Last edited by isired; 01-29-2013 at 12:00 PM.
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.
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.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.
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'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.
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 disagree, depending on what your definition of a "good sized portion" is, I guess. I think it's a small, vocal minority.
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.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.
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.
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 agree that we need a set of rules. I agree that the Constitution should stay, and that any changes should come through amendment.
"Corporatocracy!!!! Oh noes!!!!! WAL-MART KILLED MY KIDS WITH THEIR LOBBYING!!!!"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.
Worried about food? Plant a garden ffs.
So predictable this place some days.
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?
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 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.
Obviously.I think that you and I disagree as to how many liberals are extreme liberals.
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.Discuss what you will. I'm free to agree or disagree, as are you. Even the role of 'devil's advocate' is legitimate.
But I fully support ones right to make a fool of themself if thats what they wish.
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.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.
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.I have no issue with someone wanting to discuss alternatives. Good ideas sometimes come of this type of 'pie in the sky' theorizing.
Funny, Stalin didn't even need evil corporate food barons to starve that many.
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?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.
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!
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.
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".
The Bible is not civil law and does not protect me from the State.Like the bible, its a document written by men.
Absolutely. Or more accurately "out of date" or "out of alignment with modern morality and beliefs" may be most appropriate.Therefore, there exists the possibility that its flawed.
And if so, the process is clear....amend it legally to fix it
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.Either way I am not scared to discuss it. I don't see it as the first snowflake of an avalanche.
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.
And surely if the update/change is what people think it is, IT can survivie on merit, and pass the Constitutional amendment process, right?Alot of things change, but the document is what you say it is, it will surely survive on merit.
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.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.
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?
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?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.
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.....
Last edited by Warfish; 01-29-2013 at 05:34 PM.
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.
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.