Skip to comments.Constitution Day: The New Left Progressives Boycott
Posted on 09/17/2018 6:30:40 AM PDT by NOBO2012
While the rest of us celebrate September 17 as Constitution Day the New Left Progressives (NLP) have cancelled it due to lack of interest. The NLP views the Constitution, as Barack Hussein Obama explained back in 2001, as a a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
What Barry was advocating at the time, and again 7 years later when he ran for president, was a fundamental transformation of the Constitution to a document more in keeping with the vision he and his minions had for America. This transformed version of the document revered as mankinds last, best hope would focus not on the constraints of government but rather on what government can do for you, assuming I suppose that you cant or shouldnt have to do for yourself. It would include things like healthcare, food, iPhones, public transportation (instead of, not in addition to private), non-fossil fuel free energy for all, reparations you know, all the things that would ensure your dependence on government rather than your liberty.
The NLPs drastic step of cancelling Constitution Day came about due to their frustration at the failure of their unusual tactics to achieve the desired outcomes. For example, the public education brain washing has yet to bring about the elimination of the right of individuals to own guns, despite their best efforts:
From page 102, U.S. History: Preparing for the Advanced Placement Exam textbook
Note how the tweeking of the original 2nd Amendment wording from A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed to The people have a right to keep and bear arms in a state militia converts the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms to a more nuanced negative liberty of NOT having that right.
The texts explanation of the First Amendment is equally nuanced - Congress shall make no laws that infringe a citizens right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Congress may not favor one religion over another (separation of church and state). Taking it upon themselves to educate the children that freedom to practice whatever religion you choose is the same as taking references to God out of everything from the classroom to the court house. And rest assured, the Electoral College, as established in the Constitution, is currently under assault in the classroom and elsewhere as an anachronistic holdover that is no longer necessary in our enlightened age of electronic communications.
And dont even get them started on the lack of diversity in the actual writing and ratifying the Constitution: they were all old white men! Disgraceful. So Im sure you can see why the Progs will be boycotting the celebration of the document that established the last best hope for humanity.
Posted from: MOTUS A.D.
The Constitution says Barry Soetoro cannot be President.
Too bad not one of our elected or appointed would stand for the Constitution.
...q charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf...
That’s the way it was designed. That’s what democrats, llberals, and other socialists just can’t quite comprehend.
Socialism was briefly tried at Jamestown, but it was quickly ended when many stopped working and waited for the others to “take care” of them.
Hillary Rodham Izetbegovic Khomeini HATES the Constitution!!!! She wants to abolish the Electoral College because Trump is so “racist”!!
Translation: The Electoral College failed to anoint Hillary as President, so it must be abolished!!!!
PHOOEY to Hillary! PHOOEY to her muslim pets!!!!
I love how Obama (and many Leftists) refer to the protections of the Constitution as “negative liberties” as if this somehow impugns the limitations placed upon government.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land as I understand it & I think our elected “representatives” do,too. Now if they take an oath to defend it ONLY to get elected & having no intention to actually defend it,then they need to be immediately dismissed(as in “fired”)& in some cases,they also need to be severely punished. Some might go as far as needing prosecution for treason. Others who haven’t taken that step as far as treason,might be in line for a good caning. That is, of course, not legal here,but I often think it should be for appropriate circumstances. The way we are(not,in most cases)punishing it now certainly doesn’t seem to work. It is harsh treatment,to be sure,but we need to find something in the way of public prosecution that works.
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.