Liberty is individual freedom. There is no liberty without it. Someone needs to convince Progressives of that.
Leftists are transforming society from one that protects individual liberties to one of collective rights. They are using the Constitution, the courts and the media to do it. It’s not the result of a widespread conspiracy, it’s how leftists view the world and they are relentless in achieving their goals. They also control the Democratic party.
Progressives don’t like constitutional amendments. They want a living constitution which allows judges to substitute the rule of law with personal judgment.
The leftists have a new constitution ready to replace the one our Founding Fathers established after they’ve eroded it.
The George Soros Open Society Institute is pushing the Progressive Constitution of 2020 which is out in book form. A number of the people referenced in the book do work for or have worked for the Obama Administration, including Cass Sunstein and Harold Koh and many more. Still others never made it past Congress because they are considered too extreme. A second book on the same topic, “Keeping the Faith,” is offered for free on the Open Society website.
How would you like your Bill of Rights adjusted to meet the following requirements as outlined in “The Constitution of 2020” –
…Instead, the Court proposes one of several possible tests for finding a constitutional right under the Privileges or Immunities Clause, largely informed by a body of scholarship originating in The Constitution in 2020 project. The test considers constitutional rights to be part of a fluid jurisprudential dynamic rather than a finite list of historical absolutes. A privilege or immunity can be formed when a national–or perhaps international–consensus exists that some positive right becomes a constitutional right; or when “the time is right”; or during a “constitutional moment” as the result of “landmark legislation”; or as a result of a powerful social movement….
The Privileges or Immunities Clause is the new gimmick to transform the law of the land.
Your rights are not unalienable or inherent. They will be fluid and will be governed perhaps by international consensus, when the time is right, or during a “constitutional moment,” or as the result of legislation, or a social movement.
We have the collective rights to welfare, a job, a living wage, entitlements, income equality, a vacation but we don’t have the right to our individual liberties such as the right to bear arms or practice our religion without infringement by the State.
The Second Amendment is under heavy assault.
Actor Richard Dreyfuss gave an interview to the Observer on Thursday. He was asked what Amendment he would like to rewrite and he came up with the Second, the “obscure” Amendment.
His wording would make it “clear” and would eliminate the individual right to own a gun.
“This is for establishing militia and everyone has the right to participate in that militia, and you can have a gun if you participate in that militia.”
Guns have to be licensed like cars, he claims.
Dreyfuss has launched a nationwide Civics Initiative to deal with the so-called civics crisis. His mission is to “revise, elevate and enhance the teaching of civics.” He hopes to inculcate his views in the youth.
The White House posted the Bill of Rights on their website. The only Amendment that was changed from the original was the Second Amendment.
Instead of the actual wording – the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed – it becomes a right given to us by the state with the following White House wording – The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.
So-called “human rights” are being invented every day.
Martin O’Malley, the failed Governor turned climatologist (he recently blamed the weather for the formation of ISIS), is siding with illegal immigrants in the lawsuit against Texas. Texas has refused to grant 19 birth certificates to the allegedly U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants due to improper documentation. O’Malley has jumped in with a Constitution rewrite.
He blasted Texas, declaring that “citizenship is a human right.”
“Denying birth certificates to U.S, citizens is not only outrageous, it’s unconstitutional,” the former Maryland governor said in a statement released in English and Spanish.
How clever! He is using the constitution to violate individual rights such as the right of Americans to decide who is granted citizenship.
The culture is under assault every day with demands for so-called rights. The left thinks they need to involve themselves in every aspect of our lives while pandering to some leftist cause or other.
The Washington Post’s Petula Dvorak, an anti-gun, anti-high heels, intellect from the left, likes to come up with new rights and the latest concerns the anti-woman nature of office air conditioning.
She did her own poll and found men weren’t bothered by icy office temperatures but women are. She calls it “the gender divide, thermostat edition”. Women are freezing to death in offices while men, evil men, are “stalwart in their business armor, manipulating their environment for their own comfort, heaven forbid they make any adjustments in what they wear.”
Quoting one woman, she wrote, “Everything is set at 70 degrees for those testosterone-toting people.” She explained “how frustrating it is to put on a pretty summer outfit and then get hit with that blast of cold.”
Ms. Dvorak’s solution isn’t to change the Constitution – yet – but it is to make men look ridiculous. She wants them to wear “short suits” because they are literally keeping the womenfolk down.
Leftists have decided freedom of religion only applies to churches. Christians are favorite targets.
In San Francisco, the town fathers held a California State Assembly judiciary hearing that argued over the legality of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone making teachers working at four diocesan high schools sign “morality clauses,” which classified them as ministers who must uphold Catholic teaching regarding same-sex marriage, homosexuality, contraception, and artificial insemination in the classroom as well as in their private lives.
The town fathers claimed that by having morality clauses, the church was forcing teachers to “give up their constitutional rights.”
Why can’t they select teachers who will uphold their values whether we agree with them or not?
“Teachers qualify because they are role models in fulfilling the religious mission of the school,” the attorney for the school said.
They are currently looking for a compromise but the left’s compromise is for the Catholic schools to abandon the morality clause for teachers, which will coincidentally allow a big opening for those activists who would change the teachings of the church.
The Little Sisters of the Poor have appealed to the Supreme Court for the right to not provide contraceptive, abortifacient and sterilization services as part of their health plan.
The government wants the nuns, who devote their lives to the poor, elderly, and handicapped, to abandon their moral beliefs for the right to help the poor.
They have a right to welfare if they want but they don’t have the right to the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court has taken political sides in recent decisions and has made a sharp left turn. There is no expectation they will even hear the case, much less find in the nuns favor.
Religious organizations are being deprived of their right to choose their employees and help the poor unless they do as the government’s bureaucrats say.
We are moving from a Constitution to a living constitution that deprives us of individual liberties and pushes us to immerse ourselves in groupthink. Our freedoms are not individual rights, they are collective. At least that’s how the leftists see it.
Imagine an authoritarian, collectivist Constitution written by the same moonbats who gave us Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, open borders, sanctuary cities, and PC.
Imagine the Communist loons at The Center for American Progress ruling the country. They kind of are.
Three years ago, the Great Leftist Lady, the New York Times, published this:
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.
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?
Yes, why have a rule of law when we can change on a whim according to the dictates of totalitarians who have absolute contempt for individual freedoms?