Take our country back, from the Constitution

[asaratis]

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

The OP is verbatim from the link. The poster has little ability to think for himself. That is why he is so easily duped by liberal professors who think their shit doesn't stink.

 

[g5000]

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

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

i have given this some thought and there is more to it then what the Professor lays out.

It is an interesting idea. Why should we run our lives according to the dictates of men 200 years ago? We can value the principles in the Constitution but is the Constitution written for a 19th century world sufficient enough for the 21st century?

When the Constitution was ratified the framers and those who ratified it had representation in the US Congress that bears no resemblance to what we have today.

In the House Representatives today represent over 20 times as many people. If we are to argue we want what they had...they had representation in a way we do not.

I used to have a knee jerk reaction to the concepts the Professor is putting forth...and it was dismissive of consideration of even discussing it.

Now? The cat is out of the bag

This shitbird Seidman is being given way too much credibility. The New York Times gave him some space a few weeks ago, and now CBS News?

I'm sick of this kind of thinking. Just sick of it. And you are on ignorant fool if you swallow his bag of piss.

Mr. Seidman's argument basically boils down to a familiar gambit; that we are better ruled by extemporaneous decisions which accommodate current conditions (usually a crisis) rather than try to live by time-tested precedents.

This is one of the more dangerous arguments, but one I could plainly see had seduced Barack Obama when he nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. That was a truly bad day for America.

Why is this dangerous? Simple. If a totalitarian wanted to make a power grab during a crisis (as many Presidents have tried to do, as alluded to by Seidman in his "Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts" snarky comment), he would be better able to justify his actions by claiming to be a modern man dealing with modern problems and that antiquated precedents are a nuisance and an obstacle to achieving what he has convinced enough sheep are the necessary goals for the "good of the people".

This is yet one more of many reasons why every living soul on the planet should read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in America, most especially the useful idiot Mr. Seidman.

 

[rdean]

The problem isn't the constitution, it's what Republicans imagine it says.

Once I linked to an Onion article, which of course is pure satire and very, very amusing. These right wingers are so desperate, to this day, they insist I linked to it thinking it was news. All you have to do is read it to know it's satire, but I can understand the confusion, after all, these people think "Fox" is news. So it's no wonder they don't recognize satire.

Here it is, enjoy:

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

This really is hilarious and worth reading.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

All the states have requested one, congress refuses to call one, and so far SCOTUS has refused to get involved. Ya think SCOTUS may not want their assumed powers limited either?

 

[asaratis]

Majority rule would be awful.

Not for the moocher class. They would be in hog heaven!

 

[rdean]

Majority rule would be awful.

Not for the moocher class. They would be in hog heaven!

Republicans ARE the moocher class and the lack of education will only make it worse over time. Only their leaders are rich. Only the leaders. Many of the rest have few teeth and live in mom's trailer. Sad.

 

[rdean]

The problem isn't the constitution, it's what Republicans imagine it says.

Once I linked to an Onion article, which of course is pure satire and very, very amusing. These right wingers are so desperate, to this day, they insist I linked to it thinking it was news. All you have to do is read it to know it's satire, but I can understand the confusion, after all, these people think "Fox" is news. So it's no wonder they don't recognize satire.

Here it is, enjoy:

Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be | The Onion - America's Finest News Source

This really is hilarious and worth reading.

This is my favorite part:

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

Come on, how many of these right wingers have repeated this or something very similar since Obama has been elected.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The genus of the Constitution is that at times it can seem overly demanding, or unyielding with regard to things which may seem ‘harmless.’

Establishment Clause jurisprudence, for example, can be extremely frustrating for persons of faith, who perceive their religious liberty as somehow curtailed because they cannot codify the tenets of their faith into secular law, particularly when that which they seek to codify is acknowledged by such an overwhelming majority of people.

But that’s the nature of a Republic, to be ruled by law, not men. A republican form of government ensures that our individual liberties are safeguarded from the tyranny of the majority.

And with regard to:

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.

To paraphrase Justice Kennedy from Lawrence, the Framers did not presume to know liberty in all of its ‘manifold possibilities,’ they left for us a Constitution whose enduring principles allow each generation of Americans to search for its own ‘greater freedom.’

We are therefore not subject to the dictates of those men who lived over two centuries ago, but we are subject to the undying principles they set down for us in our Founding Document.

Indeed, the Constitution was created in anticipation of this very controversy concerning gun control; to maintain an appropriate venue where this or any other controversy can be vigorously debated, yet where no man need fear the loss of his civil liberties regardless the outcome. Where he will always be afforded due process, to appeal, to petition, and to expect an outcome based on facts and evidence as required by the rule of law, and not by the capricious and subjective emotions of the simple majority.

Our country is here, it is now, it hasn’t gone anywhere, and it is in no need of ‘taking back.’ What is needed, however, is for every American to have a more comprehensive understanding of the Constitution, its case law, and the principles it protects.

 

[dblack]

Majority rule would be nice.

Really? On everything? Have you really thought about that?

 

[Contumacious]

’ What is needed, however, is for every American to have a more comprehensive understanding of the Constitution, its case law, and the principles it protects.

Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent:

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

 

[g5000]

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.

