Take our country back, from the Constitution

[Flopper]

I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.

For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?

Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control.

I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.

If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.



Professor: Take our country back, from the Constitution - CBS News

 

[Jroc]

Yeah liberal, elitist, political class knows what's best for us all ....Where do these idiots come from?

 

[PaulS1950]

I'm interested in what you think should be removed?

 

[Contumacious]

I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution.

The US abandoned the Constitution back in 1865.

.

 

[Lakhota]

Good OP. Thanks.

 

[Intense]

Let's have the Unionists and Lobbyists make up a new one. Whoever can bullshit the angry mob and buy them off with free stuff wins. Great Idea. No Wait.... Here is a better idea..........

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

How about we stop and take a deep breath before further fucking up the lives of the unsuspecting. Instead of thinking like a parasite or a predator, try to think like a producer.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We need to outsource our Progressives, it's the only way to ensure Domestic Tranquility.

 

[AmyNation]

The beauty of our constitution is the ability to amend it. Scrapping it is silly, we're not France, tossing out the baby with the bath water.

 

[Flopper]

I just needs updating, that's all. Or, we could simply scrap the entire thing and make a new one, either way I'm all for it.

The constitution provides for constitutional conventions and I suspect that our founders thought we would use it. I'm surprised that we have never made use of the provision to make the constitution a living document that changes as the nation changes. I agree with Seidman's thinking. We should not allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today to make our decisions.

Debates on important issues such as gun control, immigration, and election of our leaders often turns into a debate on the interpretation of the writings of people who had no concept of the issues and the problems we face today.

 

[Dot Com]

Let's have the Unionists and Lobbyists make up a new one. Whoever can bullshit the angry mob and buy them off with free stuff wins. Great Idea. No Wait.... Here is a better idea..........

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

How about we stop and take a deep breath before further fucking up the lives of the unsuspecting. Instead of thinking like a parasite or a predator, try to think like a producer.

I've always respected/enjoyed reading Thoreau's writing because he actually thought for himself unlike today's sheeple who are told what to think & gleefully lap it up.
Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 1

 

[blackhawk]

Get rid of the Constitution in favor of what? Do you want a new one written by the morons in office today who can agree on nothing other than let's give ourselves a raise and go on vacation? Do you want something totally different from the Constitution as we know it if so what would that be?

 

[AmyNation]

I just needs updating, that's all. Or, we could simply scrap the entire thing and make a new one, either way I'm all for it.

The constitution provides for constitutional conventions and I suspect that our founders thought we would use it. I'm surprised that we have never made use of the provision to make the constitution a living document that changes as the nation changes. I agree with Seidman's thinking. We should not allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today to make our decisions.

Debates on important issues such as gun control, immigration, and election of our leaders often turns into a debate on the interpretation of the writings of people who had no concept of the issues and the problems we face today.

I think there is a fine line between changing with the times, and being constantly subject to the latest whims of the masses. We want our constitution to be able to keep up with the needs of the nation, but to be difficult enough to change that we are not subject to the latest fads.

 

[Lakhota]

Majority rule would be nice.

 

[AmyNation]

Majority rule would be awful.

 

[blackhawk]

Would those wanting to scrap, rewrite, update the Constitution feel the same if we currently had a Republican President and the Republicans still controlled the House and had the same numbers in the Senate just curious?

 

[PaulS1950]

Majority rule would require a drastic departure from what we have.
The constitution is a document that restricts the federal governments powers to those named within the document. It then awards all other powers that are not prohibited from the states to the states and the people.

The problem is that no one remembers that we have a federal government that has its limits set in the constitution when they want the feds to solve their problems.

 

[PaulS1950]

I am still curious - What would you scrap, modify (and how) and what would you keep?

 

[asaratis]

To Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University:

I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.

It is a radical idea. Amending it, by proper procedure spelled out within it is the only sensible way to change it...not that it really needs to be changed at this time.

For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

Examples please. The boy-king Obama seems to circumvent the Constitution as he sees fit.

To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

But you said " Let's give up on the Constitution." Do you have a hard time making up your mind or is it that you just can't remember what you said previously?

A good idea does not cease to be a good idea just because the first person to have it died a long time ago.

Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?

The electoral college is a safeguard against urban areas disenfranchising rural areas. Another good idea by those old dead men.

Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control.

I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree.

How kind of you to allow differing opinions.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do.

Generally, we let the courts decide constitutionality of issues.

So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.

We have sensible gun control already. We do not allow criminals to carry their guns into prison. We do not allow felons to legally have guns after they get out. We do not allow the mentally ill to possess guns. we do not allow (in most states) "sawed off shotguns" We do not allow guns on airplanes. We do not allow guns in court rooms. Private businesses are free to restrict guns on their premises. Churches and schools can disallow guns on their property.

There is plenty of gun control...too much as a matter of fact.

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion.

Not at all. Numbnuts such as yourself just need to realize that UNTIL the Constitution is amended, the Constitution rules and your suggestions to circumvent it are completely out of place.

Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

You said it!...our foundational document.

You do realize,don't you, that the Presidential oath of office includes a vow to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? This is what barack Hussein Obama swore (for the second time) to do just last week. Apparently though, his word means nothing!

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.

You got the first part right. France and the UN can kiss my gun bearing ass. After the word "neither", you screwed up. Those old dead men knew exactly what could happen to this country without the 2nd Amendment and they would likely be quite proud of themselves for having prevented it for over 200 years.

If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

You epitomize the adolescent pricks today that think nothing significant happened before they were born.

Professor: Take our country back, from the Constitution - CBS News

Just because some shit like this shows up on CBS News does not mean it has any credence...at all.

Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University is a liberal idiot. (redundant term)

 

[Contumacious]

The constitution is a document that restricts the federal governments powers to those named within the document. It then awards all other powers that are not prohibited from the states to the states and the people.

.

No, it doesn't.

The federal government has become a behemoth which can incinerate Americans ALIVE on prime fucking time and get away with it.

Watch how easy it will be for Feinstein to disarm us.

.

 

[blackhawk]

Would those wanting to scrap, rewrite, update the Constitution feel the same if we currently had a Republican President and the Republicans still controlled the House and had the same numbers in the Senate just curious?

This argument is not about partisan politics.

If you consistently go after people's motives you get nowhere. Nowhere.

I do not trust enough people needed to meet and rewrite a new Constitution, but a discussion needs to start somewhere.

and it would take so long it has nothing to do with people serving today

I'm sorry was that a yes or no answer to my question? I also noticed I have got no answer to my earlier questions which I thought to be reasonable to ask so let me ask them again here. The Constitution do want it rewritten or amended by the current Congress if so what changes do you want? Do you want something totally different from the Constitution as we know it if so what would that be? Before we consider changing something that has served this nation very well for over 200 years I think you should figure out what you want to change it into so far that is something no one has been able to do. Finally I really don't think you should mess with the Constitution just to change the second amendment as part of a knee jerk reaction to Newton which if were all honest will admit that is the driving force behind this idea I recall no push to change anything about the Constitution before that.