written in the Constitution itself.

“THIS CONSTITUTION, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
“THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, SHALL BE BOUND BY OATH OR AFFIRMATION, TO SUPPORT THIS CONSTITUTION; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article VI.

2. Cal Thomas wrote in the March 8, 2000, Washington Times, “In the final Democratic debate before the Super Tuesday election, Vice President Al Gore responded to a question about the type of Supreme Court justices he as president would select: ‘I would look for justices of the Supreme Court who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document, that it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly EVOLVING EXPERIENCE of the American people.’ …
“Mr. Gore’s view of the Constitution, shared by most political liberals, IS ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS PHILOSOPHIES OF OUR TIME. It establishes a class of philosopher-kings who determine the rights of the people and shreds the CONSTITUTION AS A DOCUMENT THAT CONFORMS PEOPLE TO UNCHANGING PRINCIPLES that promote their own and the general welfare.

3. Liberal scholars today don’t believe the Constitution was “ROOTED IN OBJECTIVE AND UNCHANGING TRUTH”—that is, they don’t believe our founders established the rule of law. But that’s just what the founders did. And now most lawyers and judges reject their foundational work. “A well-known Harvard law professor,” Robert Bork wrote, “turned to me with some exasperation and said, ‘Your notion that the Constitution is in some sense law must rest upon an obscure philosophic principle with which I am unfamiliar.’”

4. Law schools routinely teach about being “legal realists.” Like former Vice President Al Gore, they want an “evolving Constitution.” But this reasoning gives the judges despotic powers. It also takes us away from the foundational law established by our forefathers. RADICAL LIBERAL CULTURE OFTEN HAS CONTEMPT OF HISTORY AND OUR FOUNDING FATHERS. Its followers foolishly rely on their own reasoning, which is not grounded in foundational law.
The War Against the U.S. Constitution | theTrumpet.com by the Philadelphia Church of God

5. Speaking directly to this point, the Tea Party folks have created a ‘Contract For America,’ the first item of which is the following, agreed to by over 82%:
"(1) Protect the Constitution: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03 percent). Tea Party Activists Unveil 'Contract From America' - ABC News

You might want to check out the threads having to do with Arizona, there are many cons in them with no respect for the constitution.

 

[rikules]

It's so funny watching the pretend constitutionalists.

It has become so five-minutes-ago to pretend that you see humor in the opinion of whomsoever you disagree with...

nor did it ever take the place of actual debate.

Or does it identify you as a 'pretend intellectual'?

pot...kettle...black.....

personally
I think the FUNNIEST thing

is when an arrogant conserative
who consistantly LAUGHS at the opinions of people with whom she disagrees
pretends to be SMART
while posting her disgust at OTHER people behaving as badly as SHE does!

 

[rikules]

It's so funny watching the pretend constitutionalists.

since we have so FEW actual rights (as NOT listed in the constitution)

a fact that cons remind us of regularly ("that is NOT a RIGHT!....it is a PRIVILEDGE!")

I'm really curious as to just exactly why they want to ENFORCE a document that is so outdated and limited....?

 

[Madeline]

The US Constitution is almost universally regarded as a high water mark in drafting a document to organize and restrain a system of government and its citizens. No one is proposing that the US abandon it in favor of some allegedly superior document. No one (at least, no one I have ever heard of) claims it was badly written.

Who the fuck are all these Liberal Americans who hold the US Constitution in contempt?

What freaking planet are you on? Miss a med today?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US Constitution is almost universally regarded as a high water mark in drafting a document to organize and restrain a system of government and its citizens. No one is proposing that the US abandon it in favor of some allegedly superior document. No one (at least, no one I have ever heard of) claims it was badly written.

Who the fuck are all these Liberal Americans who hold the US Constitution in contempt?

What freaking planet are you on? Miss a med today?

If you don't want to govern as if the day was January 1, 1801, then you hate America, dontcha know?