Hillary Clinton calls herself a "modern progressive." It's interesting that no one (except for Glenn Beck) has a problem with this statement. Progressives believe that society must "progress" toward an ideal form of government.
Here is the problem with such a philosophy: Progress requires constitutional and government flexibility. If we find that our government is not addressing some issue of national importance, we should have the ability to quickly change the government.
Woodrow Wilson believed that the British constitution was more advanced than the United States constitution because it allowed for "progress" without the slow process of amendment.
The constitution of the founders assumed and required a limited general government. Progressivism is not compatible with our constitution because it assumes government must "progress" to be more proactive, wielding more and more power as time goes by.
As a result, Hillary Clinton is not just a modern Progressive. She is an un-Constitutionalist. How have we regressed to such a state that someone who would subvert our constitutional system is seen as "progressive"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment