Do You Agree that the United States Should Give-Up-on the Constitution?
@mythociate (21432)
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
January 1, 2013 9:59pm CST
I don't, but a Georgetown Law-professor wrote an op-ed for the New York Times (at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121231&_r=0&pagewanted=all which I read and let you hear at https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3529261/GivingUpOnTheConstitution.mp3 ) in which he tells us something he finally realized after 40 years of teaching constitutional-law ...
That the U.S. Constitution is archaic and easily 'used for evil' (he calls it "downright evil," but 'the goodness-or-evilness of a thing' just depends on your point-of-view).
But he is right that the Constitution should not be construed as 'absolute' like the judgement of a Supreme Court justice, -of a President, or -of any other Citizen or -group of Citizens.
What do you think?
2 people like this
5 responses
@StLouisMetroTutoring (678)
• St. Peters, Missouri
2 Jan 13
That's nonsense. Of course we shouldn't give up on the Constitution. The Constitution was written to be somewhat flexible. It involves interpretation. If we tried to write an absolute document today, it would no longer make sense 50 years from today when things have changed. Not only was the Constitution written so that it could be interpreted and therefore adapted to the current times, they put governmental bodies in place to do so. I would imagine what he is claiming has always been true. Anything that's not black-and-white could be used for evil. True today. True 200 years ago. True in 200 years. That doesn't make it archaic. I wonder if he assumes his interpretation is the only right interpretation? I'm assuming he means the things that are "downright evil" are the things he disagrees with?
1 person likes this
@mythociate (21432)
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
2 Jan 13
That's why Thomas Jefferson proposed that we should rewrite the Constitution every generation; because the part of the brain that moves the body to action isn't connected to the part that interprets things.
The Bible-example I give: the Old Testament commands to stone your children if they disobey G*d. That's what the body-brain is compelled to do, even though the 'interpretation'-brain knows that the OT is only meaning 'we ought to destroy any ideas that run counter to the Kingdom of G*d.'
And--just like you can't "forget to breathe" (as your body-brain takes over when the 'interpreting'-brain focuses on something else)--your body's gonna want to 'stone your children' if your interpreting brain isn't on when you hear that "command."
@StLouisMetroTutoring (678)
• St. Peters, Missouri
3 Jan 13
Actually, the quote I've seen has nothing to do with the brain or interpretation. Here is the exact quote:
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 viscious. 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 oimited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal. --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
Jefferson was claiming that it's an act of force if we keep it longer. First, there is the Article V provision for convening Constitutional conventions. It's never been used! There is the process of amending the Constitution. It's been done over 30 times. We're not forced to keep anything. There are already things in place to allow for repeal and addition to the Constitution.
Do you know of another quote? I know he spoke of these ideas often. I would be interested in what else he had to say.
But I don't agree with his stance in this statement at all. It sounds to me that he would want a true democracy instead of a republic. I can't agree with that. He also said "Every generation needs a new revolution". Not buying that one either. Don't know about you, but I personally wouldn't want total political upheaval every 20 years.
@mythociate (21432)
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
3 Jan 13
Actually, a "Republic" is a system where ultimate power rests with the people (Re-Public, in which our 'leaders' are actually 'representations of ourselves.')
And didn't Ben Franklin say that a true democracy would be more CHAOTIC than peaceful?
And how does Jefferson reason that an over-19 law CANNOT be willed by the next generation?
@ReViewMeMedia (3785)
• United States
2 Jan 13
We should not give up our Constitution, the moment we do, this country will fall apart, not that it hasn't morally fallen apart, but then the rest of it would go.
1 person likes this
@sarahruthbeth22 (43143)
• United States
27 Jan 13
If we give up the Constitution we will cease to be The United States of America . It is the glue that keeps us together.
@mythociate (21432)
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
27 Jan 13
You really think that?
I don't. I think we'll stay the United States of America for as long as we can remember what that means.
To me, that means Freedom. And not freedom meaning 'no slavery,' because we're NOT free like that! Rather, we're free to 'not like that we're not free.' 
Not that it'll change the fact that we're slaves, but they can't PUNISH us for 'not liking our slavery.'
Not that it'll change the fact that we're slaves, but they can't PUNISH us for 'not liking our slavery.'
@lawdude (237)
• United States
2 Jan 13
Given our history, he makes a valid argument. The Constitution has always beesubject to different interpretations over time as the U.S. culture and needs of a modern society have changed. There has always been and will be friction between various political factions as to what is deemed Constitutional or not. The very process of judical review by the U.S. Supreme Court is not found in the Constitution where the three executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government are co-equal. It was the landmark 1803 Supreme Court decision by Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison that established the precedent, principle, and tradition of judical review giving the Supreme Court the power and final say to decide that what constitutes "the law of the land." But as has always been the situation, different members of the Court with different backgrounds and political philosophies will interpret constitutional issues in totally different or opposite ways; thus, what we look upon now as settled law could have been established by the narrowest of decisions and could have been opposite if justices with different political and judicial philosophies had sat on the Court
@lawdude (237)
• United States
3 Jan 13
Debra, are you expressing a personal opinion, parroting the views of other sources, i.e, the Heritage Foundation, or pretentious enough to hold yourself out publicly as a constitutional scholar? Do you even have a law degree? I seriously doubt you do. If you have, did you ever practice law or represent a client in any Court? Just curious. . .you express yourself with such authority.
@debrakcarey (19887)
• United States
2 Jan 13
Written constitutionalism implies that those who make, interpret, and enforce the law ought to be guided by the meaning of the United States Constitution--the supreme law of the land--as it was originally written. This view came to be seriously eroded over the course of the last century with the rise of the theory of the Constitution as a "living document" with no fixed meaning, subject to changing interpretations according to the spirit of the times.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/09/the-originalist-perspective
The amendment process was devised for future needs and is not an easy process deliberately. The Constitution is not a 'living document' subject to the whims of one party over another. Rather it is the PEOPLE'S assurance that their place as self governing will not be eroded by politicians or judges whose sole purpose may be to accumulate power unto themselves OR their party.
@mythociate (21432)
• Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
2 Jan 13
Even if it IS perfect, it remains 'unfinished' until it is interpreted perfectly (i.e. in accordance with the current conditions) and followed properly.
@bagarad (14283)
• Paso Robles, California
2 Jan 13
The Constitution is all that protects us against power-hungry politicians and would-be dictators. It contains a system of checks and balances to keep one of the three branches of government from being more powerful that the others. It was designed so that it could be amended when there was a need for it, and it has been amended several times already. