If Progressives Want to Fundementally Change America, they need to be honest and amend the Constitution
by Mr. Bob | 11:46 am, November 25, 2009 | 2 Comments
The The American Thinker has some suggestions. #tcot #teaparty #constitution #liberal
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution is hereby repealed. Article I, section 8 shall now read: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States and the citizens of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Progressives should feel free to leave in the italics so the message is clear. The words in italics are not in the Constitution as it is now written.
Let’s move on to the Bill of Rights.
Congress shall build a wall of separation between church and state.
It is crystal clear from the dissenting opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that progressives do not believe that the Second Amendment provides the individual citizen of the United States a right to bear arms. (By the way, they are wrong about this.) Wrong or right, this one is easy to fix:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution is hereby repealed.In keeping with this utopian attitude (the Kelo Decision), the new “taking clause” of the Fifth Amendment should read:
… private property may be taken for any purpose whatsoever, with just compensation. The Ninth Amendment essentially says that the rights specifically granted (“enumerated”) to the central government in the Constitution do not “disparage” or “deny” the rights reserved by the people. The Tenth Amendment makes it clear that powers not specifically delegated to the federal government (“the United States”) belong to the individual states and the people. That’s not progressive.
Easily remedied with one amendment:
Comments
Featured Posts
- Open Thread: Should Dan Maes Withdraw?
(25)
Do you think Dan Maes should step aside as the Republican nominee for governor? Why or why not? If he did step aside, who do you think the vacancy committee should consider in his stead and why?
- Speak Now, or Forever Hold Your Peace… Governor’s Office seeks public comment on Colorado Supreme Court nominees
- R Block Party Second Annual Picnic
(1)
- Happy 2nd Birthday to People’s Press Collective!
(3)
- Statewide Survey Results Show Overwhelming Discontent With Incumbent Colorado Supreme Court Justices
(8)
- “The GOP Made Me Do It”
(9)
- Clear The Bench Colorado wins judgement against “frivolous, groundless, vexatious” complaint by “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do), awarded “tens of thousands” in legal fees
(3)
















November 26th, 2009 @ 7:38 pm
We can take control of the House of Representatives to restore the 10th Amendment in the next election cycle. To see how, visit:
http://laboratoryofthestates.org/call_to_action_story
November 30th, 2009 @ 10:48 am
The platform reminds me of something akin to James Dobson. We will not accept any candidate that is for gay marriage in any form or who ever talked about being pro-abortion….period.
The platform is too rigid, it will not work for victory, America is conservative (center right) but are not Ayn Rand followers..especially the first platform.
Most people especially after 9.11 see reason for our defensive forces to be fighting those who plot against us abroad.
If we want to come up with a better way (ala CIA or covert ops) that is another story…it provides a solution rather than an outright ban.
Whatever you think of the GWOT, we have removed many thousands of people from this earth who’s only goal was to destroy and kill as many Jews and Americans as they could.