NY Times op ed: End Constitution

[Working Poor]

I read an article today saying that the constitution needs to be ended. The libs are really pushing to make Obama their dictator. Scary st http://nyti.ms/ZN3WXH

[TheTexan]

I wish they would make a significant push for an end to the constitution. Bring some honesty to the forefront, for a change. That honesty, however, they may find it to be dangerous to their health.

[BSU kid]

And the guy who wrote it is a professor of constitutional law, talk about hypocrisy.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. "

Lol

[BAllen]

Those rags are going broke. They're desperately trying to print anything to sell papers.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

And the guy who wrote it is a professor of constitutional law, talk about hypocrisy.

Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience."

Hopefully his book gets a showering of nice comments on Amazon.

[LibForestPaul]

No constitution = no united states

sounds good!

[BAllen]

No constitution = no united states

sounds good!

You can't be serious.
You prefer communism?

[Brian4Liberty]

The truth reveals itself. The Lincoln push is about getting rid of the Constitution. The Marxists love dictators.


Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)

[CaptainAmerica]

And the guy who wrote it is a professor of constitutional law, talk about hypocrisy. What reasons are given for him wanting to end it? I think the U.S. Constitution is better than nothing but still abysmal!I do not think ending it and having a constitutional convention is wise though because the majority and oligarchy would put something far more federalist,far more big government in its place. The federalists really did screw over the u.s. with the constitution but to make things worse is not something I would be for.

[Confederate]

You can't be serious.
You prefer communism?

I prefer the Articles of Confederation.


That said, do we really still have a constitution? Is it ever obeyed?

[thoughtomator]

When I heard about this article the first thing I said to myself is "please don't let the author be Jewish" over and over.

[jonhowe]

This has got to be a joke. It is EXACTLY wrong.

[Pericles]

My oath reguires that I defend the country from the NYT.

[Danke]

But of course he is for keeping the freedom of the press part.

[Working Poor]

Actually it does seem that the constitution is on its last leg.We don't adhere to it any way...

[BAllen]

Actually it does seem that the constitution is on its last leg.We don't adhere to it any way...

NO, it is not! If you want to give up, go ahead. But don't try to take the rest of us down with you.

[sailingaway]

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. "

Lol

Maybe because when asked more people think the Constitution should ban MORE of what the govt does, than less, last poll I saw, and it was far more popular than any party or candidate.

[Danke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hkdSbN5ov8w

[VoluntaryAmerican]

But of course he is for keeping the freedom of the press part.

Don't count on it. Look at the socialists in Great Britian trying to require licenses for the media. The liberals in the US would be pushing for this too without the Constitution.

From a Libertarian angle:

Freedom of the Press is still a mixed bag. Current laws allow journalists to lie/slander public figures with near immunity. In a purely free market (my guess is) journalists would be held to a higher standard.

[sailingaway]

Don't count on it. Look at the socialists in Great Britian trying to require licenses for the media. The liberals in the US would be pushing for this too without the Constitution.

From a Libertarian angle:

Freedom of the Press is still a mixed bag. Current laws allow journalists to lie/slander public figures with near immunity. In a purely free market journalists would be held to a higher standard by the market.

The left is the side that pushes the as usual misnamed 'Fairness Doctrine' to get rid of conservative voices on the radio.

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

Constitution? That the government adheres to? Where?

[Working Poor]

NO, it is not! If you want to give up, go ahead. But don't try to take the rest of us down with you.

I am not giving up by a long shot. But I am going to try and face reality. If the congress were not passing so much unconstitutional legislation maybe I would agree with you.

[tangent4ronpaul]

And the guy who wrote it is a professor of constitutional law, talk about hypocrisy.

So was Obama :rolleyes:

-t

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Constitution? That the government adheres to? Where?

It should be noted that even the Founding Father generation abused the Constitution. Jefferson famously wrote to Madison about the Constitution being a "living document".

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

It should be noted that even the Founding Father generation abused the Constitution. Jefferson famously wrote to Madison about the Constitution being a "living document".
I don't disagree with the Constitution's being a "living document" (if I'm interpreting the meaning of those two words correctly ;)). I don't think it's feasible not to extract new meanings in today's world since so many things are different today than when the Constitution was written. And yes, the Founders were at times unscrupulous, but I don't know that it happened on a weekly (daily?) basis.

