Monday, June 15, 2009

The Constitutional Roots of Liberalism & Progressivism

I've recently been told that the root of Progressive thought is the fact that the Constitution can be changed. Hmmm. I have never thought of it that way. Based on precedents, I thought amendments were only to right wrongs such as freeing slaves, granting women the right to vote and repealing prohibition. I never saw the amendment process as carte blanche for the citizen voters of the US to get what ever they want from the Government as long as they lobbied & protested hard enough.

What do you (my 4ish readers) think? Is Article V the Constitutional root of progressive thought? If so, why? If not, why not?

And more importantly for me....if this means that we are all Constitutionally bound to be steering this ship, not only with Voting, our free speech and the Press, and Jury duty etc....BUT ALSO with developing new edits to the Constitution itself, then what does that do to my POLITICAL PARADIGM? I mean before, I could just cast off the commies, lol, because I could not understand where they were coming from. If Article V is indeed legitimately where they are coming from, then what impact does that now have on my politics? Maybe I've been wrong all along?

Heavy stuff.


Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


  1. Isn't Article V kinda like the Constitutional version of a pre-nuptual agreement? I mean the Constitution is a "Union" and so is a Marriage. So if things are not working so well, then ya whip out the ole pre-nup and see what it says. Right?

    IF so, if Article V is like a pre-nup, isn't it a bit weird to live life based on the pre-nup? Aint it better to live based on the real purpose that we got together for?

    Sincerely trying to understand.

  2. The problem is in terminology. Liberals say the Constitution can be "changed." They never say the Constitution can be amended. It is clear then Article V has nothing to do with the basis of liberalism.

    The author is not wrong in his original premise.

  3. So Bill, do you mean that the ammendment process is just to right wrongs? and NOT to morph the Constitution to the will of the people?

  4. And another thing....

    I mean, just because I WANT something and I get millions of others to want it too, (IMHO) does NOT mean it's the right thing to do, nor does it mean that the feds are Constitutionally empowered to act on my "wants".

    It seems to me that the only reasons to cater to those "wants" is either to pander to the popular issues of the day and buy their votes, or to really really change the Federal Government down to its core by ammending the Constitution. And yes, ammending the Constitution is a possibility. But what seems to be 1,000 times more likely is the catering to popular "wants" just to get their votes and get and stay in power.

    That's just how I see it.