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.

An indictment of you, and your lack of scholarship.

Pick up a book once in a while.

Wow personal attacks, how telling.

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?

So he obviously must agree with everything Wilson did then right?

I mean clearly if you can find on e similarity they must agree on everything right? It's not like such "logic" is a guilt by association fallacy or anything.

As for the rest you give us Yahoo Answers, a blog, and a paper published by a conservative thinktank, and really no proof the self-identified progressives of today agree with Wilson.

And according to yahoo answers

"by today's standards, in some ways President Wilson was not only not progressive,"

I wonder if you even read your own sources.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is a worse indictment of PC if she is actually reading then posting this stuff, because either she doesn't care about critical thinking or she is really, really stupid.

 

[Father Time]

Oh and one more thing the thinktank paper, it also said this

"But a central strand of modern liberalism was born of a sense of betrayal, of a rejection of progressivism, of a shift in sensibility so profound that it still resonates today."

It never said

"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."

as a quick control f of modern or jilted will verify

 

[rdean]

I can never understand these types of posts. Liberals would never show contempt for the constitution. THEY WROTE IT!

Is there anyone, living anywhere on this earth, that believes for a single instant, that American Conservatives would ever, ever write a constitution with a "separation of church and state" clause?

Knowing American Conservatives, the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Proof positive the constitution was written by liberals. No need to go a step further in that direction. We have our evidence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I can never understand these types of posts. Liberals would never show contempt for the constitution. THEY WROTE IT!

Is there anyone, living anywhere on this earth, that believes for a single instant, that American Conservatives would ever, ever write a constitution with a "separation of church and state" clause?

Knowing American Conservatives, the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Proof positive the constitution was written by liberals. No need to go a step further in that direction. We have our evidence.

Well it was written by liberals, but not today's definition of a liberal. It was written by classical liberals, not exactly the same thing. Also, there is no "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither are there statemenst like "separation of powers", "federalism," "check and balances", etc. "Separation of chuch and states" was well understood by the founders. Go back and read up of Jefferson and Madison's battle againt VA Governor Patrick Henry against establishing church. I do agree they were classic liberals, not the liberals of today.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can never understand these types of posts. Liberals would never show contempt for the constitution. THEY WROTE IT!

Is there anyone, living anywhere on this earth, that believes for a single instant, that American Conservatives would ever, ever write a constitution with a "separation of church and state" clause?

Knowing American Conservatives, the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Proof positive the constitution was written by liberals. No need to go a step further in that direction. We have our evidence.

I love exposing the ignorance of the left, but deanie is different: his middle name is 'ignorance.'

The ones called 'liberals' are in actuallity the progressives. A tiny bit of research would reveal, even to you, that the progressive John Dewey appropriated the name liberal because it was such an insult to be known as progressive.

Wilson and the Progressives tried to make war socialism permanent, but the voters didn’t agree. As progressives began to agree more and more with Bismarckian top-down socialism, and looked to Russia and Italy where ‘men of action’ were creating utopias. Also, John Dewey renamed Progressivism as ‘liberalism,’ which had referred to political and economic liberty, along the lines of John Locke and Adam Smith: maximum individual freedom under a minimalist state. Dewey changed the meaning to the Prussian meaning: alleviation of material and educational poverty, and the removal of old ideas and faiths. Classical liberals were not called Conservatives.

“Finally, Dewey arguably did more than any other reformer to repackage progressive social theory in a way that obscured just how radically its principles departed from those of the American founding. Like Ely and many of his fellow progressive academics, Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, "is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism.” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_24_61/ai_n45566374/


Now, let's dismantle the oh-so-obtuse idea that liberals wrote the Constitution:

1.Unlike classical liberalism, which saw government as a necessary evil, of simply a benign but voluntary social contract for free men to enter into willingly, the belief that the entire society was one organic whole left no room for those who didn’t want to behave, let alone ‘evolve.’ Thus progressive reformers saw the home as the front line in the war to transform men into compliant social organs.
Classical liberalism is akin to modern Conservativism!

a. “The American intellectual class from the mid 19th century onward has disliked liberalism (which originally referred to individualism, private property, and limits on power) precisely because the liberal society has no overarching goal.” War Is the Health of the State


Sometimes I think you must be a paid agent provocateur, trying to make liberals look bad.
Your posts reek of stupidity, as in ""separation of church and state" clause? "

There is no such clause.