[Danke]

Don't count on it. Look at the socialists in Great Britian trying to require licenses for the media. The liberals in the US would be pushing for this too without the Constitution.


I don't count on it, but it is what he said we should keep.

[pp0rker]

Hey, she's got a point. Abolish the Fed gov.

That's what she means by "Let’s Give Up on the Constitution," right?

When do we get started?

[UpperDecker]

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. "

Lol

Wait, isn't the problem at hand the fact that we do NOT abide by the constitution these days?

[Deborah K]

We have unalienable rights, and the original intent of the Constitution was to protect those rights. People who claim it hasn't worked are almost always the same people who claim capitalism doesn't work. They claim so, because they don't understand that the principles of capitalism and of the Constitution have to be practiced and adhered to. But, as human nature seems to dictate, the sociopaths amongst us always tend to rise to the top and manipulate, and subvert, and corrupt even the greatest of notions until at last, they've convinced most shee...uh...people that their way is the right way, and the only way.

Then tyranny takes over, and the cycle starts all over again....

http://i41.tinypic.com/2wlwjye.jpg

[Antischism]

I don't worship the constitution like a lot of people seem to on this site. Sorry, I'm with Lysander Spooner on this one.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI

Given Ron Paul's recent mention of the Constitution in his farewell speech and what he says here, it sounds like he's leaning away from being a "staunch constitutionalist," if he ever really was one. I think he's been more an advocate of it since he was in congress and a "politician" for lack of a more suitable word. Now that he's retired, I wouldn't be surprised to hear him take more of an anarcho-capitalist approach.

[idiom]

The Constitution includes a bunch of bollocks, like electoral colleges... States rights... Accurate Census taking...Senate having to ratify treaties etc. All things that just get in the way of good men like Obama getting things done.


I don't worship the constitution like a lot of people seem to on this site. Sorry, I'm with Lysander Spooner on this one.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

Of course it is unfit to prevent it. The only thing with any power is the people. The Constitution is simply an agreed framework for exercising power. The people still get exactly the government they want.

[NoOneButPaul]

I don't worship the constitution like a lot of people seem to on this site. Sorry, I'm with Lysander Spooner on this one.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQWz2zQ9OmI

Given Ron Paul's recent mention of the Constitution in his farewell speech and what he says here, it sounds like he's leaning away from being a "staunch constitutionalist," if he ever really was one. I think he's been more an advocate of it since he was in congress and a "politician" for lack of a more suitable word. Now that he's retired, I wouldn't be surprised to hear him take more of an anarcho-capitalist approach.

It seems to me Ron has been using it as a stepping stone...

He knows we can do better but I think he also realizes we'll never get the ability to if we don't follow the original intent of the Constitution.

[Philhelm]

Something to consider. While, obviously, the Constitution has failed as Lysander Spooner described, without it we would be royally fucked. At least with the Constitution, we have some sort of banner and legal legitimacy upon which to rally. That counts for a lot, in my opinion.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't disagree with the Constitution's being a "living document" (if I'm interpreting the meaning of those two words correctly ;)). I don't think it's feasible not to extract new meanings in today's world since so many things are different today than when the Constitution was written. And yes, the Founders were at times unscrupulous, but I don't know that it happened on a weekly (daily?) basis.


Then amend it through the built in amendment process. Don't just pretend it says different shit.

[Anti Federalist]

But of course he is for keeping the freedom of the press part.

Was just coming here to post that:


This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

Oh...this is a new angle, not mentioned before.

So, we obey the Constitution when it suits you, Mr. Seid-man?

Out of "respect". So when a right is no longer "respected" it can pretty much be trampled and done away with, correct?

Got it...

Look, OK, here's the thing, why don't you do that? Dissolve it, get rid of it, it's an old musty relic of dead, racist, oppressive white men, you've made that clear.

But, before you do and create your progressive utopia, can some of us leave, take a few "states" with us, and go our way in peace? I mean, look, the people leaving would be the nutters and religous zealots and gun nuts and homophobes and reactionaries that you wouldn't want around any way.

We'll just take that document and, oh, we'll take that dusty old Declaration of Independence on the way out as well.

What's that?

We can't leave and will not be allowed to leave peacefully?

Why the hell not?

Oh...I see.

[Antischism]

The Constitution includes a bunch of bollocks, like electoral colleges... States rights... Accurate Census taking...Senate having to ratify treaties etc. All things that just get in the way of good men like Obama getting things done.



