How did the “Progressives” Empower Themselves at our Expense for Over 140 Years?

Coach is Right ^ | 6/28/14 | Jerry Todd

[Oldpuppymax]

A three-legged stool can always stand without wobbling – a solid foundation for good or evil. Addressing the 14th, 16th and 17th Amendments.

The Articles (7) and their clauses, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) are original to the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers. The 11th and 12th Amendments serve to States’ protection. The 13th freed the slaves.

The 14th Amendment – This was the first of three Amendments that created the “progressive” three legged stool. The 14th was a mandatory ratification, a required condition before states were allowed reunification after the Civil War. Congress deliberately established federal supremacy. The 14th, 16th and 17th all go together creating a supreme federal “stool” (pun intended), departing from Inspired Design and destroying the sovereignty of the States with 3 words….”No State shall…”

The 13th and 15th freed the black slave and gave him the right to vote. The 14th made slaves of us all.

Our Creator endowed us with unalienable rights – man is not the grantor. The Constitution was designed as a Limiting Document. It was changed by...

[x1stcav]

LUTFA!

[FlingWingFlyer]

The complete takeover of the Judicial Branch by the DemocRAT Party was a stroke of genius. They found that they could use the founding documents against the American people. They turned the Bill of Rights into a weapon to be used AGAINST us.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Republicans these days truly ARE The Party of Stupid.

How about we turn things around and bludgeon the Socialists with our Constitution, for a change?

Fortunately, I feel the tide turning. Oh, not because of things we discuss here - just a gut feeling I have that me and everyone around me is fed the feck UP with these clowns and the pendulum will swing back in a BRUTAL fashion.

For a while. Then we’ll be right back here, again. :)

[Kirkwood]

I’m not sure that giving individual states the right to take away equal protection is a solution to the mess we’re in.

[KC Burke]

We allowed the rationality of the French Enlightenment to take hold here and with almighty science and reason push the hope of God out of the public forum and our academic institutions.

We wanted to be “modern.”

[FlingWingFlyer]

I agree. The GOP needs to keep pounding away on Barry’s scandals and not give him a rest. His whole regime is running on ice right now because they all realize that they are just one email away from some serious prison time.

[rockinqsranch]

Ping to ProgressingAmerica for comment.

[lavaroise]

indeed, we went from “Evilution did it” to “we can clone it better than God made Eve from Adam’s rib”...

So is it evolution or cells, animals andmpeople cloning themselves with the word of God in mind?

No, we are adrift in arrogance and vanities.

[Impala64ssa]

ping

[Let_It_Be_So]

There are many ways progressives have empowered themselves, but the fact remains that those in elective office over the past several decades were “empowered” by our fellow Americans who voted them into positions of power in the first place.

The “takeover” of the Judiciary happened by those in elective office appointing the members of the Judiciary (or consenting thereto).

Bottom line: barring a hostile takeover, progressives could not have gained such power without a majority of our friends, neighbors and the rest of the voting public allowing it to happen, and in many cases, openly advocating for it to happen.

Most recent example: voting for Barak Obama not once, but actually pulling the lever for him a second time.

Even now, if enough people wanted it to happen, the Founders provided a mechanism to correct wrongs. Sadly, I don’t believe enough people want it to happen (yet).

[KC Burke]

“The world is trying the experiment of attempting to form a civilized but non-Christian mentality. The experiment will fail; but we must be very patient in awaiting its collapse; meanwhile redeeming the time; so that the Faith may be preserved alive through the dark ages before us; to renew and rebuild civilization, and to save the world from suicide.”
T.S. Eliot, Christianity and Culture

[Organic Panic]

Public education. Public “service” Expanding Bureaucracy Expanding government Expanding regulations

[Talisker]

It’s all from the 14th. Read the Slaughterhouse Cases. The 14th contradicts the human rights acknowledged by the original Constitution. Therefore unless an alternative interpretation was found, it had to be thrown out. Creating this problem was deliberate - it allowed SCOTUS to rule that a human being could be considered a corporation granted limited privileges, rather than a soul with God-given rights.

That’s it - that’s the whole ball of wax. All the hell we have around us stems from that presumption. It turned the Constitution inside out in an open secret, and to this day people will argue with you if you point it out. Even when you can show that it explains everything. People fear this explanation, so they reject it. That’s why the Left isn’t stopped, and why they laugh.

So if we go down it won’t be because we were fooled by legal trickery. It will be because we didn’t have the moral it spiritual courage to face the real problem, and settled for distracting ourselves with irrelevancies.

[OneWingedShark]

The complete takeover of the Judicial Branch by the DemocRAT Party was a stroke of genius.

