Army Bob: Constitutional rights, or suggestions?

by Robert M. Traxler

“The Constitution is not absolute, the Bill of Rights is a suggestion,” a mantra of the progressive/socialist legions, the modern Abraham Lincoln Brigade, an American volunteer group fighting for the communist side of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) against the Spanish socialists. Free speech, freedom of the press is not absolute, the 10th amendment is a suggestion (all rights not given to the federal governments in the Constitution, rest with the states), along with the rest of the Bill of Rights, according to the leftists, especially in the shadow of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, that abortion is not a constitutional right, thus up to each State to address. Why the people who want abortion to be legal do not pass a constitutional amendment is puzzling. They do say they get tired of being told to amend the Constitution, just why is that? Perhaps because abortion is a better campaign/fund-raising issue than a genuine concern for women’s health, or that they wish to nullify the Constitution rather than amend it? 

People are surprised to discover that many of the most repressive governments in world history, at least in modern history, have a constitution and an equivalency of the Bill of Rights. The Russian Federation, The Democratic People’s Republic of (North) Korea and the People’s Republic of China have a document like our Constitution. The Russian Federation’s Constitution was adopted in 1993 and is somewhat close to our Constitution in content; the Peoples Republic of China also has an American style Constitution adopted in 1983, and North Korea’s in 1992. 

So, what is the difference between our nation and the modern repressive socialist nations? In Russia, North Korea and China, their constitutions are “parchment documents,” words that are not absolute, but a mere suggestion, just a piece of paper, a general set of guiding documents that are not rights but malleable suggestions. The constitution is a document to be violated or liberally interpreted at will by the governments to fit the currently politically correct situation, not protect people from an overly powerful and repressive government, not to limit government power but to enhance its ability to oppress and repress the people in the name of equity rather than equality, outcome rather than opportunity.   

For the socialists to control our nation they want the Constitution to be followed in the same way the repressive socialist nations follow their constitutions. The progressives do not want to amend the Constitution, they want to make it a “parchment document,” not to amend it but to ignore it, as the other shining examples of socialist governments do theirs. Governments like in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, with a constitution adopted in 1993 and a socialist utopian nation, from which desperate people are fleeing en mass.    

When abortion was a ‘right’ under the Constitution, ruled so by the Supreme Court, the leftist mantra was that Roe is the law of the land just “STFU” and accept it, to quote one eloquent commenter for this esteemed publication. Should the people who object to Dobbs v. Jackson follow their own advice? Yes. Will they? Fat chance.  

Army Bob Traxler

The American Constitution is a document that was very radical in its day. It scared the crap out of the established governments, those that were monarchies the most; after all, God himself ordained the ruling class and questioning them was not allowed, just as in socialist governments the government is not to be questioned and its role is to do good (good as they define it), meaning punishing the successful and be a fair referee (fair as they define it), is choosing winners and losers based on socialist principles and practices, not our Constitution, effort or hard work. 

The American Constitution is a revolutionary document, the world’s longest serving written charter of government, amended 27 times to update it. It could be amended once again if the pro-abortion folks only had the will to try; will they? Probably not. Abortion is too good a fund-raising/vote getting, divisive issue to codify in the Constitution; it is easier to say they get tired of people saying they should put abortion up for a national vote and be done with it. Every poll states the amendment would pass overwhelmingly; according to Vox, 85% of voters support abortion in some form.

Socialism always fails, always; it ends in dictatorship, economic disaster, and oppression, but who gives a damn? Full speed to ruin is the progressive goal. Thanks go to our Constitution, for limiting government and protecting all of us.

My opinion.  


  • What is more frightening to me is the use of the FBI as a Gestapo force for the Justice Dept., the same Government Agency that is supposed, not only to enforce the laws of our country, but to also protect our Constitutional Rights.
    I remember some years back, when the Liberal Left was an advocate of reigning in the power of such departments as the FBI and CIA. But for some reason, people like Snowden and Julian Assange, who once would have been heroes of the Left (and to some they stillare), face the possibilty of years in prison and/or living in asylum.
    I remember a time when the Liberal Left would have stood behind citizens that objected to the oppression and dictates of school boards. They would have objected to sunrise raids of homes by the FBI, for political objectives and publicity.
    To me, the greater threat to our rights are being violated in a more frightening manner than making abortion a state’s decision. Ask Mark Houck, a Right to Life activist, whose home was raided in the early morning hours by 15 armed agents of the FBI, after charges of assault were dismissed in a local court.
    Scary stuff going on in our Justice Dept., contrary to their duty to protect our Constitutional rights. Lately, it seems only those of the Liberal Left have any protection of those rights or protections that may even exceed those rights. Below is an article about Mr. Houck and his families travails.

  • Mr. Moras,
    Sir, thanks for the comment.
    Agree with your point, free speech is banned as hate speech, hate speech is disagreeing with the socialists or our government. If you believe our nation started in 1776, not 1610 it is hate speech, go figure.

Leave a Comment