Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Let's Give Up on the Constitution: My Response

  1. #1

    Default Let's Give Up on the Constitution: My Response

    I just finished my final draft response to Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman's "OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR LET’S GIVE UP ON THE CONSTITUTION" article. To those with time and interest in reading it, I am hoping to receive constructive criticism, corrections, and whatnot, prior to sending it off (TIA). In PDF form here:

    Countering Evilness, Hypocrisy, and Lunacy: Giving Up on Progressivism
    Last edited by Weston White; 01-15-2013 at 11:53 AM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Churchill
    The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Will read it soon. Looks good at first glance.

  4. #3

    Default

    Thank you again. Also at this point the final draft is now posted.

    Same link: http://www.community.defendindepende...ile.php?id=134

    Quote Originally Posted by Winston Churchill
    The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
    Sic Semper Tyrannis ~ Consilio et Animis

  5. #4

    Default

    Saw this as well: http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...e-Constitution

    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.
    Well, my response would be, if we limited the federal government to its Constitutional authority...we wouldnt really have to worry about it much because they arent really authorized to do many things.





« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •