01-19-2019 04:27:50 PM -0800
01-19-2019 11:09:10 AM -0800
01-18-2019 07:06:15 AM -0800
01-17-2019 03:39:53 PM -0800
01-17-2019 12:48:37 PM -0800
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.
PJ Media encourages you to read our updated PRIVACY POLICY and COOKIE POLICY.
X


Stretch, grab a late afternoon cup of caffeine and get caught up on the most important news of the day with our Coffee Break newsletter. These are the stories that will fill you in on the world that's spinning outside of your office window - at the moment that you get a chance to take a breath.
Sign up now to save time and stay informed!

The Left Misunderstands the Purpose of the Constitution. Again.

 

The left doesn’t understand the Constitution.

We’re not even talking about the text. They question the purpose of the Constitution and a nation of laws. This is not news; Obama himself went on a ridiculous tirade about the superiority of his imagined “positive rights” over mere equal rights. And just witness their panic at the idea that the Supreme Court might get taken over by constitutionalists.

Part of the reason they don’t like the Constitution is that it limits what they view as the ability of the government to be benevolent and look after everyone. (Perhaps it is just my impression that these people mostly come from broken homes and want the government to be their daddy, or want the government to be daddy and mommy for others.)

Recently some on the Left have been circulating the below graphic on Facebook, as their self-reinforcing pat-on-the-back reason why strictly adhering to the Constitution is a bad thing and we’re bad people for wishing it.

Like most of the Left’s memes, it’s very simple (not to say simpleminded) and you have to dig under it to realize the levels and levels of wrong its cutesy drawings hide:

Sounds lovely, doesn’t it?

Note two things:

First, the problem in this case is caused by a difference in heights, which is both something easy to see, verifiable, objective, and relatively easy to correct. (Also, what’s wrong with these kids? When I was the much smaller kid in the group of my brother’s friends -- an average ten years older than I -- I got held piggy-back in similar circumstances. It’s like this graphic can’t even acknowledge the possibility of people helping each other. Oh, wait. It’s exactly like that.)

Affirmative action is not for something such as a difference in heights. Instead, it seeks to compensate for past discrimination by treating some groups as more worthy of consideration/jobs/entrance to universities than others. The problems with this are already myriad.

As Rachel Dolezal and Elizabeth Warren show, it’s very easy for anyone to claim membership in a “downtrodden” group they don’t actually belong to.

Then there is the fact that groups are not, in fact, composed of identical widgets. While I can see giving special consideration to a kid who was raised in a bad part of town, by a drug-addicted mother (regardless of skin color) if that kid happens to be black, he gets shoved in the same category as Malia and Sasha Obama -- whose father was president and who grew up in the White House. Because, as Martin Luther King Jr. fought so hard to make clear, the color of your skin is not the definition of your character, your circumstances, or how much help you might in fact need.