Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Progressives Hate the US Constitution

Progressives hate the tea parties and they hate the constitution.  These are the two principle impediments preventing them from finishing what Woodrow Wilson and FDR started.
"The Constitution was not made to fit us like a straitjacket. In its elasticity lies its chief greatness."
-- Woodrow Wilson
Liberal Propaganda Deconstructed

The liberal propagandists in the press tried branding us racists, but such blatant attacks don't work anymore, so they have adopted more subtle tactics.  EJ Dionne is the latest to deploy a deft combination I call the non-sequitur straw man.  Follow me as I deconstruct a piece of progressive propaganda.

Unlike God, the founders left us an amendment process
Dionne's neat rhetorical trick asserts that we tea partiers equate the US Constitution with the Holy Bible.  This is a neat trick because yes, we believe the constitution must be followed just as The Bible must be.  His unstated non-sequitur avers that since we equate the constitution with The Bible, we must also equate the founders with God Almighty.  This sets up the straw man argument that we worship the constitution and the founders.  It's a straw man because unlike God, the founders left us an amendment process.

Dionne starts out with an innocuous statement...
I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows -- and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join.
He plants a few little seeds of doubt there, but so far so good.  Next comes the premise for the non-sequitur straw man...
From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture.
Note that this statement contains two elements, the first is plainly stated, the second one tacitly follows:  1) The constitution is a document like The Bible that government must obey; 2) Unstated:  If the constitution is the equivalent of sacred scripture, then the founders are the equivalent of an infallible God. 

Number 2 is the strawman that does not follow from the first statement.  Since EJ cannot argue with statement #1, he invents the non-sequitur strawman, statement #2, and then knocks it down: 
Yet as Gordon Wood, the widely admired historian of the Revolutionary era has noted, we "can recognize the extraordinary character of the Founding Fathers while also knowing that those 18th-century political leaders were not outside history. ... They were as enmeshed in historical circumstances as we are, they had no special divine insight into politics, and their thinking was certainly not free of passion, ignorance, and foolishness."
See how he sets up the straw man so he can knock down those crazy rightwingers who want to tea party like it's 1776?  EJ Dionne is too smart to really believe that we deify the founders, so all I can conclude is that he is engaging in a deliberate propaganda smear.   

Progressives are not out to destroy the tea parties; they have bigger fish to fry:
An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country.
Yes, let's knock that dusty bit of outmoded parchment off its pedestal.  Good progressives like EJ Dionne and Ezra Klein are just following in the footsteps of Progressivism's great grand daddy, Woodrow Wilson.  They can’t quite muster the intellectual starch of this racist scholar and failed statesman, but it’s just the right pitch for the MSNBC crowd.  It's neo-progressivism reduced to valley girl vapidity:
"The constitution is, like, so old, and full of, like, so many old words that are, like, spelled funny.  Bogus!  It's like totally irrelevant, totally!"
They want a living, breathing constitution, to which Dr. Walter E. Williams has the perfect riposte:
How many people would like to play me poker and have the rules be "living"? Depending on "evolving standards," maybe my two pair could beat your flush.
Indeed.  Those who crave power and control must have "living rules."  Oh, and they also want to hold the book, because some animals are more equal than others.


Shaw Kenawe said...

You know, it would be interesting to have a discussion on this subject; but when one reads your title: "Progressives Hate The US Constitution," one realizes no sensible discussion is possible.

You've preempted any serious conversation with that title, which is childish and false.

Lisa said...

I do recall when Bush was president the left were the ones screeching about his trampling of the Constitution like "then" it was their Bible especially for terrorists.
Now that the Obama admin put those policies on steroids that "outdated" document doesn't get a mention unless of course those crazy white tea bagging racists want it followed then it's dismissed a joke of sorts.

Now refresh my memory someone,who is the person who called the
Constitution an "outdated" document?

Christopher - Conservative Perspective said...

RE: Shaw, Silver laid out his serious discussion which backs-up the title. It would seem obvious you have no serious rebuttal otherwise you would have presented it as opposed to a childish remark.

