[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

As I said, you believe in bull$hit. If you believe in the Constitution, as you say you do, then you don't believe in the Constitution as written, but in the fictitious one that Progressives claim has evolved through some miraculous living and breathing. Of course, that kind of evolution is nonsense. This fictitious Constitution evolved through Progressive manipulation, not by some time driven life force.

Your desire for these listed national plans is evidence that you want the all-powerful Progressive central government that the Constitution is supposed to protect us against.

Do you believe states are necessary? Would you consider it better if they were relegated merely to being geographically described areas rather than sovereign states with their own constitutions.

Whether you describe your personal political principles as Progressive or not, you constantly express your political desires the way a Progressive would. And if you are a Progressive, you believe in the Constitution as Ruth Bader Ginsburg does. She would not recommend it as a governing principle for any country looking to create a blue print for national governance. She would prefer more recent ones with lengthy more detailed positive things government must do.

Forget about the legislative branch, people "want leaders who get things done," reads better in the original Italian or German or Russian. If the liberal tradition of representative government and the rule of law stands for anything, it stands against this.