Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?

The Progressive Agenda (progressive growth of communistic statism) is anti-Constitution because it (especially the Bill of Rights or 1st Ten Amendments) focuses on individual rights and limitations on government and they are all about collectivism and expanding the role (and concomitant power) of government.

reply to post by links234

…agree to all chip in to this publicy driven organization called government to ensure that we all have an equal amount of access to health care without fear of losing our way of life through insurmountable debt it's suddenly 'theft.' ...

Here is the point you are missing. You said that we could AGREE to chip in. That would be fine with me...anyone who agrees, chip in. But the problem is when some people "agree" that OTHERS are going to chip in. That's what feels like theft. Especially when the people who AGREE aren't actually pitching in, but are just benefitting.

Well - the Constitution contains certain restrictions on the powers of government and grants certain rights to the citizens. It does also grant some powers to the government and gives various rules on how some things must be done.

So, lets say you wanted to go about removing those restrictions on the government or taking away those rights to the citizens. How would you go about it?

Well, to me, the obvious way would be to make people hate the very thing that places those restrictions on the government and grants the rights to the citizens.

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by 11235813213455

 

Originally posted by links234
I have come to accept that there are people in this country that I will never, ever agree with. They will vote for people that I adamently disagree with and I will always, always, always applaud their wish to do so. Even if it will sometimes inhibit my own concept of 'freedom.'

I said that earlier. I'm glad we can agree that we will disagree.

Let me ask you this though, if a collective of individuals agree to do something seemingly oppositional to what the constitution says as an agreement that it would be better for all of those individuals...don't you think that they have the right to do that? The founder's sure did which is how we make our laws and how our interpretation of the consitution changes to suit modern society's need without amending the consitution to irrelevancy.

Of course but what you present is a bit simplistic and the issue at hand is arbitrary and in the ether and taken at value would represent the tyrrany of the majority which they warned of emphatically. Can't seriously answer without details.

This isn't majority rule like a straight democracy. After one gets past the surface of what you propose then there are plenty of unknown unknowns and unintended consequences. This document is limiting to the federal government to allow you to do on the local, county, and state level that which your proposing at the federal level. A that's what the 10th amendment means. You already have the freedom do do what you propose. The only reason one would like to push solutions to the federal level is to get funding they wouldn't otherwise have at the state and local level. Once it gets there we all pay for the mistakes that sounded like a good idea at the time...like prohibition.

I re-read your original post too:

Originally posted by links234
I don't hate the constitution. I hate that people hide behind it to force their way of life and their beliefs on others. Good and well meaning ideas and people are shoved aside for 'freedom' and 'liberty.' Concepts that are only rationalized in an individuals mind and have no meaning to anyone else other than the individual.

How do you rectify what you proposed to me about these arbitrary people in your two posts? Isn't this kind of contradictory? Seems to me you are trying to have it both ways.

Originally posted by links234
I don't hate the constitution. I hate that people hide behind it to force their way of life and their beliefs on others. Good and well meaning ideas and people are shoved aside for 'freedom' and 'liberty.' Concepts that are only rationalized in an individuals mind and have no meaning to anyone else other than the individual.

We can't have universal health care because 'freedom.'
We can't have rational gun laws because 'freedom.'
We can't provide for the poor and destitute because 'freedom.'
We can't educate the populace because 'freedom.'
We can't accept ideas and opinions other than what we've always thought to be true because 'freedom.'
We can't stop the CEO's and property owners from stealing every last penny from us all because 'freedom.'
We can't let other individuals and other nations pave their own way because 'freedom.'

I have come to accept that there are people in this country that I will never, ever agree with. They will vote for people that I adamently disagree with and I will always, always, always applaud their wish to do so. Even if it will sometimes inhibit my own concept of 'freedom.'

Then again there are people that simply refuse to acknowledge that the most important lesson we could have learned from the founding fathers was that the people should be allowed to forge their own 'freedom,' even if it means leaving the old 'freedom' behind.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
After one gets past the surface of what you propose then there are plenty of unknown unknowns and unintended consequences.

Thus, the Great American Experiment continues. This nation was never, ever intended to stagnate and remain in a specific state of being for however long it would take before total collapse (less than 100 years if I remember right). To say we should just fall back to the rosy years of the 1790's completely and utterly defies what the founders intended and the presidents and congress' that came after fought for.

I won't go into how the constitution didn't limit the federal government when it was written (it greatly expanded it) right now. Not in the mood for that.

ETA:reply to post by MrUncreated


Star because I heart that movie.

Wow!.

I could go on for days,or cut to the chase and state the obvious truth.

Anti-Constitutionalism is desired by those whom it was put in place to control,those who are in control have control of what you see and hear on the media and what you are taught in school.

The Constitution is a contract which was put in place to keep tyrranical types,like those who run your world,Your Government/Corporations/People with too much money who only want even more money,from infringing on your god given rights.

We don't have or need constitutional rights.

We need to pop our heads out of our asses and learn what those in who edumacate us can no longer teach us when we need to understand our place in this world.

We ARE THE POWER,those in control of us are there by our ignorant coalescence.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner

Anti-Constitutionalism is desired by those whom it was put in place to control

otherwise known as Patriotic Constipationalists...

The root of the problem is collectivism.