Oh and by the way, if you have not heard that is, there is indeed very serious conversation occurring on the Constitution as we speak in the Federal Court System concerning Obamacare.

tha malcontent said...

Great Job SF, and so true.
PS.. I loved the title, you nailed it.
Yes, progressives hate the constitution, as they hate everything else that America stands for.
Progressives invented the word hate, but they love Illegal Immigration, outlandish spending, raising taxes, the military, and whatever else may be good for America... And lets not forget how they LOVE to HATE Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and ANT body else that dares to speak out against the out of touch dim witted IDIOT in the White House (when he’s there and not on vacation with Michie the Moocher).

Jersey McJones said...

Once again, I see a complete ignorance of progressivism. don't know any progressives, let alone myself, who are big fans of Woodrow Friggin' Wilson.

I understand Dionne's point, and it does have some obvious validity. Conservatives have this strange, contradictory view of the constitution, that somehow it is both a perfect document, ordained infallible by God, and that it needs to be changed, or even in some cases is just plain wrong (the 16th Amendment). Just the same, they wrap themselves in the constitution, claim to all be constitutional scholars, and impose their values upon it. Whatever they see as constitutional must be constitutional, whatever anyone else sees must be unconstitutional.

The American constitutoin does indeed represent COMPROMISE (that word the intransigent conservatives so despise). It is a relatively short constitution, simply and compactly worded so as to allow for dynamic interpretations. This is why our constitution has lasted as long as it has - it is not dogmatic and does not micromanage the nation.


Comrades In Arms said...

Excellent blog Silver Fiddle..

I can also see the I see a complete ignorance of the left.
The left just can't seem to see the forest thrugh the trees. If you want to stand in bread lines, be told what crops to plant and how deep the seed must be, go to school eight years to be a doctor and be paid the same as a ditch digger, live where you are told, what to eat, judged by four men with no say, find we can convert to socialism today if you want. We can build more jails for those that don't work or comply to socialism or speak out,or say you lie. Therefore, we must follow our principles, political, social, and economic. And we must vote these scoundrels out... All of them from Nancy whats her ugly face to Dingy Harry up to Dur fuhrer Obama himself.

Silverfiddle said...

Shaw: I have mooted a point, if you choose to not rebut that's your choice.

Conservatives who want to do something prohibited by the constitution propose an amendment, which is the right way to go about it. BTW, that also belies the fact that we do not believe it to be a perfect document.

It is, however, the rule book that everyone must follow, no exceptions. That is what the statist "socialists of all parties"
hate: A rulebook that blocks their schemes.

We do not say the constitution is infallible; it is not. What we say is that it is that whatever is written in it is the law of the land that everyone must follow. If you don't like it, follow the amendment process to change it.

You too fell of Dionne's little trick.

Trestin said...

Another great one. The constitution and Marx are simply not compatible.

Jersey McJones said...

"Conservatives who want to do something prohibited by the constitution propose an amendment,"

So does anyone else with a decent education and a respect for the constitution, liberal, conservative, whatever. Where you guys get confused is over the nature of the constitution itself. It is not a "rule book." The constitution defines the rights and responsibilities of the people (mostly rights) and the limitations and responsibilities of the federal government, as well as setting the boundary between the states and the federal government.

We all "follow" the constitution. That's not the question. The problems arise wqhen something is NOT defined in the constitution. That's when you guys say "if it's NOT in the constitution then it must be unconstitutional." That's specious logic. What is NOT in the constitution is almost DE FACTO constititonal. That is the leap of constitutional understanding conservatives fail to make.

The Bible is essentially a "rule book." The constitution is simply the political framework of the nation. The Bible gives us laws to follow, the constitution sets the foundation by which laws can be made. The Bible explicitly defines morality. The constitution says that we the people define morality as we see fit within the framework of those constitutional rights, limitations, and responsibilities.

Conservatives have a wierd, contradictory understanding of the constitution. Though simplistic on the face of it, really you are over-complicating a very simple thing.

Trestin - that makes no sense.


Silverfiddle said...

@Jersey: "The constitution defines the rights and responsibilities of the people (mostly rights)"


The constitution does not define our rights. Our rights come from God, or natural law if you don't believe in a deity. Also, it IS a rulebook for the federal government, and that is the problem the statists have with it. They don't want to be confined.

