A good place to look is in whichever direction Progressive women are flinging the most poo. I don’t know if anyone thinks of them as leaders, but the works of Christina Hoff Summers and Camille Paglia I have found to be pretty sane and interesting. That Progressives get apoplectic over them is icing on the cake.

Yes very hard to find . Male or female. The infection you refer to is not gender specific.

In the federalist papers, the founding fathers who wrote the constitution tell us .....The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power in fact the constitution made the judiciary so weak the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter.
How is that possible? Our founders explained, Barton said, that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.”

In fact, they tell us that, “there is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”

“No wonder Progressives don’t like the Constitution — it restrains them!” Barton reflected. “They don’t like to be held back from fundamentally transforming the country. It’s no wonder that they work so hard to keep the Constitution from being taught in schools.”

Barton said that Thomas Jefferson long ago warned the people of leaving the Constitution to be interpreted by those who may or may not agree with what it says.

This is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson is quoted as saying. “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”

“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” he added.

David Barton said that we have forgotten the words of the Founding Fathers, and need to go back and study the Constitution.

As John Jay, author of a number of the Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court advised: “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the Constitution of his country…By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.”
From historian David Barton.

BTW Hillsdale College offers a free online course : US Constitution 101

There are two problems I see with this. First, it does not account for the rate of being overturned. You are penalizing a judge that has had 100 cases appealed and 5 overturned (5%) the same as a judge that has had 6 cases appealed and 5 overturned (83%).

Second, any good judge will occasionally be overturned. THere are many reasons. Maybe the appellate judge is not as "good/correct." Maybe the judge is trying to rollback liberal precedent, but the appeals court is to ready to overturn precedent.

Think of this situation when you have a progressive president in office for 8 years. A few appointments to stack the appellate court and then the more objective judges would start to be forced from office, letting the progressive president fill their spots. Not what you would want to happen, I think.

The 9th Circuit court has a 90% overturn rate. You have to give judges some latitude. It is expected that there will be differences of interpretation of law. I would not like to remove a judge from office who gets it "right" more often than they get it "wrong." But I would like to remove a judge from office that demonstrates they more often get it "wrong" than "right."

1) The reason the 14th Amendment was necessary was to hasten the adoption and integration of the disenfranchised slave population. (It should also be noted that there are some irregularities about the ratification of the 13th and 14th Amendments which call into question its legitimacy.)

"We the People" were both the framers AND the populace affected. It should be remembered that the Constitution was a revision/overhaul of the Articles of Confederation, which did treat the several States as independent and fully sovereign nations (where being a sovereign nation they would have absolute and primary authority over immigration, tourism, etc.). Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1889, immigration and citizenship terms have been under the purview of Congress as per Article 1 Section 8. As each State ratified the Constitution, that State's citizens then became citizens of the United States of America, so there very much existed a formal process and conditions - it was just carried out en masse. As other States were in turn accepted into the Union, their citizens similarly became citizens of the United States.

(I would note that the EU has nearly duplicated this process. If you have an EU passport, every member nation of the EU must accept the validity of that passport no matter which nation originally issued it.)

2) Are they subject to our laws? Yes, but that is a price of entry. Are they afforded all the privileges of citizenship or protection by the Constitution? No. They are guests. They don't pay income taxes, nor are they allowed to vote nor hold office. They can also appeal for extradition to their own nation rather than face a US tribunal of justice. So the rules aren't the same. A couple of examples:

- illegal immigrants who are caught violating the law are more often extradited out of the country than prosecuted and held at our expense. It is notable that ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement - a Federal agency) is charged with this rather than local law enforcement and why the Kate Steinle case is so troubling. The perpetrator had already been removed from the country numerous times and the local law enforcement refused to cooperate with ICE to have him deported yet a seventh(?) time.
- wiretapping laws make a big distinction between citizens and non-citizens in requiring a warrant (regardless of geographical location). What is interesting is that the warrant applies to the citizen - not the non-citizen. Why? Because the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to citizens only.

Now that doesn't mean that guests in our nation have no Rights. The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that rights are inherent - not granted by Government. The difference is in who is responsible for safe-guarding those rights: non-citizens can not apply to have their rights protected by the US Government because they are not subjects of US government but rather subjects to their own governments. That is one of the roles of Embassies - to verify that citizens of that nation are accorded treatment in convention with any treaties agreed to between the two nations.

3) No worries. The thing to keep in mind is that just like on your property, no one has the right to come onto your property without permission. It's called trespassing. The same principle applies to nation-states, it just means a little more complexity in creating and administering the rules.

Twelve seconds into the second video, "freeze frame" the video to read a Fall 2014 sign that states, "Weekly Educational Meetings To Study MARXISM And The Pressing Political Issues Of The Day."
Obviously raised by libtard sheeple parents who sent them to Berkley to be more intensely "educated" by radical professors, these kids do not have a snowball's chance in hell of escaping their "useful idiot" indoctrination.