Further proof that the Left’s ideals are closer to Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Trotsky than to Madison, Mason, Jefferson, and Franklin

I have often written that the Left simply does not believe in our Constitution It is not that they fail to understand it, after all it is written as to be easy to understand. It is not that the Left truly buys their own lie that they see the Constitution as a living, breathing document either. They know damned well what our constitution says. The problem is simple. Their ideology is the polar opposite of the Founders.

The Left does not believe, as our Founders did in natural rights. They do not believe that our rights are unalienable either. They hold to the belief that our only rights should come from government, and they further believe that those rights can be revoked by government in the interest of the “common good”. Rights like freedom of speech, the right to own property, or to freely associate with whom we choose, or to worship as we choose, are loathed by the Left, they always have been, and they always will be. These principles are antithetical to everything the Left is about.

The Left despises Individualism, and embraces Collectivism. Examine any ideological difference between Left and Right and you will be able to trace it to a clash over the individual vs the collective. For the Collectivist Left to ultimately triumph, they must make basic rights contingent on the “common good”. For the Left, the rights of individuals are expendable in the pursuit of Utopia, which, of course, is best described by the writings of Marx and Engels.

You simply cannot have a society based on ideals like “from each according to their ability and to each according to their need” if the right of the individual holds a sacred place can you? Of course not, so, it is not that tough to decipher why the Left loathes our Constitutional Republic. Our Constitution prevents the Left’s Utopian Society from becoming a reality because it protects the individual’s right to strive for more, and live their life as they, not the government, or the community, sees fit.

So, it is of no real surprise that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently expressed her dissatisfaction with our Constitution.

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” she said. She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

Ginsburg is a Leftist, and by Leftist I mean she is a follower of Marx and Engels. She is not alone of course, the New York Times echoes Ginsburg’s attitude towards our Republican form of government, yes, I said REPUBLICAN form of government, the United States is NOT a Democracy! Here is what the New York Times opines

But the Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.

A right to travel? A right to education? To healthcare? Again, these are part of the Collectivist thinking the Left is addicted to. There is, according to the Left a “right” to pretty much everything, so long, of course, as those rights do not interfere with the greater good of the Collectivist Utopia. There must be a “balance” as Canada has you see

The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal rights for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights. On the other hand, it balances those rights against “such reasonable limits” as “can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”

Ah, yes, “reasonable limits”. So, there it is there are no natural rights, no rights that the government cannot curtail, limit, restrict or, if the common good demands forbid. Those are the kind if rights the Left embraces, rights protected only by the good graces of our government overlords! Our Constitution, of course, is less than desirable, with its limits placed not on individual rights, but rather on government. I mean how can we ever have “Social Justice” if we constrain the government from being all powerful? Any good Leftist will gladly tell you that big government is good. It is those darned individuals that screw everything up.

It has its idiosyncrasies. Only 2 percent of the world’s constitutions protect, as the Second Amendment does, a right to bear arms. (Its brothers in arms are Guatemala and Mexico.)

Oh, of course the natural right the Left loathes more than any other, the right to have guns. How in the world can we ever achieve the Collectivist’s vision of the USA, the Utopian Society of America, if individuals are allowed to defend themselves? Such rights serve to make people more, dare we say, self-reliant, and self-reliance is bad because it defies Collectivism. And that right, like the others in the Constitution are problematic because they are like guaranteed or something. And that makes it tough to take those silly rights away

The rights guaranteed by the American Constitution are parsimonious by international standards, and they are frozen in amber. As Sanford Levinson wrote in 2006 in “Our Undemocratic Constitution,” “the U.S. Constitution is the most difficult to amend of any constitution currently existing in the world today.” (Yugoslavia used to hold that title, but Yugoslavia did not work out.)

RATS! How can our Constitution be any good at all? I mean it cannot be changed on the whim of the government. That makes it really hard to fundamentally change America into a true Utopia where everyone has a right everything, as long as the government says so of course!