Activist Judges, those who act of their own ideological devices and don’t follow the US Constitution, reshape the way our Founder’s intended for this country to work as a whole.

Much is said of who appointed whom to Federal benches – Carter, Reagan, Clinton, Bush et al – but many times Judges aren’t what they seem and go off the Constitutional rails.

Clinton appointee Judge Bolton rewrote the Arizona law to her own needs, invented her own facts and ignored clear federal law. Jimmy Carter appointee and immigration law professor at Yale Law School Peter Schuck told The New York Times:

“She rushed to judgment in a way I can only assume reflects a lot of pressure from the federal government to get this case resolved quickly.”

The legal term for this is a “facial challenge,” and federal precedent is clear that facial challenges “must be careful not to go beyond the statute’s facial requirements and speculate about ‘hypothetical’ or imaginary cases.”

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer correctly stated:

“Today the federal government got relief from the courts to not to do their jobs.”

Judge Bolton ignored Section 2(B) of the law as written and completely ignored the section’s first sentence that required an officer to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person was in the country illegally before their immigration status should be checked.

Next, Bolton invented a completely hypothetical case about a Chilean dog walker detained by a completely fictional Sheriff Smith.

Finally, 8 U.S.C. §1373 clearly requires the federal government to “respond to an inquiry by a…State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.”

However, Judge Bolton concluded that the Obama administration’s decision not to enforce this provision was as good as rewriting the law itself. This is quite remarkable when any Judge presumes an action writes or rewrites law without any formal written legislation to substantiate that law, which really doesn’t exist except in Judge Bolton’s mind.

Heritage Foundation reflect on the Obama administration and the fact this skirting of the Constitution isn’t new. In fact, they show a pattern.

1. The Obama Justice Department’s decision to dismiss voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.
2. The Obama administration’s use of TARP to bail out its union allies in what bankruptcy law scholars have called “so outrageous and illegal that until March of this year [2009], nobody even conceptualized it.”
3. The Obama administration’s shakedown of BP in the White House’s Roosevelt Room.
4. Less than a week later after a federal court found its first oil drilling ban to be “arbitrary and capricious,” the Obama administration issued a second oil drilling ban that was wider and killed even more jobs than the first.

Enforcing the law is not an Obama administration option, placating their friends at La Raza and MALDEF is the goal in the effort to enact amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States.  Once again, the Obama administration and the Leftist surrogates in the Judiciary are writing their own laws without the need for a public debate or involving Congress. Indeed!

Liberally Conservative appreciates your comments that abide by our guidelines:

Liberals, those left-wing ideologues and other Democrats like to use the term “progressive” when identifying themselves because they feel the average citizen will buy into the charade. Let’s examine the definition of “progressive” from Dictionary.com:

pro⋅gres⋅sive  /prəˈgrɛsɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pruh-gres-iv] 

–adjective

1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4. (initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5. going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6. noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7. of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.
8. Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.
9. Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.

–noun

10. a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.
11. (initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party.
12. Grammar.

       a. the progressive aspect.
       b. a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.

During history America has gone through some transitions via political smoke and mirrors under the guise of “progressivism.”

The government, bigger than ever, now stands in the way of individuality and independent freedom. Big government is encroaching on the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence, documents of the American founding not living and breathing manuscripts made to be altered at the whim of a politician or other unelected bureaucrat.

Massive pieces of legislation are placed into law in secret and at such a pace no average, hard working citizen as the time to read all the changes and understand the changes taking place on them. The change is loss of freedom that we expect while government takes more power and with that, your freedom.

We now have a swarm of worker bees collectively known as policy “czars” — über-bureaucrats who operate outside the cabinet structure and perhaps the Constitution — promoting political objectives in an administration supposedly under executive control. This has been going on for years, not just inside the Obama administration.

American began its transformation as a “modern state” in the early 20th century. American “progressives” were enthralled by the Germans who viewed advances in science had opened up new ways to advance democracies. The birth of giant bureaucracies in America took place with people, unelected and unaccountable to the people, but empowered to the work of “administrating” the prospective “state”.

In their quest to preserve the meaning of The Declaration of Independence the Founding Father’s would restrict the growing powers of the government to avert a tyranny while preserving liberty.

National and state governments had their specific functions divided in the form of “Federalism.” These separation of powers were document in the US Constitution. This was necessary to have self-government, by the people, and limiting the powers of government. 

