Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Fly320s on January 28, 2013, 04:20:25 PM
-
There are plenty of leftist who would like to abandon the US Constitution and start anew, using their own ideals of course.
Here is today's example: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/cbs-guest-lets-give-up-the-constitution.html
So, my question is this. Do they really know what they are asking? Do they really want to destroy the foundation of law in this country when their opponents own the fast majority of firearms?
If the Constitution is dissolved, government is dissolved, laws are dissolved, police agencies are dissolved, anarchy follows. At least until a new system can be put in place.
Am I missing something here? Is there a way to have a United States of America if the Constitution is null and void?
-
. . . Is there a way to have a United States of America if the Constitution is null and void?
No.
With everything that implies.
-
What they are proposing is, in my opinion, a revolution.
Their folly is the assumption that such a swap can be made peacefully.
-
Hard to take him seriously, when he starts off telling us that Wilson and FDR were great presidents.
The lackwit is hardly calling for the repeal of all our laws and institutions - just those which offend his tiny mind. No revolution here, just the slouch toward Gomorrah already in progress.
-
Seems like there was a quote in "A Man For All Seasons" =|
-
On a related note, do the leftists realize that repealling the 2nd Amendment will not immediatly outlaw guns? They seem to think that way.
-
There are plenty of leftist who would like to abandon the US Constitution and start anew, using their own ideals of course.
Here is today's example: http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/cbs-guest-lets-give-up-the-constitution.html
So, my question is this. Do they really know what they are asking?
I'm sure some do, some do not. The academic nihilists will walk into this with open eyes.
Do they really want to destroy the foundation of law in this country
Yes. When words mean nothing, what's left is only power.
-
There are plenty of leftist who would like to abandon the US Constitution and start anew, using their own ideals of course.
There is a process for that. Let them call a Constitutional Convention. (that should keep 'em busy for *years* trying to cover all the legal prerequisites) Then if they do somehow get it convened, the outcome might not be what they expect...
-
There is a process for that. Let them call a Constitutional Convention. (that should keep 'em busy for *years* trying to cover all the legal prerequisites) Then if they do somehow get it convened, the outcome might not be what they expect...
If nothing else, it would gather them in one convenient location....
-
Do they really want to destroy the foundation of law in this country when their opponents own the fast majority of firearms?
Haven't they already? If they haven't yet completely destroyed our culture, they are getting pretty close.
-
There are quite successful countries with no constitution. It is not a prerequisite to law and order.
The US constitution could benefit from a constitutional convention to set out what the population actually wants, and what it'll agree to accept.
One of the problems with it now is that both sides of the political spectrum spend inordinate amounts of money trying to win political debates by Supreme Court decree.
It's more just to sit down and use the process the founding fathers designed to settle these questions - through amendments and changes, which used to happen. The constitution was never a sacred cow to the people who wrote it. It should not be one to us.
-
One of the problems with it now is that both sides of the political spectrum spend inordinate amounts of money trying to win political debates by Supreme Court decree.
It's more just to sit down and use the process the founding fathers designed to settle these questions - through amendments and changes, which used to happen. The constitution was never a sacred cow to the people who wrote it. It should not be one to us.
Sure, but they don't because they know damn good and well the vast majority of BS would never past muster for actually amending it. Much simpler to just claim "interstate commerce" or similar nonsense and do whatever the hell they want. Screw amending it to ban alcohol, just write a law regulating and banning controlled substances!
The process for amending the constitution is by design very difficult, and they know it, and they know a LOT would never pass the amendment process.
-
There are quite successful countries with no constitution. It is not a prerequisite to law and order.
The US constitution could benefit from a constitutional convention to set out what the population actually wants, and what it'll agree to accept.
One of the problems with it now is that both sides of the political spectrum spend inordinate amounts of money trying to win political debates by Supreme Court decree.
It's more just to sit down and use the process the founding fathers designed to settle these questions - through amendments and changes, which used to happen. The constitution was never a sacred cow to the people who wrote it. It should not be one to us.
No, a Constitution is not required for law and order. However, it's a handy way of keeping a government in check.
US could benefit from a convention to fix some narrow bugs, sure. Limiting commerce and general welfare clauses, setting up a penalty for politicians for violating the Constitution (biggest bug, IMHO), etc. Thing is, I doubt politicians would implement MORE or more efficient rules restricting them. It would be a gamble on whether the new Constitution would be better or worse. Considering how polarized things are at the moment... A compromise Constitution would not be a good thing.
I'm all for amendments. Tis what I usually tell folks when they want to violate the Constitution. If your ideas are so obviously right and perfect, why don't you change the Constitution instead of ignoring it?
As for WHY we shouldn't abandon our Constitution is because all federal law derives its authority from it. If we abandon our Constitution, all federal laws are null and void in a legal sense. The federal government could only rule via straight "will of the people" (ie mob rule) or coercion (do what we say, or we kill you). I don't see either as being preferable to a relatively orderly legal system.
-
There are quite successful countries with no constitution. It is not a prerequisite to law and order.
The US constitution could benefit from a constitutional convention to set out what the population actually wants, and what it'll agree to accept.
One of the problems with it now is that both sides of the political spectrum spend inordinate amounts of money trying to win political debates by Supreme Court decree.
It's more just to sit down and use the process the founding fathers designed to settle these questions - through amendments and changes, which used to happen. The constitution was never a sacred cow to the people who wrote it. It should not be one to us.