Of course it is unfit to prevent it. The only thing with any power is the people. The Constitution is simply an agreed framework for exercising power. The people still get exactly the government they want.

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/constitution-no-authority

This should be mandatory reading, I think.

[Antischism]

It seems to me Ron has been using it as a stepping stone...

He knows we can do better but I think he also realizes we'll never get the ability to if we don't follow the original intent of the Constitution.

That sounds about right, although a lot of people put too much faith in the Constitution as a result. It's always important to keep in mind that it's not this infallible document that came from the very hands of God, with all his wisdom, knowing what was best for all of mankind for the rest of time.


Something to consider. While, obviously, the Constitution has failed as Lysander Spooner described, without it we would be royally fucked. At least with the Constitution, we have some sort of banner and legal legitimacy upon which to rally. That counts for a lot, in my opinion.

I guess my point is as I said above, that we shouldn't make the Constitution out to be a holy document, because it's not and it was created in a different era; never having been signed or agreed upon by "the people," rather a group of select wise men. We're living in a different era, and the founding fathers are long gone.

I agree that there's some good in the Constitution, don't get me wrong. But it's not the sacred document many make it out to be.

[tangent4ronpaul]

RPF op ed: lynch treasonous journalists

-t

[idiom]

http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/constitution-no-authority

This should be mandatory reading, I think.

As Karl Marx proved, writings lots of words doesn't stop you being wrong.

[XNavyNuke]

Then amend it through the built in amendment process. Don't just pretend it says different shit.

That's hard.

Ignoring it is easy as long as the people have bread and circuses.

XNN

[ican'tvote]

I hate to say it, but our Constitution is just a piece of paper. It doesn't mean anything unless we force our leaders to abide by it. On it's own, it does nothing.
I mean, look how early our founding fathers started ignoring it! They wrote it for goodness' sake!

[Confederate]

I hate to say it, but our Constitution is just a piece of paper. It doesn't mean anything unless we force our leaders to abide by it. On it's own, it does nothing.
I mean, look how early our founding fathers started ignoring it! They wrote it for goodness' sake!

That's why the second amendment was put into place. Government should fear its citizens. Citizens who fear the government are subjects. Sadly that notion has been lost, and not just in the US.

[Anti Federalist]

That's why the second amendment was put into place. Government should fear its citizens. Citizens who fear the government are subjects. Sadly that notion has been lost, and not just in the US.

It never really was.

Only in brief moments, for the shortest of times, has the situation been as it should properly be:

Governments fearing the people.

In some ways however, this government does fear us, that's why the ruling class has the equivalent of a battalion of soldiers and a carrier battle group protecting it everywhere it goes, why the cops all across the country are gearing up like they are going into Fallujah and why they are working overtime to disarm us.

[cbrons]

I read the article.

No, no this country isn't headed toward revolution or civil war, that's just crazy.

:rolleyes:

[NewRightLibertarian]

I read the article.

No, no this country isn't headed toward revolution or civil war, that's just crazy.

:rolleyes:

There definitely needs to be repercussions brought on people like the writer of this article. Otherwise, it's going to be us (ie. anyone who believes in human freedom) getting fucked over. As much as we'd like to just be left alone from these types of garbage, they'll never allow that to happen. They'll fight to their last breath for the absolute power of their satanic master, the State.

[Pericles]

There definitely needs to be repercussions brought on people like the writer of this article. Otherwise, it's going to be us (ie. anyone who believes in human freedom) getting fucked over. As much as we'd like to just be left alone from these types of garbage, they'll never allow that to happen. They'll fight to their last breath for the absolute power of their satanic master, the State.

These guys need to be skewered by public ridicule. Once it sticks, it the more effective method to stop the silliness.

[John F Kennedy III]

Lol. Just LOL.

[bolil]

I don't understand the vitriol directed towards the Constitution. The bill of rights, as I understand them, are integral to free society. Our bequeathing them in their complete integrity is more important to posterity than any debt, dollars, or property we could ever hope to attain. That they are ignored does not devalue them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise there of. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war of public danger. Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

That is just the first five as they are committed to my memory... and what is wrong with that?