I'm going to disagree, it's not Democrat influence in the Judiciary that is the poison here; it is, instead, that Case Law (and precedent) is given a superior position than Constitutional Law (by which I mean the actual text, not the body-of-law-WRT-the-Constitution-as-the-black-robed-god-kings-declare).

Precedent/Case Law has the [dis]advantage of being selectable, by which I mean that any judge can go out grab some cases and use them to 'prove' the conclusion that he wants. This results in a level of disdain for the Constitutions at both the federal and state levels that is simply incredible; my favorite illustration comes from my home state:

1. New Mexico's State Constitution says the following:

   Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
   No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of con- cealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an in- cident of the right to keep and bear arms.

2. New Mexico Statute 30-7-2.4 says:

   30-7-2.4. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises; notice; penalty.
   

   1. Unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises consists of carrying a firearm on university premises except by:
      1. a peace officer;
      2. university security personnel;
      3. a student, instructor or other university-authorized personnel who are engaged in army, navy, marine corps or air force reserve officer training corps programs or a state-authorized hunter safety training program;
      4. a person conducting or participating in a university-approved program, class or other activity involving the carrying of a firearm; or
      5. a person older than nineteen years of age on university premises in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance, for lawful protection of the person's or another's person or property.
   2. A university shall conspicuously post notices on university premises that state that it is unlawful to carry a firearm on university premises.
   3. As used in this section:
      1. "university" means a baccalaureate degree-granting post-secondary educational institution, a community college, a branch community college, a technical-vocational institute and an area vocational school; and
      2. "university premises" means:
         1. the buildings and grounds of a university, including playing fields and parking areas of a university, in or on which university or university-related activities are conducted; or
         2. any other public buildings or grounds, including playing fields and parking areas that are not university property, in or on which university-related and sanctioned activities are performed.
      3. Whoever commits unlawful carrying of a firearm on university premises is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

3. The above is not university-policy, it is a state statute and therefore falls under the prohibitions of Art II, Sec 6.
   However, even if you do assert that universities have the right to restrict firearms via contractual agreement, such agreement is prohibited by the State's Constitution in Art II, sec 4:

   Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]
   All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.

4. The statute above clearly prohibits the keeping of firearms in student housing (university premises), and therefore is violative of the State's Constitution.

Any attempt to point this out to authorities results in dismissal, justification ("well, we don't allow guns in courthouses", etc), and/or redirection ("talk to a lawyer", "call your representative", "talk to the AG", etc).

My point is this:
The Constitutions of both the States and the Federal Government are 100% useless if they cannot/do-not constrain them; that no-one has standing unless they go out of their way to break the law is an invidious trap: it forces you to implicitly acknowledge the legitimacy of the [illegitimate] law, it forces you to argue from the position of the accused, it denies that the citizen has interest in seeing the Constitution upheld, and it denies that the authority of the government flows from the document that establishes that government.

[driftless2]

Easy answer....the black and Hispanic numbers of voters have grown appreciably. They love big government and taking from the producers. By that route, pandering to the blacks and Hispanics, the progressives get all the other stuff they want. Which is why, of course, they want unlimited immigration. They know the more people they get on gov. dependence, the more they can get all the other commie stuff.

[OneWingedShark]

It’s all from the 14th. Read the Slaughterhouse Cases. The 14th contradicts the human rights acknowledged by the original Constitution. Therefore unless an alternative interpretation was found, it had to be thrown out.

This is untrue: the Constitution does not impose philosophy upon its amendments through its unamended form — to do this would mean that the ability to amend the Constitution (aside from the explicit barring on touching slavery for a certain time, and the implicit to alter the manner of amending it itself) was constrained, but this is not the case — aside from the parenthetical limits, there are no constraints on amendments.

Creating this problem was deliberate - it allowed SCOTUS to rule that a human being could be considered a corporation granted limited privileges, rather than a soul with God-given rights.

This is a big problem, within law it is philosophically a bigger problem than virtually all others — however, it ignores a very real problem: that the 14th Amendment is not legitimate. (Alt link/article) — if the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment were thrown out, then the much of the problem you cite is irrelevant as the Fed would have no legitimate authority imposing into rights/privileges. (The societal acceptance of the conflation of right and privilege is another, more difficult matter.)

[Yo-Yo]

I disagree with the premise of the author. It isn't the Fourteenth Amendment that made us all slaves to the federal government, it is the interpretation by the courts over the previous 150 years of the Commerce Clause.

Almost all federal regulatory power, including Obamacare, flows from the Commerce Clause.

[The Sons of Liberty]

The complete takeover of the Judicial Branch by the DemocRAT Party was a stroke of genius.

And the GOP-E did exactly what they're doing now - absolutely nothing!

[Talisker]

I’m not clear on your replies. Your second statement seems to contradict your first, especially since I used my second to illustrate my first. Further explanation would be appreciated.