What we have learned over the last century is that the Democrat party opposes the United States Constitution and our Republic. This is a statement based on their own statements.
“Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of life, not of mechanics; it must develop. 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.” Woodrow Wilson
“The United States Constitution has proved itself the most marvelously elastic compilation of rules of government ever written.” Franklin D. Roosevelt “
“It [the Constitution] didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, it says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted.”
“Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism.” Barack Obama
The way the Democrats have viewed the Constitution is that because they say it is Darwinian, elastic, and living, it can mean whatever you want it to mean at any point of time. Once something can mean anything you want it to mean at any point in time, it has no meaning at all.
Facts and rules have not applied to collectivist (Marxist, communist, socialist, progressive, Democrat, - all virtually the same) agendas. The axiom for the collectivist is and always has been, “The ends always justify the means.” Is there a point to which Democrats, who claim to be Americans, will say that which is being stated is beyond what they can accept? It seems not.
Chelsie Handler, who has made some pretty outlandish comments, just called for the elimination of the Sixth amendment or the right of a person charged with a criminal offense to have a jury trial. Handler tweeted, “So pathetic that there is a trial to prove that Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd when there is video of him doing so.” Are there any of you Democrats who understand why it is so critical to have trial by jury protected? Are there any of you Democrats who understand why it is so critical we have the legal principle that the state must prove guilt as opposed to the defendant proving innocence. If you agree with Handler, you agree with supremacy of the state, or dictatorship.
CNN, in support of the transgender (whatever that is) agenda, said chromosomes and genitalia to not determine the sex of the newborn baby. The issue being argued now is should males be able to compete in women’s sports because the individual who was born a male decides he wants to be a female.
“Though the two executive orders signed by Noem do not explicitly mention transgender athletes, they reference the supposed harms of the participation of "males" in women's athletics -- an echo of the transphobic claim, cited in other similar legislative initiatives, that transgender women are not women. The orders also reference "biological sex," a disputed term that refers to the sex as listed on students' original birth certificates.
It's not possible to know a person's gender identity at birth, and there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth,” said CNN
Are there any of you Democrats who believe in science? Are there any of you Democrats who understand the absurdity of the above statement? Are there any Democrats who will say that there has to be some standards and rules by which society exists, such as law and order, and science? Is your desire to bring about a communist society so great that you accept even these ridiculous statements?
Write something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview.