CBS & Georgetown University Prof: Dump the Constitution

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I'm sure many have said the same thing in the past, discussing (rationally, and with great chin-stroking) things we today would describe as horrific inhumanity.

Disagree. You're attributing rational thought to extremists. The two are mutually exclusive. Thinking you're rational is not being rational.

Originally Posted by Warfish

My issue is the issues, not you or any specific person here.

Seems whenever you call me out it's because I haven't responded favorably to your hyperbole. Hyperbole isn't issues.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Let me be equally kind to spell it out for you as well: When you "throw out teh Constitution" as this professor and many liberals I know suggest, you throw out with it the Bill of Rights. What would replace it, who knows. It would surely be changed in many ways.

What seems to elude both you and the professor is that Constitutional arguments ARE policy arguments. Our rights are sacrosanct, and not up for removal at the whims of current politicians over current hyped up emergencies. I will not give up my right to speech because one person abuses it, will not give up my right to bear arms because one crazy abuses it and will not give up my right to a trail by jury because our Federal Govt. might think they can just decide for me whats right and wrong.

You're taking up a different argument here. If you were looking to argue that we should not tear up the constitution and replace it with either marshal law, or... nothing, you should have posted your thoughts on that. I'm left to think you missed the point of the article you posted.

Originally Posted by Warfish

But you're more than willing to see all those chin-stroking shades of grey around tearing it up. You're flexable that way. One might even say intellectual, smarter than anyone who might object to on principle to tearing it up, right?

The same old tropes die hard I see. Agree with a liberal, and you're wicked smaaat. Disagree, and you're labeled ignorant and clsoe minded, maybe even bigoted and racist too. Same old **** different day.

Hint my friend, "Tossing out the Constitution" is not the same as "Amending/Changing the Constitution to improve or update it".

...and I don't agree with tossing it out - never did. But I'm OK with discussing it as a means to figure out ways to refocus on the issues we have to deal with as opposed to the politics involved in change.

Originally Posted by Warfish

If we were discussing the second phrase, I'd be (and have been here on many occasions) all for it, if it followed the legal way of doing so. The first....is offensive to me, and should be to any American Citizen.

The fact is there is a good sieze portion of the american left who sees the Constitution as an obstacle that must be overcome, that personal rights have no place, only the greater good of society as a whole (run by them of course, with them making all the decisions) is what we should strive for.

You'll forgive me if I just go ahead and cut that off right ta the knees at the start. My rights are not negotiable to some "Lets rewrite the Constitution to Suit modern Socialist Collectivist Dogma" Committee.

I disagree, depending on what your definition of a "good sized portion" is, I guess. I think it's a small, vocal minority.

Originally Posted by Warfish

It's stunning to me that you cannot see how that apparently unimportant "srt of rules" is the primary protection keeping any Govt. from doing the horrific acts of the first items of the list.

you added 'unimportant', not me. It's stunning to me that you think (a) the only thing stopping the US Government from instituting genocide and infanticide is the constitution and (b) that the constitution would stop anyone with their sights set on committing these crimes.

Originally Posted by Warfish

A people without rights enemuerated and protected are victims of anything a Govt. deicdes to do with it's power. Human history has no shortage of proof of this.

I agree that we need a set of rules. I agree that the Constitution should stay, and that any changes should come through amendment. I also take no great offense to the article.

Originally Posted by Warfish

One can led to the other without constant vigilence against the power of the State.

I get it, you're squarely in the "that can never happen here" camp Isi. Of course, I used to think the same thing about many things that are now today a reality.

Oh, no, I'm definitely not in that camp. In fact I'm sure that the US will not be who we are, with regards to world standing, forever. I think that at a time, the idea that the Roman Empire would not rule forever was much, much more unfathomable than what we have here. But funny enough, the things that really worry me about lack of control/oversight are not being addressed at all, by either side - for example, there are a small handful of corporations that effectively control all of the food in the country, and it's migration from it's source to your town. With full protection of the law, these companies could stop, alter, re-prioritize, etc., etc.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

Disagree. You're attributing rational thought to extremists. The two are mutually exclusive. Thinking you're rational is not being rational.

Bollocks. Extreme now, to our eyes. Not extreme at all to their eyes then.

I find much of modern Liberalism to be extreme. But you'd berate me if I told you they were not (within their own world view and beleifs) being "rational" about it.

You're taking up a different argument here. If you were looking to argue that we should not tear up the constitution and replace it with either marshal law, or... nothing, you should have posted your thoughts on that. I'm left to think you missed the point of the article you posted.

I don't think so. It is my view that a large segment of liberalism sees the Constitution as the ultimat barrier stopping them for implementing Government as they wish it to be, and will make every effort to go around, delegitimize, stigmatize and simply eliminate it as a matter of policy, to free themselves and their political leaders to rule as they believe it should be.

I'm OK with discussing (tossing out the Constitution) as a means to figure out ways to refocus on the issues we have to deal with as opposed to the politics involved in change.

What other things are you willing to discuss? Perhaps the right to personal property, for example? after all, while you might not support it, discussing it might provide a way to "refocus on the issues we have to deal with as opposed to the politics" of personal property rights getting in the way, right?

I disagree, depending on what your definition of a "good sized portion" is, I guess. I think it's a small, vocal minority.

Agree to disagree then. I think it's predictable and typical to obfuscate how large a portion it represents, in part of or whole, on the left. Same way the right often tries to obfuscate how large a portion of their base are effectively desirous of a Christian Theological State.

It's stunning to me that you think (a) the only thing stopping the US Government from instituting genocide and infanticide is the constitution and (b) that the constitution would stop anyone with their sights set on committing these crimes.

I think it's the greatest barrier to it in human history, and that the ongoing process of weakening it, going around it and simply ignoring it has been a net negative almost accross the board.

For example, today you could be assassinated by our Presidietn without due process is he says you are a Terrorist. No trial. No court. No proof required. No oversight. Just a drone strike and poof, you're done.

I agree that we need a set of rules. I agree that the Constitution should stay, and that any changes should come through amendment.

Then what is it exactly about tossing out the Consitution is it that you feel needs to be or is worth of being discussed?

But funny enough, the things that really worry me about lack of control/oversight are not being addressed at all, by either side - for example, there are a small handful of corporations that effectively control all of the food in the country, and it's migration from it's source to your town. With full protection of the law, these companies could stop, alter, re-prioritize, etc., etc.

"Corporatocracy!!!! Oh noes!!!!! WAL-MART KILLED MY KIDS WITH THEIR LOBBYING!!!!"

Worried about food? Plant a garden ffs.

So predictable this place some days.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Originally Posted by isired

LOL, my kids would have no idea what that is. It's a ditty from my youth, not sure if it's from The Electric Company (my favorite) or Sesame Street.

PBS Boomer Song.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Bollocks. Extreme now, to our eyes. Not extreme at all to their eyes then.

Genocide is extreme. There's no relativism there.

Originally Posted by Warfish

I find much of modern Liberalism to be extreme. But you'd berate me if I told you they were not (within their own world view and beleifs) being "rational" about it.

So do I, and as I said, I don't think one can think rationally/reasonably and be extremist, even in the face of extremism. I am not for a socialist state, and I find it hard to believe that anyone raised under the specter of the 'red threat' in the 70s/80s could be. It is so indoctrinated in me that Communism = you don't own anything = you have no reason to get out of bed in the morning that I doubt I could overcome it if I wanted to.

Originally Posted by Warfish

I don't think so. It is my view that a large segment of liberalism sees the Constitution as the ultimat barrier stopping them for implementing Government as they wish it to be, and will make every effort to go around, delegitimize, stigmatize and simply eliminate it as a matter of policy, to free themselves and their political leaders to rule as they believe it should be.

I think that you and I disagree as to how many liberals are extreme liberals. I've come, over the last 12 years, to define my political feelings as more liberal than anything, but I'm far from extreme in those thoughts. Prior to that I would have been 'socially left-leaning'.

Originally Posted by Warfish

What other things are you willing to discuss? Perhaps the right to personal property, for example? after all, while you might not support it, discussing it might provide a way to "refocus on the issues we have to deal with as opposed to the politics" of personal property rights getting in the way, right?

Discuss what you will. I'm free to agree or disagree, as are you. Even the role of 'devil's advocate' is legitimate.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Agree to disagree then. I think it's predictable and typical to obfuscate how large a portion it represents, in part of or whole, on the left. Same way the right often tries to obfuscate how large a portion of their base are effectively desirous of a Christian Theological State.

I think the latter is a much larger segment, if only because of the greater scope of influence.

Originally Posted by Warfish

I think it's the greatest barrier to it in human history, and that the ongoing process of weakening it, going around it and simply ignoring it has been a net negative almost accross the board.

For example, today you could be assassinated by our Presidietn without due process is he says you are a Terrorist. No trial. No court. No proof required. No oversight. Just a drone strike and poof, you're done.

Even with the constitution in place? You don't say. Why is that? Because some lawyer found a loophole for Executive power? That, in my opinion, is EXACTLY why the author is saying we can do without parts of the Constitution, and the other parts we should obey because they make sense today.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Then what is it exactly about tossing out the Consitution is it that you feel needs to be or is worth of being discussed?

I have no issue with someone wanting to discuss alternatives. Good ideas sometimes come of this type of 'pie in the sky' theorizing.

Originally Posted by Warfish

"Corporatocracy!!!! Oh noes!!!!! WAL-MART KILLED MY KIDS WITH THEIR LOBBYING!!!!"

Worried about food? Plant a garden ffs.

There would have to be considerable change in current law and/or in my current employment/living situation for me to be able to do that. But I can appreciate that "Plant a garden, FFS!" is a nice tidy little ending to your response.

Originally Posted by Warfish

So predictable this place some days.

Aye, 'tis.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

It was written to block the over reach of the Federal Government and more to States Rights.

I rest my case. Umm, no. Actually the opposite. The Bill of Rights was imposed later by Anti-federalists who wanted to counterbalance the centralizing and federalizing purpose of the Constitution. All in all, it was a mighty step toward a supreme national government, not away.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

Genocide is extreme. There's no relativism there.

Oh, so NOW there is no chin-rubbing intellectualism on display, this is a white/black issue for you.

Well, far be it for me to contradict you, but 10,000 years of actual human history disagrees with your moral assessment. genocide has been commonplace for the entire length of our history, right up to today.

So perhaps YOUR take that it's extreme (and not the human norm) is what is faulty here. Now of course, I'm not supporting Genocide, shucks no, but really if we're being open minded intellectuals about it, surely it can be discussed rationally can it not?

I am not for a socialist state, and I find it hard to believe that anyone raised under the specter of the 'red threat' in the 70s/80s could be.

Then IMO you are exceptionally naive and not paying any form of attention to curent events. It won;t be Stalin-esque Communism, but a sfter, kinderm, gentler (lol, right) Communism run by elite intelelctual Americans we can trust, who really have our best interests at heart, even if we workers don't know whats best for us. And they'll call it anything BUT Communism/Socialism.

I think that you and I disagree as to how many liberals are extreme liberals.

Obviously.

Discuss what you will. I'm free to agree or disagree, as are you. Even the role of 'devil's advocate' is legitimate.

Not only do I lack any power to silence you, I would never ask it of you. For ME "tossing our the Constitution" is unworthy of discussion. And I think less of any man who'd think otherwise as a fool.

But I fully support ones right to make a fool of themself if thats what they wish.

Even with the constitution in place? You don't say. Why is that? Because some lawyer found a loophole for Executive power? That, in my opinion, is EXACTLY why the author is saying we can do without parts of the Constitution, and the other parts we should obey because they make sense today.

