First, have a good laugh with me. This is from ABC’s Sunday Morning Show, and this is what is passing for intelligent debate from the left side these days.
Just a few thoughts. The authors of the Constitution were not interested in predicting the future. No, they did not know about telephones, better and more effective weapons such as drones or assault rifles, or even jet air travel. This matters not as to how the constitution should be interpreted. The Constitution provides the framework of our government, and how best to limit the scope of that government and keep it accountable to the people. Taken in that context, and reading what the framers of our beginning had to actually say on these very subjects, (we after all are not having this argument with the left in a vacuum, as those authors of this extraordinary document did tell us all what they meant,) the only possible argument the leftist panel has is that the Constitution does not say what they want it to say. It does not give an elite ruling class carte Blanche to inflict their vision of a Worker’s Paradise upon us whether we want it or not. Not a single person on this panel of Braniacs was able to answer Will’s question about whether the commerce clause would not be interpreted to mean that there was now, in effect, not a single check on the power of congress to do whatever congress wanted to do. Ie. does Congress literally now have limitless power under the current interpretation of the commerce clause. Bear in mind, that according to Hamilton, the commerce clause was only intended to insure that the various states would not be able to coin and mint their own currency and use the various currencies to inflict hidden taxes upon each other. Notice also, that was the very last Will was to be included in the discussion. It just won’t do to have the token conservative speak once he has embarrassed the remainder of the panel with a coherent thought. The remainder of the clip is pretty much the same kind of argument stated in various ways. The founding fathers had no way of knowing how much smarter than the rest of us the progressives of today would be, so therefore they would have welcomed the creation of a ruling elite class, blah, blah, blah. This little bit of drama in which the faux intellectuals discuss how outdated and impractical our founding document is was perfectly timed to coincide with Time’s little front page gem in which the managing editor of Time, Richard Stengel, used his heavyweight magazine’s power to advocate that we as a nation should just scrap that pesky constitution thing anyway.
This weekend, also in time for the fourth, a day in which we celebrate our Declaration of Independence, someone pointed this out to me. it comes to us from Think Progress, a Soros funded outfit. In case you are not aware of who George Soros is, he is the owner of the Democrat Party. a few fun snippets from their argument that our split from English rule was actually an event owned by all of the good people who live on mother Gaya’s Earth.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them,a decent respect to the opinions of mankindrequires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
So now, according to Think Progress, we need the world’s approval, and the approval of Nature itself to have our little nation here.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
That sounds familiar. O.K., I can live with that. But what do the newly added lines mean anyhow? Glad you’ve asked.
By saying that it is a self-evident truth that all humans are created equal and that our inalienable rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, our Founding Fathers were telling us that we are all in this together, that we are interdependent, that we have a moral duty to protect these inalienable rights for all humans. President Lincoln, perhaps above all others, was instrumental in making clear that the second sentence of the Declaration was “a moral standard for which the United States should strive,” as Wikipedia puts it.
It is the laws of Nature, studied and enumerated by scientists, that make clear we are poised to render those unalienable rights all but unattainable for billions of humans on our current path of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions. It is the laws of Nature that make clear Americans can’t achieve sustainable prosperity if the rest of the world doesn’t, and vice versa.
O.K., now we’re cooking. What this means, is that even if our economic and political system have allowed us to enjoy the greatest success the world has ever seen in terms of creating wealth and improving the living standard of every one of our citizens. Even though our poor enjoy a better living standard of anyone in the third world who would be considered middle or in some instances upper class, we have no right to enjoy that success until the remainder of the world will be able to match that standard. In order to have the remainder of the world match our standard by allowing their citizens the same freedoms and free market systems which we enjoy, we should make this happen by destroying our own economy.
Hat tip Lobo91