Either the constitution means what it says and is enforceable or it is not. Which is it? Do you side with the statists or the people? You can't have it both way Jersey.

That's when you guys say "if it's NOT in the constitution then it must be unconstitutional."

Wrong again, pending you providing a quote from a tea partier actually saying this. I agree with you that this is nonsense, but I also believe it is made up nonsense. Who actually says that?

But we're off topic. I noticed no one can contradict my breakdown of Dionne's rhetoric.

Jersey McJones said...


Whether our rights "come from God" or not (I personally think there is no God), the constitution STILL defines our rights and responsibilities as citizens. At least that is one of its functions. Your point is moot. I suppose you could also look at the constitutions as a "rule book" for the federal gov't, but its a weak argument. There aren't many "rules." The constitution provides a framework for and structure of gov't, but beyond that, it does not impose many "rules." For example, there's nothing about filibusters or budget reconciliation or warpowers or a huge host of other "rules" the gov't has for itself.

The point I was making about the misunderstanding about the nature of the constitution is that we are often told by the right that something is unconstitutional because it is nowhere mentioned in the constitution. We're told that about Social Security and Medicare and all sorts of gov't programs. We're told that about social legislation, like the Civil Rights Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, et al.

As for your take on Dionne's piece, I don't really even see your point. You assert whatever your point is with a made-up statement of your own, ironically putting words in his mouth just as you accuse him of doing to you guys.

To add to the irony, Dionne and you conveniently leave out the fact that Christianity has been "amended" many, many times over the years. The Bible is the most broadly and subjectively interpreted document in history.


Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey: the constitution STILL defines our rights and responsibilities as citizens.

No it does not!

And it is a rulebook for government: "Congress shall make no law..." That's a rule.

The enumerated powers are rules.

I don't doubt you heard somebody say social security is unconstitutional, but that is not a mainstream idea you hear from the right too often.

Now, to Dionne: He cannot assail the validity of the constitution, so he invented the idea that we revere the founders as these infallible beings, which simply is not true. He then concludes that we need to stop viewing the constitution as holy scripture. OK. What does that mean?

He is employing rhetoric. Nothing wrong with that, everybody does it. I just broke it down and showed where his logic is flawed. He wants an elastic, living breathing constitution, but he hides behind a straw man instead of coming right out and saying it.

You point about Christianity is irrelevant, but your own words about the constitution are revealing: Our rights come from a government document. Thank you for providing a living breathing exhibit of how liberals view our rights and the constitution. This explains much.

Jersey McJones said...

Again, Silver, yes, it does. Read the 1st Amendment. The constitution does not define ALL out rights, just as it does not define all our rules and all our laws. That's not what the constitution is for.

I think what Dionne is saying is that many consrevatives view the constitution in much the same way as they view the Bible - as a simplistic, personalized, literal, infallible Word of God. It is not. Even in it's literality, it leaves much room for interpretation.


Silverfiddle said...

Jersey: Are you seriously saying that our rights come from a piece of paper? Is that really what you think?

The constitution is a rulebook for the federal government it enumerates and circumscribes its powers. If not, then anything the federal government mandates is AOK, right?

If the constitution is left to generous interpretation then it is worthless, which is what the statists want.

EJ Dionne has mad an absurd argument that is beneath a man of his intellect, and you are straining trying to defend this thin tissue.

I do not understand why people would treat so cavalierly the principle bulwark that defends us from state tyranny.

Maggie@MaggiesNotebook said...

The Constitution "constitutes" our government, along with the Bill of Rights. I think it is correct to say, it grants certain rights to the government. Anything outside of those rights, the government cannot do.

When something is not defined in the constitution, SCOTUS is the arbiter. While we might talk about it, as Dionne believes we "badly need to do," we know the way to make changes is through Amendments, and that means 3/4th of the States must ratify. It's fairly simple. It's what the Founders provided for.

Tea Parties have every right to advocate for constitutional principles, and it obviously rubbing some raw.

EJ Dionne obviously writes for his choir. Choirs don't question, they just parrot.