And so, your mission is successful: if you represent liberals, they are indeed, fools.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Neither are there statemenst like "separation of powers", "federalism," "check and balances", etc. "Separation of chuch and states" was well understood by the founders. Go back and read up of Jefferson and Madison's battle againt VA Governor Patrick Henry against establishing church. I do agree they were classic liberals, not the liberals of today.

However, the idea of separation of powers, federalism, and checks and balances were well understood and debated by the framers. The idea of separation of church and state was never brought up. You will not find it in any of the founding documents, nor in the writings of the framers. The framers didn't think it a good idea that religion be completely wiped out of public or government life, they simply didn't want the government establishing a national religion or prohibiting any religion.

 

[Father Time]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

They're not the same thing, however, as I describe in my post directly above yours.

 

[Father Time]

You can find separation of church in state in the writings of Jefferson.

For instance he wrote this:

" to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness,"

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/lib-edu/education/bor/vsrftext.htm

If this isn't an endorsement of separation I don't know what is.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

 

[Father Time]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

According to who? The supreme court hasn't exactly agreed with that.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

since the constitution doesn't give us many rights at all I would be very careful of enforing any policy that denies people rights that are NOT listed in the constitution.

as fond of our founding fathers as I am I still must insist that
1. since they are lond dead
and
2. since they got so many things wrong (womans suffrage, slavery, the right to vote for nonlandowners)
and
3. since we have evolved/changed/matured/grown so much since their day

it is justifiable for those of us living today to decide for ourselves what kind of country we want to live in and what our rights and freedoms should be.


i prefer to NOT be forced to abide by rules and laws that are illogical, irrational and outdated

the people of EVERY age should have the right and freedom to decide for themselves

Well if you don't want to abide by the law of the land, you should run for President of the National Anarchists of America or something like that.

Tea Partiers, Tax Protest groups, 9/12ers, and similar groups are not opposed to laws. They understand that without rules and laws to secure our rights, then nobody's rights are secure.

And that is what the Constitution is all about. It secures our rights and then it was intended that the people live their lives in whatever form of society they wished to have.

So we're almost on the same page there. We may not be quite in agreement on how best to get there, but I don't advise throwing out the Constitution in order to get there.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's your church and state separation.

Neither the establishment clause nor the free exercise clause are 'separation of church and state' clauses.

The idea is found in a letter by Jefferson referring to a wall of separation.

Educating you becomes tiresome: one would think that knowledge of the subject would be a prerequisite to having an opinion on same.

Obviously, in your case, this is not true.

According to who? The supreme court hasn't exactly agreed with that.

Do you understand the term 'clause'?

Now, where do you think a clause appears?

You can't be this dense, so one must conclude that your ignornce of the subject even embarrasses you... so now the straw you are clutching is obfuscation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can find separation of church in state in the writings of Jefferson.

For instance he wrote this:

" to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness,"

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 16 January 1786

If this isn't an endorsement of separation I don't know what is.

Which does not say "Remove all traces of religion from public life."

 

[Father Time]

You can find separation of church in state in the writings of Jefferson.

For instance he wrote this:

" to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness,"

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 16 January 1786

If this isn't an endorsement of separation I don't know what is.

Which does not say "Remove all traces of religion from public life."

Is that what you think separation of church and state implies?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can find separation of church in state in the writings of Jefferson.

For instance he wrote this:

" to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness,"

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 16 January 1786

If this isn't an endorsement of separation I don't know what is.

Which does not say "Remove all traces of religion from public life."

Is that what you think separation of church and state implies?

If we look at the history of "separation of church and state" that's exactly what it implies.

 

[Foxfyre]

I can never understand these types of posts. Liberals would never show contempt for the constitution. THEY WROTE IT!

Is there anyone, living anywhere on this earth, that believes for a single instant, that American Conservatives would ever, ever write a constitution with a "separation of church and state" clause?

Knowing American Conservatives, the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Proof positive the constitution was written by liberals. No need to go a step further in that direction. We have our evidence.

At least modern American conservatives know that there is no separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I can never understand these types of posts. Liberals would never show contempt for the constitution. THEY WROTE IT!

Is there anyone, living anywhere on this earth, that believes for a single instant, that American Conservatives would ever, ever write a constitution with a "separation of church and state" clause?

Knowing American Conservatives, the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Proof positive the constitution was written by liberals. No need to go a step further in that direction. We have our evidence.

At least modern American conservatives know that there is no separation of Church and State clause in the Constitution.

First, I must let you know that I claim highlighting how dumb deanie-weanie is is a proprietary right of mine!

And, it is no difficult feat to indicate same, as he has walked away with 'Dumbest Poster, USMB' award, what...two, three years in a row.