Though I have my issues with Speaker Boehner, I thought his comments today were providential, given the topic of this post thus, I pass them along:
The way our founders envisioned it, the republic would be led by citizens who recognize that the blessing of governing ourselves requires that we give something of ourselves. Everything depended on this. So they made each other – and their successors – swear an oath of allegiance.End of update.
In a few moments, I will take this oath for the twelfth time as representative of the Eighth District of Ohio. It is word for word the same oath we all take. Note that it makes no mention of party, faction, or title … contains no reference to agendas or platforms – only to the Constitution.
The one addition we dare to make, as George Washington did at the first inaugural, is to invoke the assistance of our Heavenly Father.
The memo's gone out. Tonight, on my local PBS station:
Questioning the Constitution
An examination of the Constitution, including its development and structure, various interpretations and whether it needs to be revised. Included: remarks from constitutional scholars, politicians and others.
Thursday, January 3 -- 10:00pm
This is part of the "echo chamber":
A report by the Media Consortium detailed how progressives had created an ''echo chamber'' of outlets ''in which a message pushes the larger public or the mainstream media to acknowledge, respond, and give airtime to progressive ideas because it is repeated many times.'' According to the report called ''The Big Thaw,'' ''if done well, the message within the echo chamber can become the accepted meme, impact political dynamics, shift public opinion and change public policy.''
Parts of the echo chamber are willing participants, others are simply useful idiots.
End of Update #2.
Aubrecht walks it back, kinda. Of course, his update makes absolutely no sense. Sounds to me like he's saying, "don't trash the Constitution, just ignore it". Oh, wait, that does make perfect sense to a Progressive. In making laws and deciding constitutionality, what other option than original intent makes sense? If someone can write a law, and then "interpret" it to their own liking while ignoring the intent of the law, what's the point in having written law anyway. Devoid of all logic.
End of Update #3.
Blogger Michael Aubrecht has linked to another pointy-headed academic trashing the Constitution. This is the same blogger who found something to admire in the Occupy Wall Street movement and continually trashed the Tea Party. And this is the same Constitution my ancestors fought to establish and to maintain - from the Revolutionary War to WWII - my forefathers shed blood to uphold it and protect our liberties. Some didn't make it back home. Others suffered physical and emotional scars for the rest of their lives. I really don't take lightly some know-nothings treating it so cheaply. It's not at all funny and it's not at all "enlightened." I'm shaking with anger as I write this. Such ungratefulness infuriates me.
This academic would want his name mentioned, so I won't. You can find the article if you search for it, or go to Aubrecht's blog. I couldn't stomach much of the article. You don't have to take more than one bite of putrid garbage to realize what you're eating:
observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken, but almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution.
Really? And just who are these mysterious "observers?" Space aliens? The Progressives, statists, and lefties are really feeling their oats, arent' they? More and more of these types are becoming rather vocal about trashing the Constitution. It's such an impediment to these control freaks getting complete control over the populace and "transforming" America into their little socialist utopia. Perhaps Cuba or China or Iran would be more to their liking.
Or, perhaps we could experiment with repealing the Constitution. Yeah, let's try that. We could start slow. For instance, we could start by taking away the first amendment rights of college professors. If that works out, then we can move right along. Here's another idea. Let's have a debate. We take 50 U.S. Marines with 20 years in the Corps and 100 (just to make it fair) tenured Progressive academics and lock them in a room for 24 hours. First, the Constitution haters present their case. Then the marines. Last one standing wins. Oh yeah, pay per view. I'm in.
And self-proclaimed historians are lapping this crap up. It's embarrassing.
Let's see, perverting the commerce clause, inventing rights that aren't in the Constitution and ignoring the ones that are, bypassing the Congress, issuing thousands of regulations a year which no one even knows exists, forcing Americans to buy one thing (health insurance), while telling them they can't buy a 24 oz coke - yeah, the Ruling Class Elites are really worried about obedience to the Constitution, aren't they? What a joke. What a laughing stock. The take-down of the reasoning contained in the article to which Aubrecht refers could be accomplished by my 10 year-old granddaughter. But a REAL legal mind did take the time. Here's an excerpt from a rebuttal by John J. Vecchione and it IS worth the read:
Seidman cites Britain and New Zealand — places where respect for the past is so great that every law requires the assent of a monarch — as places without adherence to written constitutions. Yet monarchs, established churches, hereditary titles, and even a House of Lords may be a bit much from Americans to readopt. Rejection of the Constitution for the system of government that was in place before 1776 seems a little retrograde for a Progressive.When I served 3 terms as a Virginia Magistrate, I took three oaths to defend the Constitution. I still have the first one I signed. I've never abrogated (and never will) that oath. I will defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And that's what I'm doing with this post. Corny, right? So regressive, right?
Another blogger summed up this "scholar's" article this way:
It’s also the sort of thing you’d expect from a leftist college student with no knowledge of history and no understanding of the Constitution . . . Seidman not only shows a lack of knowledge (actual? or strategic?) of the true position of most of the Founders regarding slavery, he also expresses the typical leftist position that we should throw away the wisdom of the past (wisdom? how can that be; they’re just a bunch of propertied white guys—just like Seidman, by the way) because we want to do something, and that pesky old white-guy document stands in our way.
That's another common thread through the modern mindset of these geniues - "We're so much smarter and wiser than our Founding Fathers." Yes, ignore the wisdom of the past.We've "evolved" to a higher order. Really, look around. American culture has become so debased it's hardly recognizable. As I've said before:
These mosquito-like critics come off as petulant, spoiled, ungrateful, bratty little children who need their butts spanked. Most of those who criticize the Founders (and those who draw inspiration from them) in this vein, could not hold a candle to their accomplishments.
These small men sit in ergonomic chairs at their cushioned keyboards in air-conditioned offices with every modern convenience at their beck and call and critique a generation of men who were truly well-educated and well-read; self-made giants who were, in every sense of the concept, renaissance men. Men who could farm, write brilliant treatises on government, history, and philosophy, lead men into battle, track a deer for miles, kill it with a black powder rifle, field dress it, and carry it home for their evening meal. Men who carved a nation out of a raw wilderness and founded the greatest republic in the history of the world. Men who risked their personal fortunes, liberty, and lives so that they could pass on a great republic to future generations. In comparison, most of their soft, flabby, lazy, critics would starve to death if Wal-Mart closed for a week. They can't think, write or speak without a computer or a teleprompter. They can't build an argument, much less a nation. Their writing often consists of cutting and pasting words from the templates of their ruling class masters; hoping someone will notice and invite them to some stuffy academic AE bash-fest seminar where the greatest challenge of the day will be to stay awake.
The Orwellian nature of American society has become breathtaking. Up is down, good is bad. The truth is now, most often, the EXACT OPPOSITE of what the "experts" are telling us. The problem is that politicians are IGNORING the constitution, not obeying it. But, for the low-information voter and pseudo-historian, they don't know the difference.
It's absolute crap.