Finntann said...

The other unconstitutional proposition I often see put forward by progressives is majority rule. Majority rule was never the intent of our compact of government, which is why you find super majority requirements, three fifths of the senate to invoke cloture, two-thirds of the states to amend the constitution. Simple majority rule may seem to be a very beneficial thing if you are currently in the majority, long term I think you will find it very detrimental to not only your beliefs but your freedoms as well.

A simple majority can be obtained via nine states: CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, GA. The supermajority requirements are to prevent a minority of populous states from imposing their will on the majority of the rest. A running total of states voting in block would be CA 53, TX (32) 85, NY (29) 114, FL (25) 139, IL (19) 158, PA (19) 177, OH (18) 195, MI (15) 210, and finally GA (13) for a majority of 223 votes.

In the current partisan political climate you may find the above scenario hard to believe, but it was a great concern of our founding fathers. Given direct simple majority requirements we may as well go back to ancient Greece, for a state like Utah would be nothing more than a vassal to the San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego urban mega-plex. Dominance by the industrial conurbations of Boston, New York, and Philadephia was a major point of contention for the majority of other states joining the union.

Also reflective of the progressive simple-majority agenda is the elimination of the electoral college and the election of president by direct popular vote. This little electoral maneuver would basically allow governance of the entire country by the nine most populous states voting in block. Of the 312,913,872 people in this country (2010 Census), a majority of 157,219,737 can be obtained in those same 9 states.

Every conceivable measure was put in place to balance power between the three branches of government and between the federal and state governments. Our history since about 1913 has been the gradual erosion of those barriers to the absolute power of the federal government.

You may identify yourself as a progressive and believe in some, all, or none of the progressive talking points regarding legislative procedure I've addressed. But if you don't believe in them, be very, very cautious about who you throw in with and what you vote for. I am a classical liberal by definition, a conservative libertarian by affiliation and when people start talking about the redistribution of wealth, I tend to get very concerned. I am a libertarian believing that a free people and free market provide the best form of governance. Breaking down the existing barriers, checks, and balances imposed on the power of the state is a very dangerous path to tread, hence I am conservative and believe in the maintenance of the status quo vis a vis the power of the state.

Be careful what you wish for.

Finntann said...

First, I have to apologize for the length, but I have a lot to say.

Second, I'd have to ask Jersey... Do your rights come from the constitution, the government, or are they inherently yours independent of government and social compact? It is a very dangerous position to take, that your rights are granted to you by the state.

The constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government in Article 1, Section 8, and specifically in the 10th amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Obama called the constitution a document of negative rights (liberties to be more precise) and he was 100% correct. His problem is he sees that as a flaw in the constitution "a blind spot" to use his own words. The constitution is a document of negative liberties for the simple reason that our founders believed that political authority derived from the consent of the governed (the people) not divine right. The constitution and its amendments define what we have consented to, anything outside of that is an usurpation.

This is not a democracy, it is a constitutional federal republic: a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) are supposed to retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.

The problem with progressives, democrat and republican alike, is that they take a regulatory approach to government well outside the bounds of the constitution. When political appointees in charge of regulatory agencies set rules, with accompanying fines and penalties they are defacto laws, a power specifically reserved to congress, and theoretically by the consent of the governed through their elected representatives. This process of lawmaking through our elected representatives has broken down and political appointees rule by fiat.

Progresives generally tend to see no limitations on the powers of the federal government so long as they don't violate your rights as defined in the constitution. I say that the reverse is true, the federal government has no rights or powers outside of those defined in the constitution. Anything, not defined as a federal power is the responsibility of the respective state legislatures.

Finntann said...

Dionne does indeed create a strawman argument "From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture."

Really? Broad generalizations like that are the classic definition of stereotypes. I support the tea party movement and don't consider the constitution to be "sacred scripture". I also don't support 100% of the tea party's beliefs and platform, as I do not support 100% of the Republican Party's beliefs and platform, and as I am sure you do not support 100% of the Democratic Party's beliefs and platform.

