Liberal Money Goes After Constitution
Posted in George Soros, Money on Jun 22nd, 2008
The far left money machine has now resorted to election fraud, internet message manipulation, media assassination, and blatant attacks on the 1st amendment via petition blocking.
With this in mind it shouldn’t come as a surprise that their next target is the US Constitution. As if having law hungry attorneys dominate Congress, chomping at the bits to bend legal documents to suit their political agendas, the left is now launching a law firm that will likely spend most of its time taking the words of the Constitution out of context, and using activist courts to get away with it.
a new liberal think tank and public interest law firm launched in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday, hoping to catch a progressive wave in both election politics and scholarly research on the meaning of the nation’s founding document.
“There’s nobody out there systematically making the argument that the Constitution’s text and history are on the progressive side,” says Douglas Kendall, founder of the new Constitutional Accountability Center. “The Constitution is, in its most vital respects, a progressive document.”
Well, the reason nobody is making that argument is because it’s absurd. The “progressive side” stands for everything the founding fathers went to war with England over.
To spread the word and take it into court, Kendall has assembled liberal stalwarts — and liberal money — to back his effort and support his view that, unlike unsuccessful liberal efforts in the past, his approach of embracing the Constitution’s text has the best shot of recapturing the constitutional high ground from conservatives. Yale Law School’s Akhil Amar and Jack Balkin and Duke’s Walter Dellinger are advisers, and George Soros’ Open Society Institute is a major funder. Ron Klain, former chief of staff to Al Gore and now an investment adviser for progressives, is also on board. Startup money totals nearly $2 million.
Kendall’s 10-year-old public interest group Community Rights Counsel, which used text-based arguments to fend off constitutional attacks on environmental laws, will close and morph into the new organization.
“We should embrace the Constitution rather than conceding it,” Amar says. “It is not the unique inheritance of conservatives.” Amar thinks the conservative Federalist Society has been “hugely successful” in shaping the debate over the Constitution for years, and the time is right to fight back.
The American Constitution Society, the liberal counterpart to the Federalist Society, is also supporting Kendall’s new organization. “He is taking on conservatives on their own terms,” says the society’’ executive director, Lisa Brown. “It’s absolutely time to reclaim this debate.”
Get ready freedom loving friends, the left is waging an all out war on America as we know it.
It is interesting to me that you would say:
Well, the reason nobody is making that argument is because it’s absurd. The “progressive side” stands for everything the founding fathers went to war with England over.
The “progressive side” stands for defending:
- Free speech and freedom of the press which the Conservative have worked very hard at limiting through their Big Brother attempts to monitor and curb the freedoms of the internet and their monetary control over the media. It is absurd when we have to get news vital to understanding how our government is working via England our ancient enslaver.
- Freedom of religion which the Conservatives have morphed into freedom for Judeo-Christian religion.
- The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments which the Conservative based “Patriot Act” has shredded.
The Conservatives have spent decades working on ways to interpret the Constitution in such a manner as to take us back to pre-Revolutionary times where the State held supreme authority and the right to dissent did not exist. The left is simply trying to go back to the basics of reading and interpreting the Constitution to make their case for coming back into balance.
Progressives support free speech in media? You mean like… the fairness doctrine?
Is the Fairness Doctrine your strongest example of the Progressives not supporting free speech? In 1949, the Fairness Doctrine stopped the publicly owned and licensed frequencies from being monopolized by the few who could afford the license and broadcasting equipment. By insisting that broadcasters present contrasting viewpoints to issues, the FCC broadened the public access to information. This is supporting free speech.
Thanks to the presidencies of Ronald Regan’s and both Bush’s, the Fairness Doctrine and such similar rules that guaranteed people the airtime to refute personal attacks and for political candidates to be given opportunities to offer opposing political editorial have nearly all been abolished.
Yes, after almost six decades of change in the media, the original Fairness Doctrine may be a bit outdated, but its intent is still important. Allowing those who can afford access to broadcast media to be the only viewpoints heard shifts the balance of free speech.
The only way for speech to be free is for the mediums that communicate speech to be equally accessible to all who would speak. How do you propose to make that happen?