Posted on 05/17/2022 7:22:03 AM PDT by mononymous
A question I've been pondering recently; for how long has the US Constitution been dead to Democrats?
Can anyone help me understand when, over the last 100 years or so, have they done anything to advance the cause of individual freedom and personal responsibility?
A core value of Progressives (both Republicans and Democrats) was/is the Constitution is outdated and needs to be ignored/worked around.
Progressive presidents:
Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt,Truman, Eisenhower?, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford?, Carter, Reagan(former progressive), George Bush, Clinton, George "Dubya" Bush, Obama, Biden.
Trump is not a progressive, it seems. It is not clear if Eisenhower was a dogmatic progressive, or Ford, but it clearly was the dominant philosophy of both Republicans and Democrats at the time.
1828, the founding of the Democratic Party
As they become more evil and perverted, they further despise morality and freedom.
“1861”
The Civil War was the turning point. The federal government established supremacy over the individual states in an undeclared civil war. Lincoln also established precedent for future presidents in lifting the writ of habeas corpus, suspending civil liberties, and jailing opponents. At the conclusion of the war the federal government required the southern states to ratify amendments to the Constitution in order to be readmitted to the Union.
Once the power of the states (10th Amendment) was effectively eviscerated, it became a matter of the federal government slowly asserting its dominion over state governments, localities, and ultimately individual citizens over the next 150 years.
FDR et al, and then the JFK steal from Nixon in 1960.
BINGO!
The Muslim thought the Constitution was too “negative.”
I’m sure Ayres was responsible for much of the Empty Head’s thinking.
And his negative influence on the Dim party was relentless.
He never stopped pushing his Commie ideas.
1890’s Progressive era?
Oh yes, the commerce clause.. That was a real killer. The DC lawyer’s have used it for all sorts of “Corn-Ball” ideas..
Usurpation Day, January 20, 2009 when ALL of our elected AND appointed swore in the ineligible Kenyan from Indonesia.
A few decades before it did for the Republicans.
There were those who were not on board with the whole “we hold these truths to be self evident” concept from the very beginning of this nation.
What you described were enabled by, and dependent on, the Progressive 16th and 17th Amendments.
Overnight, these two amendments rendered the Framer’s stable and federal governing form into an unstable democratic form doomed to terminate in tyranny.
The wonder is that we’ve lasted so long.
Patent hostility for Constitutional limitations on federal power began in the 20th Century with Wilson. They matured as a movement while “progressives” were enamored in the early 1930’s with the scientific achievements in managing national economies by the USSR and the German National Socialist Workers’ Party.
The Constitution established a structure for our limited Federal Government while strongly confining its powers.
Progressives see the whole purpose of government as determining outcomes in an unrestrained manner and as an ever growing agent for perceived social change and good.
I think you and I have a different definition of a "living document".
IMO, the Constitution IS a living document, and that was by design. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that they didn't know everything, and so they gave us a way to change the Constitution, i.e., it's "alive". To be sure, they were conservatives and made it difficult to change, but it has been changed numerous times, though not lately.
I think your definition of a "living document" is one where the original document is largely ignored, and judges rule the way they PRETEND the document was written and the way they WISH it were written. If that's what you mean, I agree with you.
When Abraham Lincoln tossed it to help him win the Civil War.
It began dieing in FDR’s time as President and that it should die and be replaced by judges has ever since been increasingly held as what Dims mean when they refer to things be “unconstitutional” or not.
The Dims admit they hate originalist Conservative judges, NOT because they are wrong about the Constitution, but only because they are wrong about giving the Dims, by judicial fiat, the Constitution the Dims want.
Probably when the Union won the Civil War.
I would say that the democrats finally discarded the constitution on september 11th 2001. That was when they realized how fragile their grip on power was. They were forced to sing god bless america on the capitol steps. That’s when they advanced the timetable on their plans. They became more aggressive and unapologetic. The ‘Antifa’ was deployed. All pretense of sanity was abandoned and the media went full gaslight.
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.