During the months leading up to the Presidential election I was of the impression that the vitriol being spewed about the Constitution and those who crafted it was due to the fear that the Left would lose.
I was wrong.
What we have seen since Obama's re-election is a stepping-up of the hatred that Progressives have for the American system of government. They despise the Law of the land that restricts them from seizing even more control than they already have.
One would think that, given their recent successes and the projected increase of their supporters in the next decades, that they would "run out the clock" until too is too late for Americans to do anytime to stem this tide.
Inexplicably, they instead have cast aside any semblance of moderation which which they have often veiled themselves; they speak and write as if they lost, and badly so. They leave out nothing in regards to what they detest and what they plan to do about it. In doing so, they have left their intentions, to use police search and seizure parlance, in "Plain view". There is no need to apply for a search warrant - the evidence is right before our eyes.
Even so, Americans continue to ignore the threat.
The following piece from the New York Times is a case in point. The writer employs one false argument after another. Some, such as the label of "evil, archaic, idiosyncratic", and "grotesquely malaportioned*" cancel themselves out by their patent falsity and. Others are clearly written to deceive the uninformed who, being purposely denied (By Progressives) an education on American history in our schools, are unable to note that each event cited by the writer was both unique to a particular time period and a product of many variables. While each and every argument could be easily destroyed by someone with a minimal amount of knowledge of our nation's history, doing so would require several paragraphs or pages. This is a classic tactic of the Left; make numerous claims that you know can't be defended and hope that the refutations are not reported by the Media (Which of course is exactly what will happen).
*Progressives detest the fact that States with small populations get equal representation in the Senate. They would, of course, rather that Senate seats be assigned in the manner of the House of Representatives. If this would occur, the blue-shaded regions on the map below would, almost by themselves provide enough Senate seats to control both legislative bodies. Non-urban areas would be reduced to insignificance, and the very idea of our bicameral legislature would be negated. Again, those former students who were denied an education have no idea of the debates that went on about this subject. Consequently, they are likely to buy into the writer;s claim.
-From the link at top:
Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago."
Note that Progressives just love to teach "Constitutional Law". Here they have a platform to attack the very principles that they are paid to teach.
Revision 1/5/13- Oh, and that remark on James Madison? The Constitutional Law Professor must never have heard of the concept of "Legislative Intent", which is the means by which a the meaning or application of a law is determined.
"As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.
No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)"
"If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance."
If we are not being punched in the face by the reality that we need to restore our Republic, I don't know what is happening. By splitting the nation and letting the Progressives have their fair share and providing the same for those who wish to continue to live and be governed as Americans, we can give the Progressives what they want. Of course they will not be satisfied with this as, if they really just wanted a Progressive place in which to live they would have moved to one, and what they actually want is to control you, but one can;t have it all.