Equating the constitution with the books of Genesis or Leviticus: "An examination of the Constitution that views it as something other than the books of Genesis or Leviticus would be good for the country." Is also a strawman argument and broad generalization. I for one do not view the constitution as the moral or authoritative equivalent of Genesis or Leviticus, I also don't believe that Genesis or Leviticus should be used as the moral authoritative source of US Law.

What I find most hilarious is that most liberal progressives can't, in their wildest dreams, conceive of a secular conservative and can't have a political discussion without bringing up religion at one point or another.

Is it a bad thing for our elected representatives to read the constitution at the opening of a legislative session? Or to have to cite constitutional authority of measures brought forward as legislation?

Personally, I think they ought to have to memorize the constitution and recite it prior to being seated. It is after all the foundation of our government.

Furthermore Dionne goes on to state:
" It could force them to show -- more quickly than their pollsters might like -- how much they would have to eviscerate government to cover the costs of their tax-cut obsession."

Since when was spending within your means and limiting yourself to your constitutionally enumerated powers a bad thing. Law based on constitutional authority is good law, law based on whim is bad law and gets overturned on judicial review. As far as tax cuts go, funding is the only restraint left on our government.

Face it, government (Republican and Democrat) needs to be eviscerated and restrained to within its constitutional bounds. Otherwise, the populist majority will be voting itself bread and circuses until the rise of the next caliphate.

Jersey McJones said...


I am most certainly not saying that all our rights "come from a piece of paper." That's silly. "Rights," as we know them today, are what is allowed among the people. They are the cumulative morays of our society and culture and politics and business and religion and history.

No "right" is absolute. Even the right of life itself has been denied by people who say it is sacrosanct (I call them hypocrites). You can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't expose your privates in public without the consent of the viewer, you can not burn toxic waste in your back yard, bellowing clouds of toxic poisons throughout your neighborhood.

The constitution does not address all the minutea of life in a great and large nation. It lays a foundation for how we go about allowing rights - and yes, WE DEFINE RIGHTS, whether you can deal with that reality or not.

Look, I wish there was a benevolent God who granted us rights. But there isn't. As well, there definitely isn't a God who granted some great code of rights. I've studied religion a little and don't recall coming accross that particular God in any of the major theologies.


Silverfiddle said...

@ Jersey:
"Rights," as we know them today, are what is allowed among the people. They are the cumulative morays of our society and culture and politics and business and religion and history.

Wrong again, Jersey, but I realize you are sincere in your efforts.

Please go read Locke's second treatise, you'll see where we're coming from. Any right granted by "the people" can be taken away by the people. If a majority decided to kill all people whose last name started with "Mc" would it then be OK to proceed?

The constitution does not define people's rights; it protects them. Our rights are preexisting.

Jersey McJones said...

Again, Silver, bla bla bla, God, bla bla bla, Natural Law, bla bla bla rights came from somewhere... whatever. The FACT of tha matter is that rights are things we allow each other to do. It's really as simple as that.

Just like God - they are man-made.

I don't like it either, but that's just the way it really, really, really, really, really is.

Thank God for the Constitution! ;)


Jersey McJones said...

Oh, and two other things...

That "Mc" thing is not necesssarily all that representative of me. It is just a moniker, after all. I know American history and the literture that inspired our national creation. And I do believe I full well understand the constitution.

And, ff our "rights" were not defined - deliniated, addressed, whatever - by the constitution, what sort of nation do you suppose we'd be living in today? Who knows? You and I could be a couple of slaves in the fields whispering philsophy to each other today today!


Finntann said...

Jersey, you miss the point... WE, YOU, ME, the STATE do not define our rights.

You also fall for the false strawman definition of a restriction of free speech. You have every right to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, provided the theater is on fire. The statement that "You can't yell fire in a crowded theater" is a misquote.

What Oliver Wendall Holmes actually wrote in the Supreme Court Schenck v. United States decision was: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

To say that your right to free speech comes from government is to acknowledge that if it comes from the state it can be taken away by the state. The whole point regarding inalienable rights is that they are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government.

Even that most progressive of institutions, the United Nations in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that rights are inalienable: "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world."

In social contract theory inalienable rights are those that can not be surrendered by citizens to the sovereign or the state.