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington
The Founders created the Constitution as a framework for definition and limitation of government power. They made the process of amending it onerous in order to control the passion of the moment, and allow for reasoned, deliberative change. It's that very passion which today wants to demean the Constitution, undermining its importance and legitimacy. We disregard this threat at our peril.
-
We've had Barack Obama elected for two terms, and you want to give voters a chance to amend the Constitution? Are you nuts?
-
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
-
We've had Barack Obama elected for two terms, and you want to give voters a chance to amend the Constitution? Are you nuts?
The electorate for a constitutional convention is completely different from the one for a presidential election - the state governments are better indicators of what a convention will be like.
Still risky, but not nearly so bad as it seems.
-
The fed.gov has been paying the merest of lip service to the Constitution for years. Hard to get riled up about abandoning a document that hasn't been in force for so long anyway.
-
The fed.gov has been paying the merest of lip service to the Constitution for years. Hard to get riled up about abandoning a document that hasn't been in force for so long anyway.
I suppose that depends on who's gettin' riled.
-
I suppose that depends on who's gettin' riled.
I suppose I meant that I was already riled, and this failed to further that state. :P
-
One of the proponents of this view, Louis Seidman, was on EconTalk this week. It's a very good listen.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/02/seidman_on_the.html
Seidman's position is (paraphrasing here): The Constitution is old, so maybe it doesn't fit anymore. We should do what we do because we are convinced that it is correct and moral, not because an old piece of paper says so.
While I disagree with him - I think his major strawman is the idea that people who support the Constitution are practicing a form of authoritarianism - he does make some very good points about some good things done in violation of the Constitution while simultaneously pointing to bad things done in violation of the Constitution as evidence that it doesn't work as intended.
-
I love the argument that points out that "America is a very young country" and therefore needs to follow the wisdom of "more mature nations" . . . followed immediately by . . . "the Constitution is old and tattered and needs to be updated/upgraded/replaced."
Friggin' priceless.
-
I love the argument that points out that "America is a very young country" and therefore needs to follow the wisdom of "more mature nations" . . . followed immediately by . . . "the Constitution is old and tattered and needs to be updated/upgraded/replaced."
Friggin' priceless.
All countries are similarly young - nationalism itself is a fairly recent invention.
-
The U.S. Constitution is the DNA of the American Republic. Without it we have a mutated organism.
I will say it again: The future lies in secession or expulsion, take your pick. Those who want to live in a different nation under different rules are free to, but they are not free to enslave me or take my property.
-
The U.S. Constitution is the DNA of the American Republic. Without it we have a mutated organism.
I will say it again: The future lies in secession or expulsion, take your pick. Those who want to live in a different nation under different rules are free to, but they are not free to enslave me or take my property.
Compliments of G98.....WOLVERINES!
-
All countries are similarly young - nationalism itself is a fairly recent invention.
I say, young man, wot?
Germany, France, Spain, Italy, England, Sweden, Austria, Russia . . . all countries with several times the years of the US . . . those are "similarly" young?
In geologic time, maybe.
In terms of modern civilization, not so much.
US is less than 300 years old.
All the ones I mentioned above have easily a thousand years of modern and pre-modern history behind them. I don't get where this "similarly" comes from.
It may be true that nationalism is historically "recent" but European countries have been having nation-on-nation wars since around 1,000 AD, give or take a couple of hundred years.
They refer to themselves -- often smugly -- as the "old world."
In a hundred thousand years of human history, fraught with dynasties of this and that kind, a mere thousand years isn't a lot.
Unless, of course, your country didn't officially get off the ground until the mid-late 1700s.
Yet in spite of this, we're that "young upstart nation" with a crusty and crumbling Constitution document that's too old to be of any real value.
-
Nationalism is just a variant of tribalism, which is as old as humanity.
-
Those European names you listed weren't "countries" in the sense we mean them until relatively recent times - some of them well after the US became a nation.
Modern national identities (with defined borders, language, culture) didn't exist in Europe until around the same time the US was born.
-
Nationalism is just a variant of tribalism, which is as old as humanity.
That may be true, but folks had a very different way of seeing their tribes before nationalism.
-
Some of the trappings were different, but essentially the same.
-
I do believe there's a bit of "missing the point" going on.
We have a culture born of an agreement to stand together on a set of principles. It's about 300 years old.
The cultures from which our progenitors fled stand on no such foundation and, regardless of the naming of nations and the boundaries drawn by assorted kings and armies, those cultures are of long duration, in "modern" terms.
I'd have to go back and check the maps to see when Germany was called something else, when Austria was a chunk of Prussia, and when France was Gaul. Kings come and go, but the cultures abide.
Sweden, as we know it today, didn't really get going until 1500 or so, but the culture is anchored well before that.
Switzerland reconstituted itself, actually using our Constitution in large measure, some time after we became the named nation we are today. The Swiss, however, didn't just toss hundreds of years of culture when they did that.
USA? Massive cultural churn, a fusion if you will, and a nation born -- deliberately -- of principle, rather than the marriage of royal houses of competing cultures.
That's very much a new deal in this "civilization" thing.
-
At this point I'm giving monarchy another look. Wish I could go back to George III's tax rates.
-
The welfare state is just a modern variant on tribalism--only with all the disadvantages and none of the advantages. It makes a mockery of the ancient dictum that "we are all in this together"--where did I hear that before?--and makes abundantly obvious that indeed, in a riven and balkanized nation, WE ARE NOT.