A lot of the people who today call themselves “Progressives” express disdain for considering constitutional limits on government power, and in so doing offer up another example of how they do not live up to the example of their forebears from the Progressive Era. Although the Progressives of old did a lot of violence to the Constitution and set the stage for our era of the “living Constitution” (which means that the philosophy that gave birth to it is dead), most of those old Progressives at least understood that they needed to argue the matter, and some of them even respected that some constitutional limits still existed.
I am struck by the fact that Senator Albert Beveridge (a Republican from Indiana), one of the leading Progressives and a wingman for TR, spent three days on the Senate floor in 1907 arguing extensively about the constitutionality of proposed child labor laws. He saw that a serious constitutional argument was necessary, and he made a strong case.
This contrasts rather sharply with the answer given by the last Speaker of the House when asked by an impertinent reporter about the constitutional justification for Obamacare. Whereas Beveridge held forth for three days, Speaker Nancy Pelosi held forth for all of three words: “Are you kidding?”
“From three days to three words” might well be taken as the constitutional regress of what is called “progressivism” today.
Most Read on Power Line
- Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy
- Today's IRS Documents: What Do They Show?
- Standoff at Bundy Ranch Ends, With Photo of the Year So Far
- Is Scott Walker on his way to 2016 front-runner status?
- The War On Standards Comes to College Debate [with comment by Paul]
- At Dartmouth, Phil Hanlon wants no enemies to the left
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Find us on Facebook
“Arise and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” Winston Churchill
“Proclaim Liberty throughout All the land unto All the Inhabitants Thereof.” Inscription on the Liberty Bell