[justshutupandtakeit]

Those forces have been powered by the support of the majority of the electorate. That is the point which many seem to miss or ignore. While you may consider me a "statist" I am FAR to the right of the typical voter. THAT is the problem you refuse to face. Until that is changed there is little hope to reverse this trend.

I don't think you recall rightly since the 10th was not the basis for the Court's opposition to the new deal. Nor do you apparently define socialism correctly. That involves the ownership of the means of production not government make work programs or welfare.

Drug giveaways are not socialism they are examples of the Welfare state. Socialism would be where the State seizes the drug companies (whether or not it gives the drugs away.)

[spunkets]

" Socialism would be where the State seizes the drug companies"

Like I said before, only the truth counts. The State doesn't have to sieze the drug companies. All it has to do is dictate to them and demand whatever potion of their earnings and production they see fit to take. Appearances only obfuscate the underlying reality.

[freeeee]

Those forces have been powered by the support of the majority of the electorate.

Then it is pure democracy and the Constitution is irrevelent save the part that describes various offices how elections are held. Hence the republic is dead.

Nor do you apparently define socialism correctly. That involves the ownership of the means of production

That would be communism. When the state takes something from one and redistributes it to another who did not earn it, it is well within the realm of socialism.