Referring back to your R176 … The Framers always understood that the very concept of citizenship involves loyalty, fealty, allegiance to the nation to which one belongs. … I believe you have focused in on one of the major reasons for the incremental success of the progressive movement.
This insidious movement bases much of its success on the fact that its leaders are artfully adept at taking the underpinnings of this republic – everything from the Biblical foundations of American law all the way to the Constitution itself – and perverting them so as to sculpt the result to their advantage and render it entirely foreign to the original intent.
That is why case law has become so incredibly dangerous – because when such people succeed in achieving a court decision that flies in the face of both Constitutionally-based law and common sense, that court decision, and subsequent others that rely on it, eventually supersede the Constitution itself.
The focus on perverted minutia, to the eventual exclusion of original intent, is what has succeeded in rendering original intent subservient to glib, left-leaning corrupt interpreters, whose interpretations eventually become written in stone.
And as each succeeding generation of Americans becomes less and less knowledgeable about this republic’s foundations, the interpreters become ever more brazen in authoring ‘law’ and setting ‘policy’ based on no foundation other than the realization of their own power-hungry agenda.
Your assertion regarding the definition of citizenship is a stellar example of this kind of perversion. For the first probably 125 years of our republic’s existence I suspect that no one questioned the fact that an American citizen not only had to meet certain minimal black-and-white requirements but, even more importantly, he would naturally be expected to bear an unwavering allegiance to this republic.
Yet, since the turn of the twentieth century, that portion of the intrinsic definition of American citizenship has found itself overwhelmed to the point of immaterialism because premeditated squabbles over minutia have taken precedence.
Most of what we see passing as ‘law’ these days is itself illegal. And most of what poses as ‘public policy’ these days is nothing more than yet another step in the realization of an insidious left-leaning political agenda.
Thank you, betty, for bringing common sense back into the argument. The fact that that characteristic of political debate is fast approaching extinction is both a primary goal of the progressive movement and, not coincidentally, a powerful force foretelling the demise of our beloved republic.
~ joanie
That is why case law has become so incredibly dangerous – because when such people succeed in achieving a court decision that flies in the face of both Constitutionally-based law and common sense, that court decision, and subsequent others that rely on it, eventually supersede the Constitution itself.
The focus on perverted minutia, to the eventual exclusion of original intent, is what has succeeded in rendering original intent subservient to glib, left-leaning corrupt interpreters, whose interpretations eventually become written in stone.
And as each succeeding generation of Americans becomes less and less knowledgeable about this republic’s foundations, the interpreters become ever more brazen in authoring ‘law’ and setting ‘policy’ based on no foundation other than the realization of their own power-hungry agenda.
Excellent summary.
The picture emerges of the Republic, in a canoe, without a paddle, heading for the rapids, heading over the waterfall...