Skip to comments.Why Liberals Hate the Constitution
Posted on 01/13/2011 4:02:23 PM PST by Kaslin
No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction.
Since there are many more conservatives than liberals, and conservatives have so many guns, people often wonder why conservatives dont just round up all the liberals and ship them to Antarctica to be forced to mine for jewels and gold. Well, there is a very good reason for that: by a strict constructionist interpretation of the American Constitution, there is no support for being able to deport liberals to a mining camp.
Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, Well, we have to remember its a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadnt even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it. And then theyd look to the Commerce Clause and say, Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so its within the governments power. And then itd just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.
But that would violate the spirit of the Constitution since, by plain English interpretations of the governments powers, we cant forcefully ship liberals to Antarctica no matter how much people may think that would help the country. And thats the point of the Constitution: people are constantly changing their ideas of what is good and bad, but the Constitution is much harder to change. It puts limits on what the government can do, and those limits can only be changed when huge majorities agree to it through the amendment process. And even after ObamaCare, there inexplicably isnt enough support for a Liberals Are to Be Sent to Mines in Antarctica amendment.
After the hysterical way liberals reacted to the reading of the Constitution by Republicans to open Congress, with Democrats objecting to it, left-wing newspaper editorials denouncing it, and liberals online freaking out over it, no reasonable person would argue that liberals dont hate the Constitution, but the reasons why arent as obvious. So the question becomes, why do liberals hate the Constitution so much especially when its the only thing protecting them from freezing to death with pickaxes in their hands?
We are all aware that liberals want the Constitution to be a living document, like if Geppetto wanted Pinocchio to become a real boy so it would be easier to strangle him to death. They want it living so they can render its words meaningless. To them, the Constitution is this cryptic document only the most educated Ivy Leaguers are able to interpret. Recently, the Washington Posts Ezra Klein even stated that the text is confusing because it was written more than 100 years ago. And then we have all these court decisions much longer than the document itself that find all these hidden rights not mentioned in the Constitution and explain away the ones that are clearly stated. And dont argue with liberals on the subject, because theyre really smart and the only ones able to understand what theyre talking about.
Thus the freakout over the Constitution being read aloud. No matter how much liberals try to mystify the Constitution and obscure its meaning, hearing the actual text of the document quickly destroys that fiction. It almost reads like a direct condemnation of all the government expansion and power grabs liberals have been up to lately. You cant hear its words without imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies. So you can see why theyd rather it not be brought to the publics attention.
A big way gun rights proponents won their war was by putting the text of the 2nd Amendment everywhere. While scholars liked to pretend there was some debate on whether there is an individual right to bear arms, there wasnt among the general public because anyone literate could read the amendment and quickly identify that the only operative part is the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Words mean things to most people, so asking the average American whether there is a right to bear arms is like asking what two plus two equals. Ask a liberal judge, though, and hell say, Two and two of what? And equals can mean so many things. Its a very complicated question. So when people see the long, rambling reasons from someone like Justice Breyer on why the 2nd Amendment doesnt mean what it says versus the simple language of the Constitution, they start to realize theyd be much better served by having a twelve-year-old with basic reading comprehension as a justice.
The Constitution meaning what it says is only part of the problem liberals have with it, though. In the Constitution are the means to change the Constitution, and liberals are perfectly capable of proposing amendments to force people to buy health care or to get haters like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck off the air. Of course, theyd need to get a huge majority of the country to go along with them. And there is the problem. If the Constitution puts strict limits on government power and the only way for liberals to increase that power is to get a huge majority of the public to agree with them, then liberals would have to govern with the consent of the governed! Think of the indecency; liberals could barely do anything unless those nasty Tea Party people and fans of Sarah Palin said it was okay!
And while liberals do like certain freedoms, in their hearts they dont really like this whole democracy thing. If liberals were only voting amongst each other, that would be great, but you cant actually let everyone some who only went to community college have a say in what the government can and cant do. Much better to have only the elites deciding themselves what they can do, based on their best intentions. Its like what now ex-Representative Phil Hare said when questioned on the constitutionality of ObamaCare: He didnt worry about the Constitution. If liberals are trying to change things for the better, why should there be any limits on them especially ones enforced by the ignorant masses?
And so liberals hope that no one reads the Constitution and that everyone leaves all the questions of what the government can do to left-wing judges who will make decisions based on what they feel is right. Then liberals will be freed from having to get the consent of the unenlightened American public who give their kids Happy Meals and eat trans-fats. They will then have the ability to force people to do whats best and give the government all the power it needs for a better, more ordered, peaceful society.
Until theyre shipped off to the mines.
I don’t think there are any jewels and gold in Antarctica.
I think this needs careful study.
“I dont think there are any jewels and gold in Antarctica.”
Well if they are not there they could always club seals and feed a starving child.
Now, if conservatives were a bit more flexible with their view of the Constitution, they would say things like, Well, we have to remember its a living document, and the Founding Fathers hadnt even thought of the threat of hippies running around free when they wrote it. And then theyd look to the Commerce Clause and say, Well, keeping liberals from meddling in America and forcing them do something useful like mining sure would help the economy, so its within the governments power. And then itd just be a manner of scheduling all the boats to get liberals to Antarctica.This might work if it weren't for those pesky 13th and 14th Amendments. This guy might try reading the Constitution himself.
Liberals hate the Constitution the way young kids hate having mom and dad around all the time. Because mom and dad tell them to stop running around the house, don’t put your elbows on the table, sit up straight and eat your vegetables. Well, liberals don’t like it when conservatives are always reminding them that the Constitution DOES NOT say the government is supposed to give you free health care, a college education, a home, or that a woman has a right to an abortion.
That's the point.
George Orwell had a great line about that. As best I can manage from memory:
“The trouble with you liberals is that you’re all just mad at your daddies”.
Send a vile of fairy dust they will be fine 8)
The Hard Left like to cite George Orwell as one of their heroes. And yes, George Orwell was a lefty. One inconvenient fact though about George Orwell - he called out his fellow lefties with regards to their hypocrisy. And especially on their support of Stalin, whom he correctly called a monster.
And that was back then. The Left has been moving ever leftward, since before those days.
Sadly, I know people of that persuasion who’re old enough to know better, who buy into BHO’s BS.
Awesome article, however, I do have a point of contention with some of the material. Liberals have no problem with the “whole democracy thing”, they have a problem with the whole REPUBLIC thing. They WANT to redefine our form of government as a representative democracy where “elected” (sarcasm intended) representatives of the people (because they know best) hold the governing power in lieu of a republic in which the people retain supreme control over the government. The reason liberals hate the constitution is because it ensures that the rights of the individual are not to be eclipsed by those of the collective. Marxists are collectivists by nature and hate anything that ensures individual rights, private ownership of property and or the transference of private wealth from one generation to another i.e. the constitution. Any time you debate our founding and the constitution with lefty marxists, you have already lost if you do not differentiate between our founding as a republic instead of a democracy. There is a HUGE difference. On a side note, I got a good laugh imagining the ghost of George Washington punching hippies. Sounds like fun! =D
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.