To say that your rights are derived from consensus of the majority, or from the state is one reason you progressives scare the hell out of me.

As Hobbes said: "There is no pactum subjectionis, no act of submission by which man can give up the state of free agent and enslave himself. For by such an act of renunciation he would give up that very character which constitutes his nature and essence: he would lose his humanity."

The constitution enumerates the powers of the federal government, so I will come right out and say: If it is not a power enumerated to the federal government by the constitution, or a power prohibited to the states, it is unconstitutional for the federal government to assume that power, without an amendment granting it license to do so. It is the responsibility of the people through their state legislatures to assume, or not assume that power.

Your flawed political reasoning is that the federal government is free to assume powers not assigned to it in the absence of action by the states. The burden is not on the people to act, but on the federal government not to act in the absence of authority to do so. If the people wish to grant a specific authority to the federal government they may do so through the amendment process. Absence of guidance is not the consent of the governed.

Jersey McJones said...

Silver, YES WE DO. Unless you think we all today have the same rights we've had for hundreds, even thousands of years, you can not say that these rights can come without a governmental structure that makes them possible.


Finntann said...

Hundreds, thousands of years? Why yes you are correct!

Aristotle (384BC-322BC) Wrote: What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere.

Cicero (106BC-43BC) wrote: “There is in fact a true law - namely, right reason - which is in accordance with nature, applies to all men, and is unchangeable and eternal.” Not only did he write it, he successfully argued the point before a Roman court, overturning existing Roman law on that principle alone.

Seneca the Younger (1BC-65AD) wrote: It is a mistake to imagine that slavery pervades a man's whole being; the better part of him is exempt from it: the body indeed is subjected and in the power of a master, but the mind is independent, and indeed is so free and wild, that it cannot be restrained even by this prison of the body, wherein it is confined

The Romans recognized Jus Civile, Jus Gentium, and Jus Natural (Civil Law, the Law of Nations, and Natural Law)

Catholic Law of the early Middle Ages from Augustine of Hippo to Thomas Aquinas to Gratian recognized Natural Law and Rights.

The Magna Carta, Declaration of Arbroath, English Bill of Rights, Claim of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, Bill of Rights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, European Convention on Human Rights, The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union...

All recognize inherent, inalienable, and natural rights.

So yes, we have the same rights we have had for hundreds, even thousands of years. These rights have been violated, abused, protected, and celebrated at different times but they remain the rights of man.

You sir deny, degrade, and abuse 2500 years of precedence in western civilization, law, philosophy, and social contract.

By your line of reasoning the history of slavery in the United States from 1776-1865 was perfectly moral, ethical, and acceptable, simply because it is what the majority at the time deemed law.

Government can violate my rights, abuse my rights, restrict my rights, enforce my rights, and protect my rights... it CAN NOT TAKE AWAY MY RIGHTS!!

This is the central tenet and reigning principle that our forefathers and ancestors, American and European, lived, fought, and died for.

Silverfiddle said...

Well-stated, Finn, and thanks for the review of history.

Unfortunately, we're talking to a brick wall. Jersey's a good guy, but the progressive indoctrination really stuck with this one. He is trapped in a cage crafted by his progressive overlords and sings only the tunes they've taught him.

This is what we're up against. We know the rabid left is hopeless, but it's people in the broad middle who've been raised to obey their masters and eat whatever crumbs the government overlords toss them.

tha malcontent said...

Speaking of Progressives loonies,can I answer your question "Do Progressives Hate the US Constitution" With a article found on the net if I may?

Joy Behar has a burning question: “Do you think this Constitution-loving is getting out of hand?”

That’s the question she posed to a panel of guests on her show Tuesday night, centered around the GOP’s plan to read the Constitution before the 112th Congress opens. Liberal talk show host Bill Press was more than willing to answer that it’s a “Hollywood” stunt and Republicans might actually benefit from such a reading since they have no idea what’s in it..

I rest my case.

Silverfiddle said...

Here's another one from Slate about our constitution "fetish."


Thee power and control statists just have having their hands tied, and they completely mischaracterize our views.

Post a Comment