Progressives sniveled at the Constitution and deemed it an artifact and sought to include it in the archives of history. They pretended that only government could achieve progress for the people and restrictive was against the laws of nature and physics. Only government could pursue improvement to society, not any individual or collection of free and enterprising people.

The Progressive movement began with contributions from one Republican president and one Democrat president. Founded in their brand of “progressivism” was modern liberalism. In 1912 Woodrow Wilson wrote:

“Some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence”

“All that progressives ask or desire is permission — in an era when ‘development,’ ‘evolution,’ is the scientific word — to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.”

Wilson and Roosevelt agreed that a class of “administrators” would better serve the people while being unelected and virtually unaccountable to the citizens and the separation of powers and the US Constitution.

These “administrators” would combine authority and government powers developing more central control and slowing dissolving the intent of the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution.

Faceless bureaucrats would be able to legislate and create laws according to their ideals and objectives not for individuals but the collective citizenry calling for national ideals attained by someone’s standard of social justice.

By changing society through laws, regulation and redistribution of wealth and benefits by not completing eliminating the Constitution in its original form but by changing it through the doctrine of a “Living Constitution.”

Bureaucrat reform known as “Progressivism” received a huge boost with the establishment of FTC (the Federal Trade Commission, created in 1914) and the SEC (the Securities and Exchange Commission, created in 1934), the original administrating agencies of progressive government.To attain continuous social reform government needed to have limitless boundaries in its effort to gain more power in its quest to control the individual and to stamp out individuality.Scholar Charles Merriam wrote:

“It is denied that any limit can be set to governmental activity. The modern idea as to what is the purpose of the state has radically changed since the days of the ‘Fathers’ because the exigencies of modern industrial and urban life have forced the state to intervene at so many points where an immediate individual interest is difficult to show, that the old doctrine has been given up for the theory that the state acts for the general welfare. It is not admitted that there are no limits to the action of the state, but on the other hand it is fully conceded that there are no ‘natural rights’ which bar the way. The question is now one of expediency rather than of principle.”

The Pure Food and Drug Act under Teddy Roosevelt and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act under Woodrow Wilson were amendments to the Constitution that allowed federal income tax collection to “fund” a national government in the quest to grow it exponentially.

In 1932 FDR announced:

“The day of the great promoter or the financial Titan, to whom we granted everything if only he would build, or develop, is over. The day of enlightened administration has come.” 

FDR called for a “Second Bill of Rights” that would “assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.”

Lyndon Johnson’s “War on Poverty” did more to keep those in poverty down as it was an unadulterated failure. Johnson’s “Great Society” expanded the “administrative” state into a boundless, open-ended bureaucracy well beyond the intentions of our great Founder’s or any reasonable believer in a non-living Constitution.

Johnson annotated the Declaration of Independence by declaring himself that government’s purpose was no long to “to secure these rights,” but “to fulfill these rights.”

“It is not enough just to open the gates of opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates,” Johnson proclaimed.

“We seek not just freedom but opportunity. We seek not just legal equity but human ability, not just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result,” Johnson declared.

Nationalizing heath care has been the one-hundred year dream of the left in America. This is the liberal’s final solution to gaining ultimate power over all citizens in America. First proposed in 1904 and modeled after German social insurance and was the Progressive Party’s platform in 1912. Every Democrat president from FDR to Obama has sought this tool to gain one-sixth of the United States economy from the private sector, bringing under full control of the state and eventually begin rationing of all goods and services.

The current Tea Party movement has now displaced some of the “progressive” dream and agenda. I ask of anyone who will listen to remove the political class from the grassroots movement, don’t allow them to use the forum to gain their own power. Don’t be fooled by any politician who is more than willing to use the grassroots stage to espouse their agenda no matter how popular.

It’s time for the people to decide, not the politicians. The Tea Party’s are not designed for political campaigns, even those undeclared for office now. Things change and even Sarah Palin, who resigned her office early and maintains her “Conservative” credentials is more than willing to back John McCain, a not so Conservative who moves across the aisles of political convenience.

For the people, and by the people. By that I mean the non-politician, the grassroots citizen taking time from their day, from their families to do the heavy lifting for Democracy and written in the Declaration of Independence and United States Constitution.

That’s the “progressive” thing to do and it has nothing to do with Liberalism. Indeed!