I suppose that is a representative view of "progressive" but it sacrifices intellectual sweep, for the grounded realism of partisan shill.

But I think a progressive could do better. In reality the Dream Act maintains the status quo of simply sorting the "good immigrants" from the "bad ones". Selling it as necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, i.e. encouraging education and military service is simply a way to get past strict scrutiny and uphold a veilled racial classification. Immagine if the 14th ammendment had only repealed Dred Scott for black folks who could read to the level of Fredrick Douglass, or who had served in the Union Army.

Instead of saying that all those subject to the juridiction of the United States are hereby citizens, the Dream Act says that those who have a college education or served in the millitary are not a subordinate or inferior class of beings. What is next? You allow a black man who graduates from Harvard to be president? As long as he shows no emotion/manliness/blackness? God forbid that wouldn't be "presidential".

So under the Dream Act the hispanic that picks tommatoes or lettuce on a california farm is not intended to be included under the word "Citizen" in the Constitution, while the one that gets a college education or serves in the military is. All you are technically doing when you give "content" to citizenship is finding a compelling government interest that can pass strict scrutiny, and since democrats are defacto "progressives" the courts probably wouldn't even apply strict scrutiny or bother with an equal protection challange.

Actually I think this is the LIberaltarian perspective.(If it isn't I intend to give content to the term) All goverment actions should receive a heavier dose of strict scrutiny, and the government should not be allowed to maintain within U.S. jurisdiction second class/non-citizens. Equal Protection on Roids!

Also use equal protection to strike down tax code provisions that favor/disfavor marriage. Only have 1 tax bracket: individual. No more "compelling" state interest in marriage. No more using the tax bracket for purposes other than raising income. Court should go thru tax bracket and assume law is based on prejudice related to giving content to "citizenship". Giving content to "citizenship" violates EP and is no longer a compelling government interest.

All of our dankest bigotries/prejudices are reflected in the tax code, and our attempts to cherry pick and nudge citizens towards favored behaviors.

This is the "pro-gay" "pro-immigration" "pro-equal protection" Liberaltarian position.

The Liberaltarian might or might not support greater sweep for the FDA. His pure ideological libertarian self forces him to apply strict scrutiny not just when the law is based on race, but also on culture and economics. So he recognizes that sensible procedures at the FDA could make our food safer, just as sensible procedures at the TSA could make our flights safer. Still will it really make us that much safer, or will it simply add a layer of bureaucracy, and an illusion of security, while increasing the cost of food and travel? But while their is a circuit split among liberaltarians generally if it is an economic question, then we apply something closer to intermediate scrutiny.

The gap between strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny demarcates fundamental rights, which are inalienable thus beyond the realm of economics/legal realism/or empiricism.

By contrast the Carrol Towing test and a posteori reasoning that is utilitarian is employed for intermediate scrutiny. We consider if the illusion of food security reduces the natural wariness that best sustains caveat emptor, but we ballance this against some recognition of imperfect information, difference in sophistication of parties. Under our current system when the government is vigorous about protecting us from lead, radiation, exct... does this cause over-reliance, that can harm autonomy? Do folks begin to live near nuclear power plants because the government entwinement with corporations via EPA regulations breeds complacency in the form of a reliance interest?

Liberaltarians are in favor of limited government so there is no rational basis. Either the regulation is economic within the congressional spending power and intermediate scrutiny applies where the means can neither be under or over-inclusive, (as they can in rational basis)+ a strong bias in favor of anti-commandering, and unfunded mandates and must also pass a Carrol Towing type test. Or it is a Fundamental Right, that treat the individual as an end in himself, and accept no exceptions that cannot be willed as a universal(The standard of Strict Scrutiny? needs work...)

This is broad sweep Liberaltarianism.

Those who are not Liberaltarians lack "good will" and while it does no good to say they are "apostles of our darkest bigotries" we simply call them "citizens" mangled by the "compelling state interests" of a marginally enlightened republic.

Of course no one gets out from under the darkest bigotries of his or her marginally enlightened republic(dank has positive connotations for the California dwelling pot smoking Liberaltarians.)

When I make up an ideology I assume they live in California:)

To say that they lack the art of losing graciously (or winning graciously - Barney Frank) misses the larger point. Meyerson, after more than 25 years of observing American political life, is apparently incapable of apprehending and arguing with his opposition and replaces understanding with his own cultural fantasies. He is in good company, which is too bad.