NY Times: Abolish The Constitution

[Contumacious]

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN

Published: December 30, 2012

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."

* * * *
The massively retarded son-of-beach blames the Constitution even though the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US of A has ignored the Constitution since at least the 1860's.

The mo'fo' somehow totally ignored the fact that the criminals in DC nationalized credit and banking in 1913.

Now you see the real reason the basterds want to disarms us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

[Phineas Finn]

Do you understand that for all of its courseness, your rant only supports Seidman's argument?

I doubt it.

[Gopher]

Interesting argument. The Constitution is bad because politicians and courts routinely ignore it. No need to get rid of it though. Just continue to ignore it and let the filthy politicians in Washington pick and choose what rights and freedoms they feel we deserve at any given time. Doesn’t sound like a very good idea to me unless the intent is to start another civil war. Don’t like the Constitution? Simply get two-thirds of the Senate, two-thirds of the House of Representatives and thirty-eight states to agree to change it. One would think the foolish clown that wrote the article would understand that.

[Jeebus]

Do you understand that for all of its courseness, your rant only supports Seidman's argument?

I doubt it.

And yours condemns it?

[skeemer]

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN

Published: December 30, 2012

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."

* * * *
The massively retarded son-of-beach blames the Constitution even though the continuing criminal enterprise known as the US of A has ignored the Constitution since at least the 1860's.

The mo'fo' somehow totally ignored the fact that the criminals in DC nationalized credit and banking in 1913.

Now you see the real reason the basterds want to disarms us !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

Good job not even reading the article you posted.

[skeemer]

Do you understand that for all of its courseness, your rant only supports Seidman's argument?

I doubt it.

It is an interesting piece and certainly food for trolls like Contumacious, et al.

My fear of a 'revised' or 'updated' Constitution is that it would provide our government with an opportunity to void some of the protections and freedoms that have been engraved both in the Constitution and in court cases (1st and 5th amendments in particular). We have already seen Congress squirm its way around these freedoms with things like the Patriot Act and we have seen the shift of police forces in the last few decades from neighborhood watchmen to SWAT. Imagine the incredible consolidation of power and easing of rights that could occur if Congress had a clean slate.

[Baltimatt]

Just pointing out that this piece was an op-ed published by the New York Times. The thread title would indicate that it was the editorial opinion of the Times, which it was not.

[TheResearcher]

Someone showed this to Hussein and he said, "Constitution?"

[Phineas Finn]

And yours condemns it?

No, but why would think it did?

[veritas]

The Constitution is the bedrock of our system and the one thing that keeps government from running totally roughshod over us, much as some of them would like to. The only thing "evil" is people wanting to pull down what the founders so nobly erected.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

It just seems the Constitution is based on a concept that, while relevant at the time of its inception, may be currently outmoded.

It appears to be based on the idea that individuals desire to be independent and solely self-reliant. The protection extended by this document would appear to me to be oriented to maintaining this end.

The first census of 1790 indicated a population of 3.9 million. Of that number almost 700,000 were held in bondage and not subject to its protection. Contrast that number with the latest population figure of 353 million.

That's an increase of 110 fold.

Someone who I have a great deal of respect for, discussed this with me, shortly before his death. His patriotism cannot be questioned, he was a highly decorated veteran of the Korean War.

His contention was that a document written for a small population, given the settled land mass of that time, is not relevant for this population living in close proximity in the major population centers, that in this current time, the very nature of our society virtually prohibits total self-reliance and independence from the government or each other for that matter.

I haven't made up my mind whether this observation is true or not.

[Contumacious]

Do you understand that for all of its courseness, your rant only supports Seidman's argument?

I doubt it.

Do you understand that for all of its courseness, your rant only supports Karl Marx' argument?

I doubt it.

[Contumacious]

Just pointing out that this piece was an op-ed published by the New York Times. The thread title would indicate that it was the editorial opinion of the Times, which it was not.

Let me ask you:

Do you believe that for the sake of historical accuracy the NY Times will give any Libertarian writer the opportunity to contradict the diatribe?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Of course not. Because the NY Times' management fully agrees with the denunciation.

.

.

[Eastside Terp]

I'm still having problems with this sentence .......

"But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

funny, but if they had really been "obedient" and not expanded the fed's power based on ridiculous interpretations of general welfare, "interstate commerce", etc. we wouldn't have half the problems we do today .......

oh the irony .......

[soulflower]

I wouldn't trust our dysfunctional Congress to re-write the Constitution

[pickles]

I'm still having problems with this sentence .......

"But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

funny, but if they had really been "obedient" and not expanded the fed's power based on ridiculous interpretations of general welfare, "interstate commerce", etc. we wouldn't have half the problems we do today .......

oh the irony .......

Specific examples?

[pickles]

It just seems the Constitution is based on a concept that, while relevant at the time of its inception, may be currently outmoded.

It appears to be based on the idea that individuals desire to be independent and solely self-reliant. The protection extended by this document would appear to me to be oriented to maintaining this end.

The first census of 1790 indicated a population of 3.9 million. Of that number almost 700,000 were held in bondage and not subject to its protection. Contrast that number with the latest population figure of 353 million.

That's an increase of 110 fold.

Someone who I have a great deal of respect for, discussed this with me, shortly before his death. His patriotism cannot be questioned, he was a highly decorated veteran of the Korean War.

His contention was that a document written for a small population, given the settled land mass of that time, is not relevant for this population living in close proximity in the major population centers, that in this current time, the very nature of our society virtually prohibits total self-reliance and independence from the government or each other for that matter.

I haven't made up my mind whether this observation is true or not.

We are undoubtedly a far different nation now than at our founding. The genius if the Constitution is that it is flexible and capable of governing over such disparate "nations."

Personally, I believe in a "loose" interpertation of the Constitution. One in which we seek to fulfill the intentions of the Founders, rather than a rote following of their words. A fine example imo is the 2nd amendment.

[Contumacious]

Interesting argument. The Constitution is bad because politicians and courts routinely ignore it

Precisely.

The low life mo'fo' did not volunteer the fact that the federal bureaucratic scumbags created the Federal Reserve Board which subsequently caused the nation to go into bankruptcy, caused a masive depression, gave the criminals a pretext to take our gold and silver currency away from us, and gave FDR the pretext to further intervene in the economy

[Contumacious]

Good job not even reading the article you posted.

Good job not even understanding the article I posted.

.

[Eastside Terp]

Specific examples?

our entitlement society is based on their interpretation of general welfare clause .......

they get standing on a wide variety of issues from anti-discrimination laws to control over migratory waterfowl and fish from the interstate commerce clause ......

they are broad generic statements open to widespread interpretation ......

and when the political whores make new laws like the ADA (reasonable accommodations?) , they leave them wide open for their lawyer friends and bureaucrats to interpret and sue ......

but when they want port to take back to their district to win votes they are amazing in their specificity naming playgrounds, boat ramps, rec centers, etc......