It shows up in 1861 with a group that wants to overturn everything in society the way it has been for "four score and seven years" while increasing taxes, creating more government power, and engaging in corruption.
Any boundary drawn between 1861 and 1900 is artificial. It was the same sort of people from the same areas of the country (Northeast mainly) pushing the same narrative.
But really, what do progressives need language in the amendment itself for? They can just make it up using emanations and penumbras.
Because the language of the 14th gives them cover. They even admit that their goofy decisions are based on the 14th.
This is why I brought up Dred Scott. How many times have the courts frustrated the Northern States using the 14th amendment?
I don't understand the question. Dred Scott was a decade before the 14th amendment. How could the courts have frustrated the Northern states using the 14th amendment when it didn't exist in the Dred Scott era?
We know there is no evidence that the ratifiers imagined they were handing ultimate governance to the courts.
Well this is true, they just blundered into it by trying to do too much with one amendment and then writing it very badly.
The SCOTUS simply made up the Incorporation Doctrine because they could.
And they could, because the creators of the 14th amendment did such a horrible job writing it. Also, it could not really be ratified legitimately without the Vichy military governments controlling the Southern states.
Those states would have never voted to ratify it without guns at their backs.
That's not how the constitutional amendment process is supposed to work. It's supposed to work with free will and "consent of the governed."
Military dictatorship cannot lawfully ratify an amendment.
This is too generic to be meaningful. Might as well say that some people did some things, and that proves stuff. Progressivism has specific goals in mind, much like(or rather unlike) communism.
Communism requires the whole proletariat thing. Workers of the world unite, revolution, kill some people, destroy the rich, blah blah. It gets really old and boring very quickly.
What progressivism doesn't have is the proletariat thing. Progressivism instead has a lust for never-ending bureaucratic despotism for as far as the eye can see, which really isn't central for the communists. The kinds of bureaucracies created under FDR, Wilson, and Teddy Roosevelt - the FDA, the FBI, USDA, FCC, the whole New Deal bonanza, OSHA, DHS, etc etc it seemingly never ends. And they're all still here with us today because the progressives defend their bureaucracies to the death. Every, EVERY, every bureaucracy is a hill worth dying on for progressives, none are left undefended. No rampart is lacking. Also they have wanted to take over our healthcare since Teddy. He was the first one to propose it. Progressivism is deeply anti-free market, that's in large part what the bureaucracies are for is to overthrow capitalism without actually overthrowing it. Even if you wanted to kick and scream in desperation that the ICC is the birth of Progressivism in 1887, that's the oldest known (now defunct) bureaucracy and it stood alone for over a decade.
Not one of these bureaucracies that we have today (nor proposals) - the most core aspect of core aspects of progressivism - goes back to 1861. Not a one. The takeover of healthcare does not go back to 1861. It goes back to 1912. And even the ICC - created before progressivism, was never actually abolished. No bureaucracy has ever to my knowledge ever been abolished. They just get re-packaged. That's what progressives do. Like when progressives re-packaged themselves as "liberal". They've never been liberal and their own words prove they hate liberalism. How did we end up with the BLM bureaucracy? Earlier land-management bureaucracies going back to TR. None of which was constitutional from day one. The progressives when called on it will swear up and down that NPR or PBS get less than one fourth of one eighth or whatever ridiculous numbers they'll throw out - ok, so let's abolish the CPB. Can't have that. The CPB is a hill worth dying on. Ideologically, progressives cannot let a bureaucracy die.
It's called the Progressive Era for a reason. The massive growth, expansion, and proliferation of bureaucracies. Bureaucracies are at the very heart of progressivism and unfortunately they have stood the test of time.
One of the biggest fundamentals is graduated taxation, commonly called the progressive tax. You're trying to tell me the progressives overturned their own tax system in 1872, and under Grant at that(!!!), that's simply impossible to believe. Grant was a Lincolnian to my knowledge. So the progressive[sic] Lincolnians killed their own income tax, I don't know how on earth you're going to explain that. Why didn't the progressives reconstitute it in 1874? What did the progressives do in 1876? What about 1879? You cannot explain this dormancy. I can. That's because it doesn't exist. They didn't exist. 1900s. You know the main meaningful years of the Freedman's bureau was basically three years, until 1868, right? So how did the progressives abolish their own agency? The Lincolnians did that? Really? How unprogressive of them. I know there were a handful of bureaus during the war. Unfortunately, that happens, there were also bureaus in the south. That's not proof that the Southerners were actually evil progressives ideologically bent on putting bureaucracy in control of all aspects of our lives. See how nebulous that statement is? Surely you caught the sarcasm in it, I don't actually believe that kind of thing. I said it so you could hear it.
You have a ton of explaining to do outside of extreme nebulous assertions. Aka emanations and penumbras. None of it aligns. It mixes worse than oil and water. There is a 30 year gap and it does not go away.
"Any boundary drawn between 1861 and 1900 is artificial."
