Take our country back, from the Constitution

[Flopper]

Why should people in Iowa be at the mercy of New Yorkers? We're not a democracy, never have been and hopefully never will be. The electoral college assures that states with smaller poplulations have an equal say in the electoral process. We have the House of Representatives for popular representation.

You write as if the population of a state has a major bearing on where the citizens stand on issues and their fundamental beliefs. That may have been true 200 years ago, but not today. For example, Montana and Delaware are about the same size, but that certainly doesn't mean they share commonality of beliefs because of the size of their population.

The framers of the constitution saw the need for a Senate to give both small and large states an equal voice in government but if the constitution were written today, I doubt we would have a Senate. The nation is very homogeneous as compared to colonial time when the colonies were just a loose confederation. Today, most people regard themselves first and foremost as Americans not Floridians, New Yorkers, or Washingtonians.

In colonial times states rights was of paramount importance because the colonies had little in common except for their hatred of the British. The demand for states rights lead to the bicameral legislature which was necessary in order to form the union. Today, it's an undemocratic relics of the past that 90% of Americans are dissatisfied.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It may appear you but it's the same forces running the show.

and there my fine, flustered, friend is where you expose your neurosis and paranoia ... the thing that feeds your alarmist rhetoric

What does that even mean? You don't think big business basically runs the show?

They run the GOP

 

[Sallow]

Majority rule would be nice.

Majority rule is great if you're part of the majority, but what if you aren't?
A majority of Americans thought the Indian should be exterminated

History News Network

And most were..

 

[Flopper]

Majority rule would be nice.

Majority rule is great if you're part of the majority, but what if you aren't?
A majority of Americans thought the Indian should be exterminated

History News Network

And most were..

In theory, democratic representation in the House is tempered by the Senate that gives equal voice to all states. However, let's look at the reality. A political party will control the Senate just as a political party will control the House.

In the House, 90% of them vote with the party 90% of the time. Is this a democratic representation of their constituents. I seriously doubt it.

In the Senate, they do a little better but not by much. Just like the House, they vote the party line. Does this provide equal voice for small states. Of course not.

The whole idea of the House is a democratic representation of the people and the Senate is democratic representation of the states is a sham. The two houses of congress represent political parties, not the people and not the states.

- OpenCongress
US Senate voting data, US Senators voting records

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We haven't been using the Constitution in decades so he's a little slow in his request

this adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. go play in the Flame Zone

It adds me wondering why people choose now to dismiss or want to follow the Constitution when it has been eras since we followed it with some sort of integrity.

Nonsense.

We are ‘following’ the Constitution today, just as the Framers intended, by respecting and implementing the principles set forth in the Founding Document.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Majority rule is great if you're part of the majority, but what if you aren't?
A majority of Americans thought the Indian should be exterminated

History News Network

And most were..

In theory, democratic representation in the House is tempered by the Senate that gives equal voice to all states. However, let's look at the reality. A political party will control the Senate just as a political party will control the House.

In the House, 90% of them vote with the party 90% of the time. Is this a democratic representation of their constituents. I seriously doubt it.

In the Senate, they do a little better but not by much. Just like the House, they vote the party line. Does this provide equal voice for small states. Of course not.

The whole idea of the House is a democratic representation of the people and the Senate is democratic representation of the states is a sham. The two houses of congress represent political parties, not the people and not the states.

- OpenCongress
US Senate voting data, US Senators voting records

But is that a failure of the system established by the Constitution or a failure of the people to use the system wisely? Or the consequence of the people to become so disconnected and uninvolved in the political process as to allow it to be appropriated by special interests?

The notion of a democratic representation of the people is appropriate only in the context of a republican form government. The primacy of the rule of law over the rule of the people is the foundation of the Constitution. It’s the sole reason for the success of our Republic, and why many democracies today find it difficult to implement sound and effective governance, as they struggle to cobble together ruling coalitions in various parliaments, at the mercy of the capricious whims of their citizens.

However trite it remains true: democracy is messy – but in a republic it’s at least more manageable, where the people are safeguarded from themselves.

 

[westwall]

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

Wow. A more imbecilic understanding of the document that has made it possible for this country to go farther, faster, and with more wealth and freedom for its citizenry would be hard to fathom.

He must be like the intelligencia in England who lauded Stalin for his collectivisation program..all the while KNOWING that millions were being murdered to accomplish it.

You asshats really do want to see this country turn into a fucking gulag don't you?

 

[Votto]

As has been said, the Constitution has been usurped and ignored in a myriad of different ways over the years. However, with the recently passed NDAA, they dare not use it in fear of it being challenged by SCOTUS. There is no defense for detaining American citizens without due process. Also there is the second amendment. There is no getting around that one as well. So I guess the move is on just to scrap the entire document.

For those that hold this position, see ya all in Hades.

 

[Jroc]

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

Wow. A more imbecilic understanding of the document that has made it possible for this country to go farther, faster, and with more wealth and freedom for its citizenry would be hard to fathom.

He must be like the intelligencia in England who lauded Stalin for his collectivisation program..all the while KNOWING that millions were being murdered to accomplish it.

You asshats really do want to see this country turn into a fucking gulag don't you?

"Take our country back, from the Constitution" The title is even stupid, without the Constitution we don't have a country, not The United States anyway... "Take our country back, from the Constitution" this guy is a professor? What joke, he should be fired for incompetence

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Wow. A more imbecilic understanding of the document that has made it possible for this country to go farther, faster, and with more wealth and freedom for its citizenry would be hard to fathom.

He must be like the intelligencia in England who lauded Stalin for his collectivisation program..all the while KNOWING that millions were being murdered to accomplish it.

You asshats really do want to see this country turn into a fucking gulag don't you?