Not a loophole. A conscious effort to undermind and defeat and get around it by redefining terms and language specificly to do so. Almost universally in order to implemtn some form of Federal Power or some policy of collectivism/liberalism.

I have no issue with someone wanting to discuss alternatives. Good ideas sometimes come of this type of 'pie in the sky' theorizing.

And as I said to start with, there were a number of American intellectuals in 1938 who said the same thing about the policies of Germany. And about the policies of Stalin, as he was in mid starvation of 11 million Soviet Citizens by conscious policy and terror.

Funny, Stalin didn't even need evil corporate food barons to starve that many.

There would have to be considerable change in current law and/or in my current employment/living situation for me to be able to do that. But I can appreciate that "Plant a garden, FFS!" is a nice tidy little ending to your response.

So now you have an innate human right to good Super Markets despite your whining about Corporatocracy and their Evil Corporate Masters taking away your right to their food?

[MnJetFan]

If you want to call someone who owns a gun an extremist then the constitution is extreme. If that is true you have no rights!

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Did everythign change? No, not yet. Give it 50 years, and we'll see. Change of that scale takes one of two things, time or an emergency.

For example, I never thought I'd live to see the day that American Citizens would be forced by law, under threat of fine and jail time, to buy a private product from a private business for some vague sense of "the greater good".

Today, thats a reality.

I never thought the idea of abortion would really be so mainstream that many consider it just another form of routine birth control. Today, with respect, that IS a reality.

I never thought we'd do many things we do now, from de facto amnesty 9again) for illegal immigrants, to giving the "new" Egypt a few hundred Abrams tanks and F-16's free of change, no strings attached, when they're in mid "U.S. and Israel Sucks and Should Die" ranting.

You'll simply have to forgive me (or not) if I draw a line somewhere, and that line is the Constitution, the greatest barrier to State power and abuse that has ever existed.

As I said to Isi, if the discussion was "lets Amend it to fix X..." I am HAPPY to have that discussion. I've said that regularly here.

If the discussion is "lets toss it all out, rewrite it" with a handful of liberal colelctivist "intellectuals" doing the writing, then no, I cannot chin-stroke and simply trust that such an event either wopn't come to pass, or won't revoke many of my most cherished rights for the supposed "greater good of teh collective", given how often that argument is used in every political discussion of the day now.

I read my history. I know how Tyrany and abuse comes to pass. I will not line up as a willing participant.

But like so many other issues, many seemingly will, enthusiasticly. And as time passes, more and more are it seems. The stand for liberty, individual rights, individual responsabillity and accountabillity, and protection of the individual seems (IMO) to be a dying beleif system in America Today.

And no exageration about it, that scares the **** out of me. Worse is the feeling, stronger each day, that the "War" is already lost. That more now value freedom less, and comfort and control by the State far more. Just trust the Govt, and everything will be ok.

I get it. It's sacred to you. All those other topics are separate red herring issues.

It's important to me, but not sacred. Like the bible, its a document written by men. Therefore, there exists the possibility that its flawed. Or maybe not. Either way I am not scared to discuss it. I don't see it as the first snowflake of an avalanche.

Alot of things change, but the document is what you say it is, it will surely survive on merit. And if you truly love it...you should want to be part of the discussion to defend it instead of sticking your fingers in your ears.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by FF2®

I get it. It's sacred to you.

It's important to me, but not sacred.

It's not sacred. It has a very clear and appropriate legal pathway to "update" itself for current values. I can't say it enough times apparently, I SUPPORT he idea of amending it if needed.

The problem is not the document, the problem is those who want to eliminate whole portions of it without going through the process set forth to do so.

"Just toss it all out and we'll rewrite it" is pretty easily translated to "we know we'll never win a new amendment battle revoking, for example, gun rights.....so maybe we have a better chance on this (and other issues) if we just toss the whole thing and "re write it", wink wink, nod nod".

Like the bible, its a document written by men.

The Bible is not civil law and does not protect me from the State.

Therefore, there exists the possibility that its flawed.

