Saturday, February 27, 2016

Professor: Denying Socialism is Denying U.S. Constitution

A recent poll revealed six out of ten Democratic primary voters have a high regard for socialism.  Forty-three percent of Iowa caucus-goers described themselves as socialist.  An ideology that was once considered taboo in the American polity, and is a proven failure time-after-time, has a stranglehold on a once great party.

How could this happen?  How can a people be so deceived?  One only has to look at Venezuela to witness the horrors of socialism, or worse, look to Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy.

The most likely answer is indoctrination at both secondary and collegiate education.  An associate professor at Tennessee State University is promulgating an assertion that the U.S. Constitution is a socialist mandate.  Of course, the only way one can construe such a notion is thru the preamble to the Constitution. 

This so-called professor takes a giant leap of faith by divining social justice, as understood by socialists, in a paragraph that was meant as an introduction.  Here is a revealing excerpt in his op-ed:

Third, the Constitution separates out general welfare from other goals. Blessings of liberty can only be secured to ourselves and our posterity if market failures are properly remedied. We need courts to enforce contracts, law and order to ensure domestic tranquility and some devotion to equality to establish justice. We cannot achieve “a more perfect union” without some notion of equality and a sense of social justice. Therefore, the demand for equality (embedded in the notions of justice and general welfare) is not a socialist war cry; it is a constitutional mandate.

Nowhere is equality mentioned in the preamble, or the Constitution itself.  The professor’s assertions are patently deceptive and outright dishonest.  The U.S. Constitution mandates a federalist system in which states and the federal government have designated roles. 

Socialism is highly centralized without limitations on the power of the general government.  The Bill of Rights was a prerequisite for ratification by the states simply because they feared an out of control entity would trample on their sovereignty. 

The Anti-Federalist knew there would be those who would bastardize the preamble to implement their ends and justify their means.  The pseudonymous writer Brutus wrote the following:

But it is said, by some of the advocates of this system, "That the idea that Congress can levy taxes at pleasure, is false, and the suggestion wholly unsupported: that the preamble to the constitution is declaratory of the purposes of the union, and the assumption of any power not necessary to establish justice, &c. to provide for the common defence, &c. will be unconstitutional. Besides, in the very clause which gives the power of levying duties and taxes, the purposes to which the money shall be appropriated, are specified, viz. to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare."1 I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defence and general welfare? Are these terms definite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same cases by every one? No one will pretend they will. It will then be matter of opinion, what tends to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter. To provide for the general welfare, is an abstract proposition, which mankind differ in the explanation of, as much as they do on any political or moral proposition that can be proposed; the most opposite measures may be pursued by different parties, and both may profess, that they have in view the general welfare; and both sides may be honest in their professions, or both may have sinister views. Those who advocate this new constitution declare, they are influenced by a regard to the general welfare; those who oppose it, declare they are moved by the same principle; and I have no doubt but a number on both sides are honest in their professions; and yet nothing is more certain than this, that to adopt this constitution, and not to adopt it, cannot both of them be promotive of the general welfare.

 Here is the professor’s conclusion:

Denying democratic socialism is tantamount to denying the Constitution of the United States. Denying democratic socialism is as good as denying what our Founding Fathers set out to accomplish: a more perfect union that embraces general welfare, justice and the blessings of liberty for all. The call to shun the path of democratic socialism basically translates into a call to give up the founding principles of the nation.

If the founding fathers’ goal were socialism, state governments would have been abolished long ago and there would have been no attempt to limit the powers of the federal government.  Socialism can only work when the people are subservient to a cabal of social engineers.


No comments: