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.