Originally Posted by swinginglory
I honestly don't get what you are saying. Anyone who believes in the Constitution has to go along with the total package. How on earth is that considered "progressive".
Now there can be legit disagreement on how the Constitution is interpreted, but how can can we disagree about the content? I can make a pretty good case that the guys in the black robes made awful decisions in Dred Scott and Plessy.
It does seem more accurate to me that the so called "progressives" are the one's that like to ignore amendments like the 10th Amendment, not the conservatives.
I think you forgot to include a not
before progressive? The point is they don't, or more correctly, choose to disregard what the document currently states. Each revision has created a new and over riding document. There is only 1 US Constitution, previous ones are considered replaced. Roe V Wade is an example of a decision made by a majority of actors at the time, that has constantly been attacked, to not alter in a more libertarian way but to revert to a time before liberties were acknowledged.
As for the 10th, it's always paraded around as if its some magic 'abracadabra' against tyranny. It was meant to offer a mechanism for national discussion (hence the reason its included in a national, not regional, document), not a Perry styled usage for succession.