Originally Posted by detbuch
Nor did I say anything about Trump's "intent" in the passage you cite: "Trump's election is part of an anti-progressive globalism which was deconstructing Western societies and reshaping them from diverse family oriented people with distinct regional cultures who all had finally shed the shackles of monarchic or dictatorial ruling classes and tasted the fruits of individual freedoms and rule of law."
I was speaking of Western society as a whole. The process toward individual freedom started in the West, in Europe, long before the American Experiment. But it got going into high gear with the American Revolution. Obviously all the Western countries, including the US, freed themselves from the above said shackles, advanced toward individual freedom, and created similar but varied rules of law protecting their freedom.
The current Progressive movement is about reshaping regional and cultural differences. The UN is a model or a start for centralized world government. Regional differences are cause of division and conflict. The goal is to tamp down and eventually eliminate the differences by melding them all into an agreed upon sameness. The goal is noble. World harmony and equality.
For that to happen much history and current culture will have to be forgotten or rewritten or re-"interpreted." And the true diversity existing in the human genome will have to be engineered to eliminate differences potentially harmful to a central order. And family heritage will have to be subsumed by patronage of the State.
I don't think that the Progressive model is, as you might say, "based in reality."
As for stolen freedoms, to discuss that would require that you and I agree on what freedoms are and which did we get in our Revolution. And how they are protected and guaranteed. And further, it would be required of us to agree on what it means to "interpret" the Constitution that does that. Since we have shown that we don't agree on that, it is probably futile to give you a list of freedoms lost.
But I'll point out one way that it has happened as an example of the many, and make some general comments.
Early encroachments on Constitutional interpretation were done through the Commerce and the General Welfare Clauses. For FDR's New Deal to happen, for instance, the Constitution had to be "tortured" (the word used by one of the four members of FDR's Brain Trust when he admitted that most of the New Deals creations of agencies and production of regulations were done by "torturing" the Constitution out of recognition) and "interpreted" into something it is not. An early example involved protecting the New Deal's attempt at stabilizing the price of commodities by not letting them drop. So the farmers' output was limited by quota so as not to "overproduce" which would bring the price down (which, ironically would have been a boon to the poor and unemployed during the depression). So when a certain wheat farmer (in Ohio if I remember correctly) produced a small amount above the quota for his personal use, the federal government fined him using the Commerce Clause as justification.
The farmer took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. The problem for the government was that the Commerce Clause is actually an interstate commerce clause. So, per the Constitution, for the government to win, the product had to cross state lines and it had to be sold, (actual commerce). But FDR's Progressive Court found that the farmer actually affected the aggregate price of wheat because he didn't buy it. So, even though the wheat never crossed state lines (was not interstate) and was not sold (commerce), the farmer lost, as did the rest of us, the ability to grow stuff for ourselves if the government says we can't for whatever reason it concocts. And it vitiated the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Clause. The government can invoke the clause in any case in which the outcome can, in any way, affect commerce. Which just about involves anything we do. The amount of rights that have been limited or eliminated under the precedent created by this "interpretation" are many, and boundless in the future.
This case can be multiplied in manifold instances, fist by Court cases with twisted "interpretations." Then added to by the creation of a plethora of agencies which have unconstitutional plenary power to regulate almost every aspect of our lives. Agencies which produce 80 thousand new pages of regulations, on top of the old ones, every year.
Various court cases have limited or even destroyed much of the Bill of Rights. As well, religious and Speech rights have been narrowed or eliminated. Gun rights have been narrowed and are constantly under assault. Eminent Domain has been stretched to give government more power to seize land than was originally given to it. And much, much more. What is rarely mentioned anymore is what was once referred to as the vast residuum of rights reserved to the people. Those being the innumerable rights outside of those few granted to the government. But, the expansion of all-powerful regulatory agencies along with Court interpretations have, over time, somehow managed to expand government rights to include that vast residuum once belonging to the people and the states, and basically left only those granted to us by the Bill of rights, which, as I've said, have also been narrowed. If you are truly interested, you can research and read up on what has been lost in terms of individual rights.
And keep in mind, much of what is lost is potential. For instance, the Court decision on the ACA, not only gave the power to the Federal Government to force us to buy health insurance under penalty of a tax if we don't, it has by precedence given the government power to force us to buy anything else under the same penalty. So, even though we can now buy or not buy broccoli as we choose without penalty, it's not because we now have some unalienable right (one of those vast residuum of rights we once had) not to buy it without penalty, it's only because the government has not, at this point, decided to restrict that right. But it now has that right (which it once didn't have) and we have lost that "right."
In this way, the precedence set by various individual cases, have actually spawned potentials for unlimited regulation of anything that can be imagined to relate to any precedence under the umbrella of the decisions made.
This could be expanded to a book to give you the list you asked for. But some on the forum don't like to read more than a couple of sentences, so I'll leave it off here. Hope you get the gist. If not, it probably won't be a tragedy. I certainly don't want to invoke the "chicken little" type argument you don't like. (Which, you probably haven't noticed that you often do.)
|