All the states have requested one, congress refuses to call one, and so far SCOTUS has refused to get involved. Ya think SCOTUS may not want their assumed powers limited either?

This is a very misleading claim. Perhaps you are just repeating something you heard from someone else.

While it is true that all the states have requested a constitutional convention at one time or another, there has not been the required two thirds of all states requesting one at the same time.

 

[Contumacious]

’ What is needed, however, is for every American to have a more comprehensive understanding of the Constitution, its case law, and the principles it protects.

Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent:

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

this is the partisan bickering that keeps us from realistically discussing this.

can we agree to try to actually discuss without personal, partisan, or ideological attacks?

Let's officially adopt the Communist Manifesto as our Constitution , No more personal, partisan, or ideological attacks.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

’ What is needed, however, is for every American to have a more comprehensive understanding of the Constitution, its case law, and the principles it protects.

Not gonna happen, wouldn't be prudent:

Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.

–Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)

However naïve, I’ll always have faith in the individual, his ability to learn, and to discover the facts for himself.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

A constitution limits the power of government. It prevents people like Louis Michael Seidman from bullshitting their way into power. I am glad it exists. It takes a special kind of idiot to believe that he knows what's best for all the people.

As for majority rule, it would depend on an informed, educated populace. With people like Mr. Seidman teaching in our universities, we will never have one.

 

[Contumacious]

Let's officially adopt the Communist Manifesto as our Constitution , No more personal, partisan, or ideological attacks.

.

Why are you purposefully trying to derail the thread? Can you debate? Can you state what you think of the idea, the very concept that gave us the US Constitution over the Articles of Confederation being merely amended?

The principles go before and are held dear by most Americans..and please, do not take this last comment and run with it in a partisan attack?

Most Americans believe is Parasitism ......Obama knows that if he feeds them and provides health insurance they will be manipulated to do anything.

.

 

[Contumacious]

A constitution limits the power of government. It prevents people like Louis Michael Seidman from bullshitting their way into power. I am glad it exists. It takes a special kind of idiot to believe that he knows what's best for all the people.

As for majority rule, it would depend on an informed, educated populace. With people like Mr. Seidman teaching in our universities, we will never have one.

Bullshit.

The Constitution is subject to being "interpreted" by corrupt immunized judges.

.

 

[rdean]

....

please, can you try to be serious about what is needed without a partisan, personal or ideological attack?

This is a good chance to discuss something that I think many people from all parts of the political spectrum can get behind to discuss....but not this way.

Look at post # 31....tell me what you think

I'm sorry. It's just so hard. Especially after the recent voter suppression and undermining our democracy.

The founders and the men who wrote the constitution were setting up a type of government that had never been as fully realized as what they did then. The Dark Ages had just ended in Europe and people were fleeing the strangle hold of religion and monarchies. It was time to try something new. The way they spread out the government and created all the checks and balances so after elections, when power is transferred, there aren't the riots and fighting that seem to happen in many other countries.

But those men were certainly smart enough to know it wasn't a "static" document.

Most of the discussion around the constitution really is "common sense". When it was written, many of those in power owned slaves, so they managed to interpret in a way that made slavery OK. When it was written, there weren't bazookas. A bazooka is a type of rifle. It fires a rather large bullet. Should it be "legal"? Why not? Who could have imagined a bazooka, or an i-phone or a computer or plastic money?

Look at this 2nd Amendment issue over assault weapons. Suggesting we need to arm teachers. With what? Assault weapons? And keep it loaded and in the in the umbrella stand? If someone comes in shooting, it's gotta be right there, right? So you can "shoot back"?

Trying to discuss something serious with people who believe trickle down is an economic policy. Who believe in mysticism over science. Who believe we don't need a modern infrastructure to compete with other nations. Who don't even understand the nature of that competition. Just starting there makes it very frustrating to try to reason with the unreasonable.

But it's wrong for me to make it worse. I will try harder to stay out of serious discussions unless I have something to add, but I have to admit, the USMB in my estimation may not be the best place for a serious discussion. I find much of what the right wingers here write to be hilarious and silly beyond belief. I just like to join in the fun. But like I said, I will back away from "serious" discussions. I just hope I recognize them as such.

 

[Lakhota]

I envision two possible solutions to the human clusterfuck:

1. Divine intervention.

2. Extraterrestrial intervention.

 

[Ringel05]

I'm all for taking back our country. All you Europeans, Africans, Asians, Middle Easterners, etc. Go back to where you came from........

 

[dblack]

What I find sadly ironic about this topic is that it's the people who most enthusiastically support democracy who are the most willing to throw off constitutional limits on government (under the current administration, at least). The irony is that those very limits are what make democracy viable. Without such assurances, minorities would forever be at the mercy of majority will.

We're seeing the initial stages of the kind of fear and distress that would be created by giving the majority unlimited power. Without dependable limits on what can be done with government, allowing potential enemies to control it is terrifying. Each new regime has succeeded in further weakening the Constitution, and each election cycle voters become more and more desperate to assure that their "side" controls state power.

It's not just a question of media fear-mongering. People are scared because they can no longer predict the scope and reach of government reliably. Without constitutional limits, and a dependable mechanism for enforcing them, any and every aspect of our lives is subject to government control.