Absolutely. Or more accurately "out of date" or "out of alignment with modern morality and beliefs" may be most appropriate.

And if so, the process is clear....amend it legally to fix it

Either way I am not scared to discuss it. I don't see it as the first snowflake of an avalanche.

Agree to disagree. When I see people specificly ignore the corrective mechanism (because they know their ideas would never pass democraticly), and instead fall back on "tear it up, start over", I find such a position exceedingly questionable.

Bet your ass I question their motives, and would wish to protect us from wholesale changes many of a similar mind to this professor might desire, and only be abel to achieve through a non-Constitutional process.

Alot of things change, but the document is what you say it is, it will surely survive on merit.

And surely if the update/change is what people think it is, IT can survivie on merit, and pass the Constitutional amendment process, right?

And if you truly love it...you should want to be part of the discussion to defend it instead of sticking your fingers in your ears.

And what have I been doing here the whole time? Ignoring it would be putting you and Isi on ignore, and la la la'ing down the road, having never posted the issue to debate here in the first place.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Oh, so NOW there is no chin-rubbing intellectualism on display, this is a white/black issue for you.

Well, far be it for me to contradict you, but 10,000 years of actual human history disagrees with your moral assessment. genocide has been commonplace for the entire length of our history, right up to today.

So perhaps YOUR take that it's extreme (and not the human norm) is what is faulty here. Now of course, I'm not supporting Genocide, shucks no, but really if we're being open minded intellectuals about it, surely it can be discussed rationally can it not?

OK, I must have misunderstood you - you're saying that genocide and post-birth abortions are tantamount to dropping teh constitution in that none of them are extreme practices. Well, I disagree, but at least I understand where you're coming from. I do consider genocide and infanticide extremist, I guess that's where we differ.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Not only do I lack any power to silence you, I would never ask it of you. For ME "tossing our the Constitution" is unworthy of discussion. And I think less of any man who'd think otherwise as a fool.

yep, we get that. A little extreme, no?

Originally Posted by Warfish

But I fully support ones right to make a fool of themself if thats what they wish.

I don't think you do.

Originally Posted by Warfish

Not a loophole. A conscious effort to undermind and defeat and get around it by redefining terms and language specificly to do so. Almost universally in order to implemtn some form of Federal Power or some policy of collectivism/liberalism.

I think you defined "loophole" in the sentence after you said "Not a loophole." Amirite?

Originally Posted by Warfish

And as I said to start with, there were a number of American intellectuals in 1938 who said the same thing about the policies of Germany.

It's not news to me that intellectuals can be radical in their thinking, and that they can be wrong. Why wouldn't intellectuals discuss Communism though? In it's purest form, uncorrupted, it's an interesting idea. Of course, I don't think it could never work in practice, human nature being what it is.

Originally Posted by Warfish

And about the policies of Stalin, as he was in mid starvation of 11 million Soviet Citizens by conscious policy and terror.

Funny, Stalin didn't even need evil corporate food barons to starve that many.

Ah, but they would have helped cut down the time lag considerably.

Originally Posted by Warfish

So now you have an innate human right to good Super Markets despite your whining about Corporatocracy and their Evil Corporate Masters taking away your right to their food?

Nah, not an innate right, it's just a transaction. To say it's an innate right would be extreme. But I'd like options, and I tend to say that (to the degree that I can) with my vote.

[OCCH]

Seems like a pretty good back and forth going on here, so I don't want to do anything to interrupt it.

But I do find myself wondering how many people who defend "tossing the Constitution" do so b/c they picture a more liberal policy taking its place? Would you feel the same if we tossed it for a more God-centered vision (which some would argue it originally had)? If we replaced it with less individual rights? For example, no "free" education, since SO much of that money is flushed down the toilet?

I'm not asking if you'd agree with those changes -- just if it would still be "worthy of discussion". Or is it only worthy because we already know what the end game would be?

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by isired

Amirite?

