Shall we give up on the Constitution ?????

[mrsleeve]

Ran across this one in the opinion pages in the NYT's

Page 1 of the article

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.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)

In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution

Rest is here

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&

SO yea or nay and discuss



This ought to be fun, as much as I think this idiot should be tar and feathered paraded up and down 5th ave for a week. Its his 1st amendment rights to speak on such terms, and what will protect his rights to similar rants, if we were to burn the Constitution??? Surly the govt would.............................................

[joshh]

The premise of his argument is that the Constitution should be scrapped because men choose not to follow it.
Then we should do the same for laws?

We find men still doing the very same things today. The flaw is man. But then Congress was never meant to be a career choice till the 20th century.

[gwb72tii]

me thinks a large share of the problem is the main stream media ignoring violations of the law or excusing them to the point people shrug their collective shoulders and go along with it.
plus the MMM ignoring outright lies told by the likes of obama on a wide variety of subjects, not only not reporting them, but supporting them.
most peopel are too busy trying to make it thru life, put food on the table, pay the bills, than to actively educate themselves about our leaders.
most brazen lie today? calling obamacare the Affordable Care Act. rofl

[mrsleeve]

this goes back much further than the 0 but yes I agree the media is not helping the situation by not doing its job acting a watch dog, but rather acting in concert with those they are supposed to watch.

[herbivor]

Well, according to your messiah, Thomas Jefferson, we should be abolishing the constitution every 19 years (each generation) and creating a completely new one that is more relevant to the current generation. I tend to agree with Jefferson on this. Do you?

[frankenbeemer]

I normally agree with Jefferson's sentiments, but given the GOP majority in state legislatures, I fear what might result from a new constitution.

[Todd Black 88]

Well, according to your messiah, Thomas Jefferson, we should be abolishing the constitution every 19 years (each generation) and creating a completely new one that is more relevant to the current generation. I tend to agree with Jefferson on this. Do you?

I am not an American, so I can understand if you don't think i should respond to this. If it is an issue, I will delete my post, just pm me.

As an outsider looking in, I believe your constitution is a great idea!! But.....as it stands now, it's based on a belief system of two hundred year ago. (more or less) It needs to become more relevant to the day and age, aswell as the people whose rights it is there to protect.
I agree with Jefferson.

[Dozyproductions]

That's the beauty of our constitution, it holds true today as much as it does yesterday. Just like most religious people in this country (and what's already been said), we're selective which ones we want to follow.

I like the point herbivor had about what he mentioned about TJ. The only problem is that instead of scrapping the constitution we should just merely have paradigm shifts in how we can better mold our interpretation of the constitution to PRESERVE OUR LIBERTIES instead of getting rid of them.

[herbivor]

That's the beauty of our constitution, it holds true today as much as it does yesterday. Just like most religious people in this country (and what's already been said), we're selective which ones we want to follow.

I like the point herbivor had about what he mentioned about TJ. The only problem is that instead of scrapping the constitution we should just merely have paradigm shifts in how we can better mold our interpretation of the constitution to PRESERVE OUR LIBERTIES instead of getting rid of them.

I don't think TJ was implying we get rid of our liberties, only that we write a new constitution for each generation that is relevant to that generation. I think our current constitution is antiquated and should be changed to reflect current issues. TJ would agree with this sentiment.

[gwb72tii]

there is a process in place to amend and change the constitution

[Farbin Kaiber]

With a concise little healthcare bill tipping the scales at over 2,000 pages, do you really think this generation could formulate a constitution that anyone but an autistic savant could attempt to commit to memory or attempt to recite within the span of a full season?

[mrsleeve]

there is a process in place to amend and change the constitution

would you look at that................The obvious has not been over looked, after all

This is what Jefferson was talking about herbie, (all though the bill of rights were/are intended to never be amended away)


Herbie what would you put in your Constitution, that is not already in ours................ Oh wait should I say remove as well. Never mind you dont have to answer I already know.

[cale]

Come on sleeve, you're tainting your own thread with that attitude and baiting for personal attacks.

Like Todd I'm an outsider, anmd I question the desperation of your clutch to such an outdated document. So I pose this, if a substantial portion of the population disagree with a fundamental aspect of the document do you believe that it should be altered to their favor, or do you believe that all born under the constitution are are subject to it as written?

[mrsleeve]

If we dont like then lets amend it............ Its not easy to amend its not supposed to be, its one of the way Knee jerk reactions to things dont get stuffed into the highest law in the land. Thats what is meant by "LIVING DOCUMENT" not that it should be reinterpreted every generation, that it can be amended and changed to meet the needs of future generations. This is what Jeffeson is referencing when talking about reexamining the laws of this country.

I will address the rest of that tomorrow when I have some time.

[herbivor]

If we dont like then lets amend it............ Its not easy to amend its not supposed to be, its one of the way Knee jerk reactions to things dont get stuffed into the highest law in the land. Thats what is meant by "LIVING DOCUMENT" not that it should be reinterpreted every generation, that it can be amended and changed to meet the needs of future generations. This is what Jeffeson is referencing when talking about reexamining the laws of this country.

I will address the rest of that tomorrow when I have some time.

"Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

Although you would like to think your messiah would never repeal the constitution, he has said otherwise in several letters. Not revise, repeal. The reasons stated above are a perfect example of why the constitution should be repealed, because "bribery and personal interests lead [the politicians] astray".