Anybody with a calendar can prove it. It's as natural as the sun rises and the sun sets. It can all be marked on a calendar. This one in 1906, that one in 1935, that other one in 1963, EPA was founded in 1970, etc etc. Not a one bureaucracy goes back to 1861. Not a one. You're trying to tell me that the Grand Canyon doesn't exist, well, I can see it here plain as day. I can see it, that huge gap. And that gap is pretty much the same for the Incorporation Doctrine.
All of the writings that the progressives gave us about the importance of bureaucracies, the anti capitalist rhetoric cloaked in language of trusts, none of that exists in large quantities prior to the Progressive era and especially all at once.
But the one thing that definitely dies is the reverence for the country and the Constitution. Even if you want to say Lincoln was a liar, whatever, he never spewed the poison and verbal diarrhea that came out of Woodrow Wilson's mouth, Theodore Roosevelt's mouth, and many more. The systematic breakdown and search for ways around the Constitution. Nothing like it exists prior to the Progressive era. I've read parts of the 14th amendment debates. It's the exact opposite of the progressives. They tried(Failed, ok, failed. I don't really care.) to make sure the 14th would fit in with the existing system. Progressives are the opposite. They are methodical, cold, calculating, systematically acting like a cancerous thief in the night looking for weaknesses to expose, and more importantly, weaknesses that can be LEVERAGED. Exploited. At a high level, the closest thing in similarity to a progressive is a saboteur conducting a long-term espionage mission.
We could just stick with ideas if you want. Woodrow Wilson's "The Study of Administration" is basically the birth certificate of bureaucratic despotism. It was in its day a little known nothing-burger written by a nothing-burger of an academic, in 1887. But Ok, you want to say progressivism was already around for two decades, then what was the big-time theory about bureaucracies in 1886? Who wrote it? Why didn't they and their cohorts protect the income tax? Why aren't there any bureaucracies from earlier years before that? Why is there nothing but emptiness in this gap, save sparse one-offs such as Wilson's essay and the entirely-powerless ICC? And again, yeah, Incorporation. How is it that supposedly from 1865 we get this incorporation, but we get a one-off in 1897 (after being rejected [more than once, I think] by the courts), but we don't really see much incorporation until 1925, then all of a sudden 1931, 1933, 1937, it's on and on and on. It's weaponized after 1925.
That's progressivism. On, and on, and on, anything they can weaponize they will. These people never quit. So how do you explain so large a gap with people who never quit? How do you do it?
"Because the language of the 14th gives them cover.
Is that an emanation or a penumbra? I really need to know.
Did you have any reason to have doubts about the sources I provided? From Hillsdale to Bork to some of the older legal scholars?
"they just blundered into it by trying to do too much with one amendment and then writing it very badly."
You're too eager to give the courts a pass that they have not earned and do not deserve. The word "selective" does not appear in the plainly readable text of the amendment. The courts are not mentioned there. It's not that badly written that someone could find a chicken sandwich in there. You are simply too eager to give the courts a pass, when they did a blatantly bad thing - John Harlan did this. - and as it comes to the 1900s you have too much trust of the progressives. Just because they say it, does not make it true, these are people who cannot be trusted.
You're going to have to come up with some era speeches, or some documents, or something tangible. When is the last time you read large portions of the debates where the 14th amendment is actually built? Before it goes for ratification? Have you ever read them at all, just once? Just even once have you read them? And actually, you don't owe me anything so much as you owe it to yourself and that's what's a little freaky about it.
Why don't you want anything more tangible? You, why don't you want it? That's the weird and freaky part about all of this. That's a huge issue. Why don't you want something more tangible just for yourself beyond what the indoctrination camps I mean universities are shoveling?
Bork wrote:"We know there is no evidence that the ratifiers imagined they were handing ultimate governance to the courts.
"Well this is true"
Sir, you can't have it both ways. If there's no evidence then there's no evidence. This shouldn't be difficult. If there's no evidence then there's no evidence.
I'm just looking for something tangible. I can provide tangible progressivism stuff and its extraordinarily easy. Perhaps due to my own hard work, if you prefer to cast it in that light.(for negative or positive) I haven't recorded free public domain audiobooks of them because I enjoy these people, I've recorded the books (original sources) it to make education about their deceptions possible to whatever extent that can be done or useful comparisons. None of the Southerners said the things or did the things that progressives say and do.(recalling my earlier sarcasm statement above) None of the Northerners said the things or did the things that progressives say and do. It's the same picture. Bureaucracies during wartime are not proof of progressivism, ideological bloodlust for never-ending bureaucracies is progressivism.
"Military dictatorship cannot lawfully ratify an amendment."
This one I can actually agree with. I have my issues with re-construction. However I'm not going to mix two unmixable things just because it's convenient or I need it to be so as that only leads to tilting at windmills. It's bad and it stands on its own merit for worse. I don't see any do-overs happening with the ratifications though.
If you want to stop tilting at windmills, look more to the 1900s. I've got the books and many are now audiobooks. This is an easy one. You read Herbert Croly(TR's recommended), you read Woodrow Wilson. You'll see it. The progressives don't share much with the civil war people 40 years prior.