The Constitution in 2013

zzzzzzsplashzzzzzzsplash Posts: 499 Deckhand
I put the link in another thread, then decided to post as a new topic. Some of you will find it enjoyable, some thought-provoking, and some heads may explode...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Replies

  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,679 AG
    I read it yesterday, but thought it a waste of time for here. I don't want to be the cause of anyone's head exploding, but I agree with Mr. Seidman.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 373 Deckhand
    Our obsession with marriage vows has saddled us with a dysfunctional marriage, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what the preacher might have wanted done 30 years ago.

    Should marriage vows be open to reinterpretation or abandonment 30 years into a marriage? Then why should the terms of a political union be open to reinterpretation or abandonment 225 years in?

    The founding fathers foresaw the need to change the Constitution and provided an amendment process so that the government would remain subject to the "consent of the governed."

    Reinterpreting or abandoning the meaning of the Constitution without going through the amendment process to legitimately change the meaning is nothing but a political power grab, and it is just as reprehensible as reinterpreting or abandoning the meaning of wedding vows some time into the marriage.
    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • BudaBuda Posts: 2,062 Captain
    We live under the rule of law. The problem is that some people do not like that law and want it to be something else. When that happens they claim that the other side has perverted that law into a non law when actually those claiming the perversion are really the ones trying to overthrow the rule of established law.

    Bud A
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,679 AG
    MathGeek wrote: »
    Should marriage vows be open to reinterpretation or abandonment 30 years into a marriage? Then why should the terms of a political union be open to reinterpretation or abandonment 225 years in?

    The founding fathers foresaw the need to change the Constitution and provided an amendment process so that the government would remain subject to the "consent of the governed."

    Reinterpreting or abandoning the meaning of the Constitution without going through the amendment process to legitimately change the meaning is nothing but a political power grab, and it is just as reprehensible as reinterpreting or abandoning the meaning of wedding vows some time into the marriage.

    I wouldn't get too worked up about it, it's not going to happen, it's simply an editorial.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • zzzzzzsplashzzzzzzsplash Posts: 499 Deckhand
    MathGeek wrote: »
    Should marriage vows be open to reinterpretation or abandonment 30 years into a marriage? Then why should the terms of a political union be open to reinterpretation or abandonment 225 years in?

    The founding fathers foresaw the need to change the Constitution and provided an amendment process so that the government would remain subject to the "consent of the governed."

    Reinterpreting or abandoning the meaning of the Constitution without going through the amendment process to legitimately change the meaning is nothing but a political power grab, and it is just as reprehensible as reinterpreting or abandoning the meaning of wedding vows some time into the marriage.

    Did you even read the op in it's entirety? Interpreting, and reinterpreting, the Constitution happens every day of your life. Ever heard of the judicial system? The Supreme Court?

    And yes, marriage vows are open to abandonment at any time. Your personal decision may be to remain in a marriage after finding your wife cheating on you or doing drugs or stealing your money, for example, though at that time it is at least open to consider change. I probably would not remain wedded to her, just like I wouldn't remain wedded to outdated or dysfunctional ideals.

    "Let us provide in our constitution for its revision at stated periods. What these periods should be nature herself indicates" - Thomas Jefferson
  • CobiaCobia Posts: 564 Officer
    Mister, it is not a good one at that.
    Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that is even remotely possible. Homer Simpson
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 19,392 AG
    Pretty sad that any educational institution would have ever let him teach Constitutional Law. He is a maroon.
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 373 Deckhand

    And yes, marriage vows are open to abandonment at any time. Your personal decision may be to remain in a marriage after finding your wife cheating on you or doing drugs or stealing your money, for example, though at that time it is at least open to consider change. I probably would not remain wedded to her, ....

    So states are free to leave the political union if the terms that created the political union (The US Constitution) are abandoned?
    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,679 AG
    Cobia wrote: »
    Mister, it is not a good one at that.

    That is also an editorial subject to your particular political philosophy.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • bswivbswiv Posts: 7,391 Admiral
    Mister-Jr wrote: »
    I read it yesterday, but thought it a waste of time for here. I don't want to be the cause of anyone's head exploding, but I agree with Mr. Seidman.

    Mister:

    While he is correct to the extent that the Constitution has been ignored/trampled/altered by means not prescribed, the deficiency, and it is a deficiency!, a deficiency that admits his lack of appreciation for the constant nature of human behavior, in his position is that he denigrates the idea/ideal of a document that proscribes from those in power all manner of powers.

    I've said it before, and it is a fact borne out by history, that the tendency of government is to accrue power unto itself and as governments are made of men, ultimately the accrual of that power will allow great power into the hands of bad men. This is something not new as evidenced by the attempt in the Constitution to divide power so as to keep it in enough different hands so as to soften it's effect on the free citizens that make up our society.

    The Federalist Papers are full of instances where Madison, Jay & Hamilton explain how the Constitution will control "faction" and the ugliness of centralized power by one. The Anti-Federalist ( Good book out, a compilation of their writings. ) were concerned precisely about this point, that the Constitution did not strongly enough prevent the centralization and abuse of power. Point being that it's always been a concern, that accumulation of power in a few hands, and one of the most important functions of our, or any for that matter, Constitution is to protect the people from what they have created by limiting the power of government.

    He does great disservice by calling into question the absolute need to have some sort of foundational legal document to protect the people from government. Again, while I agree with him that it has been abused and misued he is absolutely wrong to attack the ideal which is there to protect US from them.

    As a good liberal that point should not be lost on you.
  • Mister-JrMister-Jr Posts: 27,679 AG
    B - with all due respect to your post, I don't believe the Constitution has not done an adequate job of protecting the citizens from government. We are all subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS, which has become little more than a political subset of both parties.
    Vote for the other candidate
  • shadowwalkershadowwalker Posts: 2,200 Captain
    You know how to tell if your fishing on an real left wingers boat? There's no compass or GPS to disagree with their direction. :)
  • zzzzzzsplashzzzzzzsplash Posts: 499 Deckhand
    You know how to tell youre fishing on a right wing extremists boat? They have lots of advanced equipment guiding them, but they choose to ignore it and plow straight ahead :rolleyes
Sign In or Register to comment.