[Legend1104]

The thing is, the constitution was written by a group of the most enlightened and well read thinkers our country has ever seen. If we scraped it, it would be replaced by a group made up of these horrible leaders. I cannot envision what divine document they would come up with. Sure, the constitution is not perfect and definitely could be improved, but not by these people.

[NewRightLibertarian]

That is just the first five as they are committed to my memory... and what is wrong with that?

It doesn't allow treasonous control freaks to grab as much power as they want to enjoy.

[otherone]

The left is the side that pushes the as usual misnamed 'Fairness Doctrine' to get rid of conservative voices on the radio.

There are conservative voices on the radio?

[Anti Federalist]

Thank the Anti Federalists for the bill of rights. Had it not been for them, we'd be in a much worse bind.

The vitriol is this:

Either the Constitution "allows" the government we now have, or it has prevented it from seizing power.

So either way, it is a failure, as written.

Because there is in no way that this can be considered a "free society" in which we now live.


I don't understand the vitriol directed towards the Constitution. The bill of rights, as I understand them, are integral to free society. Our bequeathing them in their complete integrity is more important to posterity than any debt, dollars, or property we could ever hope to attain. That they are ignored does not devalue them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise there of. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war of public danger. Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

That is just the first five as they are committed to my memory... and what is wrong with that?

[tod evans]

With every court decision handed down each and every one of us is complicit in the erosion of our own liberties.

It is in the legislative and judicial branches where the citizen must make himself heard and every one of us is failing miserably!

We permit unjust decisions and accept unjust legislation every day...

We deserve what we tolerate..:o


Thank the Anti Federalists for the bill of rights. Had it not been for them, we'd be in a much worse bind.

The vitriol is this:

Either the Constitution "allows" the government we now have, or it has prevented it from seizing power.

So either way, it is a failure, as written.

Because there is in no way that this can be considered a "free society" in which we now live.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't understand the vitriol directed towards the Constitution. The bill of rights, as I understand them, are integral to free society. Our bequeathing them in their complete integrity is more important to posterity than any debt, dollars, or property we could ever hope to attain. That they are ignored does not devalue them.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise there of. or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war but in a manner to be prescribed by law

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be search, and the persons or things to be seized

No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war of public danger. Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

That is just the first five as they are committed to my memory... and what is wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with it, but in case you haven't noticed, our government is not following it!

[pcosmar]

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. "

Lol
There is no "Obedience to the Constitution". What little lip service has been given it has only slightly restrained the socialists.


You can't be serious.
You prefer communism?

I prefer Honesty.
We have had socialism for 100 years. Communism can not possibly exist outside of philosophical fantasy. (it is contrary to human nature) Socialism is as close as you get.
It is what we have had our entire lifetimes.

The dream of a Constitutional Republic ended in the early 1900s.

[MelissaWV]

I need my eyes checked. I saw the title as "End Constipation" for a minute.

[Brian4Liberty]

And the guy who wrote it is a professor of constitutional law, talk about hypocrisy.

Like our wonderful Constitutional Professor in Chief, Obama. If this is what is being taught at major Universities, there's no wonder that the Constitution is ignored.


Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”

[Contumacious]

I read an article today saying that the constitution needs to be ended. The libs are really pushing to make Obama their dictator. Scary st http://nyti.ms/ZN3WXH

The scumbag blames the Constitution (1787)for the mess we are in, even though he admits that the pho king federal bureaucrats have usurped powers in order to micromanage the economy:

""In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation."

.

[KingNothing]

The Constitution is just a legal framework, informed by the morality and sensibilities of men long dead, that holds no actual power as Spooner pointed out. If I weren't entirely convinced that a "new" document or framework or baseline would be worse for liberty in every possible way, I would have no objection to scrapping our current one.

[LibForestPaul]

Something to consider. While, obviously, the Constitution has failed as Lysander Spooner described, without it we would be royally fucked. At least with the Constitution, we have some sort of banner and legal legitimacy upon which to rally. That counts for a lot, in my opinion.

Without it we would have surpassed Great Britains follies into socialism a decade earlier.

[whippoorwill]

yep....the rats can walk in the light now.

[Occam's Banana]

Tom Woods weighs in: Let's Abandon the Constitution, Says Professor (http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/lets-abandon-the-constitution-says-professor/)

[Confederate]

I need my eyes checked. I saw the title as "End Constipation" for a minute.

http://www.metamucil.com/images/home_new/maincallout_upper.jpg