No, not about much thus far, IMO.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were being consciously antagonistic and obtuse simply to troll me into a froth, but Comparing me to a former Mod was especially obvious troll-bait.

The point is that not all discussion is worth having. Not all ideas equally valid of consideration or respect. Not all possible actions worth having deep chin-rubbing thoughts about. Especially when the purpose (in this case, to get policy desires without having to follow the legal process) is utterly transparant and obvious.

It's not news to me that intellectuals can be radical in their thinking, and that they can be wrong. Why wouldn't intellectuals discuss Communism though? In it's purest form, uncorrupted, it's an interesting idea. Of course, I don't think it could never work in practice, human nature being what it is.

Think they're discussing it for kicks Isi?

The point of a Georgetown Professor of Constitutional Law being promoted on CBS is because they clearly DO take the idea seriously, and would like to win over converts to it, the obvious first step to doing it.

Funny day when FF is the best and most serious poster in a thread.....

[FF2®]

Originally Posted by OCCH

Seems like a pretty good back and forth going on here, so I don't want to do anything to interrupt it.

But I do find myself wondering how many people who defend "tossing the Constitution" do so b/c they picture a more liberal policy taking its place? Would you feel the same if we tossed it for a more God-centered vision (which some would argue it originally had)? If we replaced it with less individual rights? For example, no "free" education, since SO much of that money is flushed down the toilet?

I'm not asking if you'd agree with those changes -- just if it would still be "worthy of discussion". Or is it only worthy because we already know what the end game would be?

FTR: I for one was not defending "tossing the Constitution."

I was defending the discussing of the issue....not really thinking of the end game.

I happen to think the Constitution is a brilliant document.

[isired]

Originally Posted by FF2®

FTR: I for one was not defending "tossing the Constitution."

I was defending the discussing of the issue....not really thinking of the end game.

I happen to think the Constitution is a brilliant document.

+1

I don't think any of us were defending tossing the Constitution. Just not offended that the scholarly types would want to discuss it.

[isired]

Originally Posted by Warfish

No, not about much thus far, IMO.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were being consciously antagonistic and obtuse simply to troll me into a froth, but Comparing me to a former Mod was especially obvious troll-bait.

The point is that not all discussion is worth having. Not all ideas equally valid of consideration or respect. Not all possible actions worth having deep chin-rubbing thoughts about. Especially when the purpose (in this case, to get policy desires without having to follow the legal process) is utterly transparant and obvious.



Think they're discussing it for kicks Isi?

The point of a Georgetown Professor of Constitutional Law being promoted on CBS is because they clearly DO take the idea seriously, and would like to win over converts to it, the obvious first step to doing it.

Funny day when FF is the best and most serious poster in a thread.....

Yes, my former-mod froth-trolling was an obvious return volley to your Georgetown Professor of Constitutional Law = Nazi froth-trolling. I admit this.

We disagree as to the risks involved in having the discussion. I know, I'm naive, and just because you're paranoid don't mean they're not after you.

[freestater]

I don't see much difference in tossing out the Const. or just ignoring it on a daily basis. The courts have castrated the document anyway. (Wickard v. Filburn, Kelo v. New London Ct) To be blunt, the only part of the Const. that the govt. seems to like is the "we get the power" part. After that, I can't see where they're actually following it, so I don't see any point in revering such an irrelevant piece of paper.

What I would like to see is; anybody who takes an oath of office to defend the Const. hanging from a tree the moment they promote any action contrary to the Const.

Perhaps we can have a "discussion" about doing that.

[OCCH]

Originally Posted by FF2®

FTR: I for one was not defending "tossing the Constitution."

I was defending the discussing of the issue....not really thinking of the end game.

I happen to think the Constitution is a brilliant document.

Originally Posted by isired

+1

I don't think any of us were defending tossing the Constitution. Just not offended that the scholarly types would want to discuss it.

I misspoke. I'm just wondering how many people are open to the discussion truly because they believe it is healthy discourse, and how many because they have a preconceived notion of where a "new and improved Constitution" would take us . . .