"Take our country back, from the Constitution" The title is even stupid, without the Constitution we don't have a country, not The United States anyway... "Take our country back, from the Constitution" this guy is a professor? What joke, he should be fired for incompetence

A Title is usually hyperbolic...so calm down mary.

You obviously did not read what the Prof wrote before you made a fool out of yourself commenting.

Firing a Prof for opinion is like ....uhm...err....censorship or intolerance and ignorance

 

[Darkwind]

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 heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe - "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

and

Thus the State never intentionally confronts a man's sense, intellectual or moral, but only his body, his senses. It is not armed with superior wit or honesty, but with superior physical strength. I was not born to be forced. I will breathe after my own fashion. Let us see who is the strongest. What force has a multitude? They only can force me who obey a higher law than I. They force me to become like themselves. I do not hear of men being forced to have this way or that by masses of men. What sort of life were that to live? When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society. I am not the son of the engineer. I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.

I think we'll hang onto the Constitution, in its original form, plus any Amendments.

 

[dblack]

And most were..

In theory, democratic representation in the House is tempered by the Senate that gives equal voice to all states. However, let's look at the reality. A political party will control the Senate just as a political party will control the House.

In the House, 90% of them vote with the party 90% of the time. Is this a democratic representation of their constituents. I seriously doubt it.

In the Senate, they do a little better but not by much. Just like the House, they vote the party line. Does this provide equal voice for small states. Of course not.

The whole idea of the House is a democratic representation of the people and the Senate is democratic representation of the states is a sham. The two houses of congress represent political parties, not the people and not the states.

- OpenCongress
US Senate voting data, US Senators voting records

But is that a failure of the system established by the Constitution or a failure of the people to use the system wisely? Or the consequence of the people to become so disconnected and uninvolved in the political process as to allow it to be appropriated by special interests?

The notion of a democratic representation of the people is appropriate only in the context of a republican form government. The primacy of the rule of law over the rule of the people is the foundation of the Constitution. It’s the sole reason for the success of our Republic, and why many democracies today find it difficult to implement sound and effective governance, as they struggle to cobble together ruling coalitions in various parliaments, at the mercy of the capricious whims of their citizens.

However trite it remains true: democracy is messy – but in a republic it’s at least more manageable, where the people are safeguarded from themselves.

Hell....

Yes.... Why is this concept lost on so many people who otherwise seek to understand US politics?

 

[JoeB131]

Conservative and Liberal rankers both put Wilson in the top 10.

Popularity among big government nanny staters does not change the fact Wilson was a war mongering liar and a rabid racist to boot. But hey, he started the Federal Reserve...and hasn't that worked out beautifully!

Actually, it worked out fine, until Bush started appointing banksters to watch it. Kind of like appointing foxes to watch the henhouse.

Not sure why you are going on about Wilson being a warmonger. If he were, he'd have gotten the US into the war in 1915 when the Lustitainia was sunk. There was enough public outrage at the time. Instead he secured a promise from the Germans not to sink civilian ships. It was only when the German High Command decided to break its own agreement (The military under Hindenburg and Ludendorf having seized power from the Kaiser and Reichstag) and resume unrestricted submarine warfare did Wilson have no choice but to get us into the war.

As an aside- follow the money. The US Banks and Corporations let the Allies buy a lot of war material on credit. Big Money had a vested interest in Allied victory.

Wilson was probably less racist than the Founding Fathers were.

 

[Votto]

Conservative and Liberal rankers both put Wilson in the top 10.

Popularity among big government nanny staters does not change the fact Wilson was a war mongering liar and a rabid racist to boot. But hey, he started the Federal Reserve...and hasn't that worked out beautifully!

Actually, it worked out fine, until Bush started appointing banksters to watch it. Kind of like appointing foxes to watch the henhouse.

Not sure why you are going on about Wilson being a warmonger. If he were, he'd have gotten the US into the war in 1915 when the Lustitainia was sunk. There was enough public outrage at the time. Instead he secured a promise from the Germans not to sink civilian ships. It was only when the German High Command decided to break its own agreement (The military under Hindenburg and Ludendorf having seized power from the Kaiser and Reichstag) and resume unrestricted submarine warfare did Wilson have no choice but to get us into the war.

As an aside- follow the money. The US Banks and Corporations let the Allies buy a lot of war material on credit. Big Money had a vested interest in Allied victory.

Wilson was probably less racist than the Founding Fathers were.

Unrestricted warefare? Wilson was supplying the UK with arms and supplies idiot. That is an act of war. If Canada were at war with the US and some other country was supplying them you would sink their ships as well.

 

[bayoubill]

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

lol... you had me at Wilson being a great president...

now it's completely impossible for me to take anything you say seriously...

 

[bayoubill]

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

let us indeed renounce the Constitution... and the Declaration of Independence for good measure...

and apologize to the United Kingdom for having gone off on a wild tear, and beg for readmittance...

 

[Katzndogz]

The left has always despised the Constitution. That's why leftist teachers no longer teach it in schools.

 

[regent]

The constitution has been under fire since George Washington assumed office, and as long as this nation attempts to live under that document it will be under fire. True, we may have deviated from what some of the framers meant, but even the framers were confused at times with what they had written. No document that short and flexible a can meet everyone's needs and interpretations, but thus far, the constitution has served us well. And maybe the constitution's greatest blessing is that we are still free to argue its meaning.


Yet, even today the second amenement is now being examined with great care as to what the founders intended. True

 

[Flopper]

Yet, even today the second amendment is now being examined with great care as to what the founders intended. True

What really bothers me is we must ask what the founders intended? It's bad enough that we have to debate the meaning of the Constitution but we have to examine the intent of founders, not what they wrote but what meant to write.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The Federalization of a handful of very simple Constitutional protections is the problem.

Not the very simple Constitutional protections.