Is the Constitution ...
Is the Constitution ...
Good read. He raises some interesting questions.
I like out of the box thinking....
The same complaint can be raised against using any old text as the foundation and framework of any operating system.
The issue is agreeing on a replacement. Since it is the framework of our government, we would have to totally redefine that.
...Looking at our current state of politics, this proposition will only come to pass at the spilling of a lot of blood.
The thing that's missed in all this is that he laments the constraints put in place by the Constitution holding up 'getting things done.' That's the entire point of the document.
We should use a combination computer/media poll to elect politicians.
Funny how Obama graduated with a doctorate from Harvard Law and taught constitutional law.....yet so many slack-jawed Americans consider him an idiot as well.
I doubt it, though.
The real issue is that he wants to abandon the constitution for his idea of "progress". There are plenty of people who would drop the constitution in a second if they could then establish their own idea of progress. It comes across as a lot more of an emotional reaction/argument than one that's particularly well thought out. It's not really contrived with reality in mind.
But it's an article in the paper...I imagine that it's as much a musing as it is a legitimate call to undermine the Constitution .
Really, I can see how our current state of affairs could be attributed to the inherent weakness of our Constitution.
Not according to the author of the article...
Works fine for Britain he says...
On this board, people mistake the refusal of ceding even the most simple, true point to someone with whom he perceives a disagreement as intelligence. When really, you and I both know it's stupidity.
This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.
Out of respect? Is he ****ing serious?
So these are merely important and not vital to our freedom according this professor? So without the constitution there to preserve these "important" rights, then how does the professor suggest they stay protected? Is he truly that naive, or ignorant, to believe that current and future leaders would continue to "respect" those "important" rights without constitutional protection?
Welcome to the internet, where other people's ideas, no matter how well articulated, are countered with "idiot"
The constitution is a written account of what is believed to be true. The actual truth, if it exists, exists outside of the written text.
The problem, as in a debate over religion, is those who derive the framework by which they live their life from a text can fairly lay the foundation for anarchy if no such text exists to codify "the truth".
Which is the same reason that getting rid of the constitution, with all its inherent problems, is a horrendous idea.
The progressive movement freed slaves, allowed women to vote, promotes equal rights for gays.
You might be scared by some progressive concepts, and you're not wrong to feel that way, but to say it's "so dangerous" is ridiculous.
I think generally we should always be looking to improve ourselves. It's folly to abide 100% by rules and concepts generated 250 years ago. The invention of flight, individual speedy transportation, computers, and the internet are all game-changers. It's crazy to act like the rules shouldn't be examined. EVEN IF we decide we want to keep them the same, we need to examine the rules every so often.
There can certainly be a more perfect document than the one we penned two and a half centuries ago.
See? I can do it too.
For something like the constitution, I believe that the framers had incredible forsight, but they also allowed for there to be some interpretation, because they wanted men and women to debate and be free. That doesn't mean that they didn't have a direction in mind. That is why context is so important and that is why reading the federalist papers and other documents written by our founders are so very important. Their writings along with the constitution allow for a better interpretation/understanding of the document.