Yesterday's article focused on the threat to the Constitution posed by progressives who have launched a new initiative entitled, 'The Constitution in 2020.' A new book by the same name, along with its companion website, Constitution2020.org., contains the progressive vision for the future of the U.S. Constitution in matters related to individual rights, citizenship, the southern border, 'personhood,' and a curiously-worded question, 'Who "counts" as American?' and, 'What kind of law "counts" as American?'
These issues have already been settled. The Constitution specifies who 'counts' as American, and it isn't the vision of progressives who push for open borders and open citizenship to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who applies. And as to the question concerning what kind of law 'counts' as American, the Constitution itself is the foundational basis of American law and contains the principles that formulate the ultimate and authoritative law of the land.
However, in the minds of progressives these issues have not been settled due to the fact that in their thinking the Constitution is an evolving document that is always subject to the shifting sands of political and cultural thought, except in those instances where the literal wording and original intent suit their purposes.
Such individuals know that a formal attempt to enact multiple changes to the Constitution, or to create a new one, would be met with heavy opposition. Thus, their tactic is not to attempt such a formal change but to tweak the definition of terms so that, for example, 'individual rights' include social and economic 'justice' and redistribution of wealth.
It is thus fair to ask, 'Is Constitution2020 a blueprint for tyranny?' Tyranny as our Founders understood it refers to govenment oppression. That oppression can take many forms, including trampling on the rights of the individual--the smallest minority--for the 'greater good.' Rights, as they understood it, do not involve forcing others to pay through taxation for what individuals should do for themselves. But in the minds of progressives, rights include exactly that...forcing others to pay for programs that embody a 'nanny state' mentality and thus trampling on the rights of taxpayers who must foot the bill as mandated not only by Congress but by a new interpretation of the Constitution itself, meaning of course, that Congress could no longer legally cut funding to such programs.
To put it succintly, a citizen has a right NOT to pay for somebody else's way--an assertion that is heresy to those who envision a nation where fundamental change involves moving to a more Marxist based society.
These assertions are not a 'figment of the imagination of conservatives who use scare tactics' but are depicted clearly in the words of those who are a part of Constitution 2020. From the group's website,
The Constitution 2020 Conference opened powerfully with a panel that engaged questions essential to defining a vision of progressive constitutionalism: Who ‘counts’ as American? And what kind of law ‘counts’ as American?
The panelists, along with their moderator, Bruce Ackerman, tested the boundaries between citizen and non-citizen, and between U.S. and international law, in the context of national security, foreign policy, immigration enforcement, and discrimination against minorities since September 11, 2001.
And what, exactly, is 'progressive constitutionalism' as opposed to regular constitutionalism?
The answer is simple. Traditional constitutionalism maintains that the ultimate and highest standard to determine if a law is constitutional rests upon the original intent of the Framers themselves. Progressive constitutionalism, by contrast, maintains that the words of the Framers must be 'interpreted' through the lens of the modern era and that original intent is basically a non-issue.
For example, the panel at the Constitution 2020 conference advocated for an expanded definition of citizenship to include non-citizens whom they claim are 'social citizens' based upon their personhood alone, that 'personhood' trumps 'citizenship':
How can progressives expand who ‘counts’ as American under our Constitution given the dominance of the citizen/non-citizen divide? We can either expand the ambit of citizenship, Ahmad suggested, or re-imagine citizenship entirely to better match a globalized world where people have multiple loyalties and identities.
And,
Muneer Ahmad then identified the citizen/non-citizen divide as a major barrier to expanding who ‘counts’ as American to communities with immigrant populations. Traditionally, the rights granted to citizens and persons in the Constitution are considered independent sources of rights, but Ahmad argued that the two are in fact tethered together so that “citizenship circumscribes personhood.”
These issues are but the tip of the iceberg. The conference panelists speak specifically about how to influence 'liberal jurists' with a progressive language that introduces concepts that take commonly-accepted Constitutional precepts in an entirely new direction. Such a direction would have sweeping ramifications for issues such as mandated healthcare and other social programs that depend on the redistribution of wealth, immigration law which would vastly expand the nation's understanding of the term 'citizenship,' and other issues central to the national identity.
In short, Constitution2020 is designed to be the legal embodiment of what Obama described as 'fundamental change' in America. This group and the entities that participate in it bear watching very closely.
Be sure to catch my blog at The Liberty Sphere.
Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.
Subscribe by clicking the links at the top of the page, or below, and you will receive free notifications of new articles plus a free newsletter.
Comments