Is the Constitution ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op...anted=all&_r=0
|
|
Is the Constitution ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op...anted=all&_r=0
Good read. He raises some interesting questions.
The following users like this post: OUMallen
I like out of the box thinking....
Well, duh.
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 p**** at the spilling of a lot of blood.
FIFYOriginally Posted by oucub23
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.
The following users like this post: Tug Medick
idiot
Having a degree from Harvard and teaching constitutional law, doesn't mean that one is right, nor does it mean that one is intellectually responsible. Having said that, being smart doesn't mean one is right on a subject.
Just 6 years ago degrees from Harvard and Yale had 0 bearing on one's intellect. My how times have changed.
Those institutions have sure come a long way in 6 years.Just 6 years ago degrees from Harvard and Yale had 0 bearing on one's intellect. My how times have changed.
The following users like this post: oucub23
We should use a combination computer/media poll to elect politicians.
The following users like this post: brokebacksooner
It does mean that he is more likely to produce an educated position than some random soul on a football message board, yes?
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.
Maybe, maybe not.
I suppose that there is the possibility that there are a few folks on this board that have spent decades studying the constitution researching context, following the litany of judicial questions, etc.
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.
Sure...but is dropping the last shred of American unity the way to fix the problems?
That would largely depend upon the amount of unity behind the drafting of a new social contract. Certainly there would have to be an opposing document drafted before the current government is abandoned.
Not according to the author of the article...
Works fine for Britain he says...
You're correct.
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.
The following users like this post: OnlyOneOklahoma
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?
Disagree completely. The problems we have are due to continued end runs around the strengths of the document.
Welcome to the internet, where other people's ideas, no matter how well articulated, are countered with "idiot"
Thereby displaying its weakness.
If ND on Monday night runs a p**** play that involves the wr running 8 rows into the stands, catching the ball and then taking a cart under the stadium to the end zone and the officials let it stand, that's not an inherent weakness in the Bama D.
It is if the Bama D is the only ruling body to determine the legality of the play and they choose to let it count.
To be fair, you don't need the constitution for those things to be a reality. It's just like a debate in a religion wherein atheists argue that ethics can exist apart from the Bible/Qu'ran/Torah.
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.
Ah but it isn't. There's a small group of officials that we can't fire. There's also supposed to be decency present in the way ND approaches the game--they are a Catholic university, and morality must exist for the system constructed to function properly. There's also everyone watching the game that should object so strongly to the violations that those allowing them are removed. Sadly, most of the crowd is so busy stuffing their fat faces with popcorn and trying to get a date with the cheerleaders that they aren't paying attention.
HAH.. I've enjoyed this analogy greatly. The mental images alone make me smile.
The following users like this post: oucub23
I don't think it's the weakness of the document, rather the weakness of the individuals that it governs.
Very good point. Which is why the progressive movement is so dangerous. The cannon for right and wrong changes with the wind...that is not good.
Usually the response from the left, yes, you are correct.
idiot!
The following users like this post: Tundra
The progressive movement is DANGEROUS?
The progressive movement freed slaves, allowed women to vote, promotes equal rights for ****s.
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.
But it is a reflection of the weakness of the document. It is fraught with edicts open to interpretation due largely to the limitation of strong codal language at the time of inception. The fact that we have arguments DAILY upon intent is proof of this.
Some of the truths are self-evident. Men are equal. We all deserve to live more-or-less free. We all should be allowed to travel freely. We deserve equality under the law.
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.
Is there a document that is written by the hands of man that isn't open to interpretation? No...not really. Even the supposed word of God is debated on the issues of context and content. That is the way that human beings are. Our minds have limits and we are prone to mistakes and errors. There can be no perfect document that will help us govern. But to suppose that a relative or progressive document would be better is not in our best interest. To keep us in line, you have to have something that is steady...not swaying. Human beings must be governed by some sort of benchmark, set in place, so that we know our boundaries. Otherwise, this so called progressive movement, will lead us toward destruction...because our natural inclination is to destroy one another.
There can certainly be a more perfect document than the one we penned two and a half centuries ago.
Yep. Easy example: 4th Amendment was written when a police officer had to come stand outside your window to gain information. Now you can wiretap, do infrared from the street, etc....yet we shouldn't think about how we'd like to re-word our rules?
I agree with you. What you've said, of course, supports many Supreme Court Justices' views that the Constitution is a "living" document, a concept that Scalia and Thomas vehemently disagree with.
Agreed.
Now good luck trying to get Washington to agree on the things incorporated into a new, more perfect document...
What he's said, of course, counters many Supreme Court Justices' views that the Constitution should be interpreted through original intent, a concept that Ginsberg and Breyer vehemently disagree with.
See? I can do it too.
Why? Just because it is 2 and a half centuries old? Does being old mean that the rule is outdated? What about the common laws of manking like, 1) don't steal, 2) don't murder, 3) don't commit adultery, etc...those are as old as time, but does that mean there should be newer and better rules instead?
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.
The internet. Police technology. Gerrymandering. The ability to have a census more than once every ten years. The ability to conduct interstate commerce.
The progressive movement in this country basically began in 1890's with Teddy Roosevelt and gained steam with Woodrow Wilson. Long after the slaves were freed.
...that era has been over for the better part of a century. I figured you were talking generally about leftism as we know it in the US.
And ole Woodrow wasn't a pro-equality fella either.
You were the one that referenced slavery and suffrage.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