Unfortunately, you can't have a constitution without collectivism and the extreme collectivists (people who want infinite government and even applaud tyranny as long as they aren't the victims) know this. It is a critical weakness in the concept of limited government. Those who don't want limits on government know that the lifestyle people are accustomed to today would not be possible with absolutism so they launch into a straw man every time you try to protest the inevitable push for more expansion. Or, put simply, they accuse you of being against roads and police and fire departments because that's easier than arguing about where the actual limits should be and how we are going to enforce them if we keep giving in every time they come up with a new idea for government expansion and more intrusion into our private lives.

We are never allowed to ask whether or not a proposed expansion is something everyone wants or what the inevitable consequences of that expansion might be. Any protest is met by telling you that if you don't want big government, you should go back to the stone age and live in a cave.

This is (of course) a cheap shot and they know it. But hey. Since when did Marxists play fair?

Let me ask you this though, if a collective of individuals agree to do something seemingly oppositional to what the constitution says as an agreement that it would be better for all of those individuals...don't you think that they have the right to do that? The founder's sure did which is how we make our laws and how our interpretation of the consitution changes to suit modern society's need without amending the consitution to irrelevancy.

If you understood the US Constitution you would realize that the tyranny of the majority was something the founders wished to prevent, just as much as the tyranny of centralized power. You are correct in that, over the past hundred years, the constitution has been interpreted (i.e. perverted) more and more loosely. The debates during the Constitutional Conventions show that many of the founders preferred that there be no legal process for amendment, for they recognized that in time the masses would forget all of the reasons that it was drafted in the first place.

These are complex issues we are talking about. I know it's asking a lot of a self-described socialist, but to see the constitutionalist point of view you will need to do some reading that makes you think rather than tells you what to think. I recommend starting with the Federalist Papers. Then you can read a coherent version of some socialist arguments in the Anti-Federalist Papers.

To constitutionalists who wish to see the socialist point of view, simply think about how things make you feel, and pretend that the world consists of only what you come in contact with.

reply to post by OpenMindedRealist


I wrote that 9 months ago. I had to reread what I wrote because I didn't know if you were talking to me or not.

Let me see if I can remember that train of thought; earlier in the thread I mentioned a majority of individuals agreeing to something. Someone else referred to that as tyranny.

Thus, the basis on how we enact our laws at every level of government is 'tyranny' if you don't agree with that law. My immediate consideration of that concept is that it's a dangerous one.

Again though, I want to say that I don't hate the constitution. I believe that some people interpret my political view as hatred, just as they view laws they oppose as tyranny.

reply to post by capod2t

This is a great synopsis of the mind of the anti-constitutionalist. I used to be more 'tolerant' of their disturbing viewpoints because I assumed that they were based upon a temporary ignorance of the true nature of men.

Now that I have made a concerted effort to educate many of them, I realize that they are not interested in truth and they refuse to admit any illogical conclusions and therefore are, in fact, beyond any hope of growth for as long as they maintain their obstinate attitudes.

I believe that the underlying emotion in each and every one of them is pure hatred. It seems harsh, maybe even hyperbolic to attribute such a destructive attitude to such a broad swathe of our fellow human beings but, I think it is an accurate assessment. Because they feel this hatred themselves and toward themselves, they project it outward and cannot imagine that anyone else does not have this same hatred.

Having no confidence in themselves they have no confidence in others and in their last gasp at contributing to a society that they feel reflects their own attitude, they invent a benevolent overseer and imagine that it will 'rise above' and be trustworthy where they themselves are not. After all, how could they trust of group of people as morally offensive as themselves?

I think this explains why they are so exasperated by individual generosity and responsibility. They take it as a personal affront as if the genuine 'do-gooder' is pulling a fast one on everybody and has a secret agenda to be exposed at any cost.

Yuck

TDawgRex
reply to post by capod2t

 

It is happening right before our eyes and yet people refuse to believe what they see.

" You Americans are so gullible! We don't have to invade you! We will destroy you from within without firing a shot! We will bury you by the billions! We spoon feed you socialism until your Communists and don't even know it! We assist your elected leaders in giving you small doses of Socialism until you suddenly awake to find you have Communism. the day will come when your grandchildren will live under communism!" - Nikita Khrushchev

And then of course, we also have those who advocate this.

I actually remember him saying that! Thanks for posting. I too hate a Constitution that has allowed to big to fail because we are now not equal under the law..

However it is not the Constitution that did that but the corrupt officials who daily make new interpolation's of it to fit their agenda. The strongest Constitutionalist I know want rule of law that applies equally to everyone big and small ... Equal under the law... but hey we can't have that Peon.

Nikita followers got our schools and much of the curriculum that is taught (or not taught), so now "they" are seeing the seeds of their efforts sprout. Give marginal public education backed by well sounding phrases to fool the dumbed down masses. Hunger and desperation make good bed fellows for they can be made to agree to just about anything that gives them sustenance and comfort.

IMO it was decided the education of the lower classes (their definition) must be of the poorest sort. Lower class must be defined as anyone who can not afford private education or does not have money and political connections. There will be an effective moat built keeping the ignorant masses effectively separated from the higher classes without them even knowing it. By establishing such an initial handicap even the brightest of the lower class will have little or no hope of breaking out of their assigned lot in life. This program and form of feudal slavery is essential (it appears) for a ruling class to maintain their idea of social control and segregation from the sheep. What is really messing with their grand plans appears to be the internet which can and will give alternate views and education for any who are motivated to seek a historical context to society.

The people who wrote and signed the Contitution were fighting over it and what allowed and did not allow from day one. In the end it created a template for us to build on. This debate was with us from the start and always will be.