Do most Americans still believe in the Constitution anymore?

Feb 2019
2,098
552
here and there

We all know the sentiment out there to repeal the Second Amendment on the Left, but do any of you realize the sentiment to at least partially do away with the First Amendment as well? Many in the poll provided thinks that hate speech should be banned, but what is hate speech? Moreover, who will decide what it is? For example, is calling Trump a "Cheeto" hate speech? Is calling Trump a Dotard hate speech? Is pretending to hold his severed bloody head in your hand hate speech? Is Madonna saying she wants to burn Trump alive in the White House hate speech and should that be banned? If asked this same question, I'm sure most left leaning people would say no, it is OK, but if the same were done to Obama, my guess is the sentiment would swing the other way as it would be viewed as racist. You see, the kind of hate is what is important. Is it a good hate or a bad hate?

When asked if they think hate speech should be against the law, 48 percent said they think it should be against the law, while 31 percent said they think it should “be allowed.” Twenty-one percent of respondents answered with “did not know.” Decades of Left wing influence in education and the media have brought us to this point.

Add to this fact that mass media corporations like Google and Facebook have been accused of censoring speech simply because they may offend other politically on some level.


And then there are "safe zones" at universities across the US that don't allow political speech or ideas that may offend since they run contrary to Left wing ideology


Of all people, Obama's Van Jones in the article is attacking these Left wing fascists on censoring free speech merely to silence political opposition. But Jones was rebuffed by many as they refused to heed his warnings.

What is the US becoming?
 
  • Like
Reactions: YoursTruly
Feb 2019
2,098
552
here and there
"This distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarians throws light upon the degradation of liberalism in the West in the 20th century, when liberalism began to change from an ideology based in the main upon the ideas of Tocqueville, Mill, and Spencer — ideas that pivoted upon freedom — to an ideology based more and more upon the goals of equality, redistribution, and social reconstruction. … This above all is the reason that liberals have such an equivocal attitude towards political power in the modern age."

Robert Nisbet
 
Feb 2019
2,098
552
here and there
One of the major abuses of the Constitution by Progressives has been the subversion of the General Welfare clause, written by James Madison. It is used by the Modern Liberal as an excuse to empower government in any way they choose so long as it can be tied to some perceivable benefit to the general population.

However, Madison wrote about the General Welfare clause he created and said this about it.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
 
Jun 2018
653
471
La Pine, Oregon
One of the major abuses of the Constitution by Progressives has been the subversion of the General Welfare clause, written by James Madison. It is used by the Modern Liberal as an excuse to empower government in any way they choose so long as it can be tied to some perceivable benefit to the general population.

However, Madison wrote about the General Welfare clause he created and said this about it.

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
And that same Madison wrote this:

In every political society, parties are unavoidable. A difference of interests, real or supposed, is the most natural and fruitful source of them. The great object should be to combat the evil: (1) by establishing political equality among us all; (2) by withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few to increase the inequality of property by the immoderate, and especially an unmerited, accumulation of riches; (3) by the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth toward a state of mediocrity and raise extreme indigence toward a state of comfort."

What you call "subversion" those who understand the Constitution as written call "original intent".
 
Last edited:
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
What you call "subversion" those who understand the Constitution as written call "original intent".
Whose intent should be used to interpret and understand a Constitutional passage other than the intent of those who wrote it and ratified that passage? Please be specific.
 
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
And then there are "safe zones" at universities across the US that don't allow political speech or ideas that may offend since they run contrary to Left wing ideology
While one can make an argument that such "safe zone" are professionally negligent on the part of the school's administrators, the existence of such places is by no means a violation of the Constitution unless it were a state run school (and even that might be a gray area). For example, you and I can start a club, and we are free to banish from that club any member who utters the words "The world is flat" or "Socialism works" (but I repeat myself).

The First prohibits the government from infringing on free speech, not individuals.
 
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
"This distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarians throws light upon the degradation of liberalism in the West in the 20th century, when liberalism began to change from an ideology based in the main upon the ideas of Tocqueville, Mill, and Spencer — ideas that pivoted upon freedom — to an ideology based more and more upon the goals of equality, redistribution, and social reconstruction. … This above all is the reason that liberals have such an equivocal attitude towards political power in the modern age."

Robert Nisbet
I'll agree with you to this extent: you can listen to the nation's leading Democrats for days on end and you're unlikely to hear them ever use the word "liberty" in any meaningful way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LTP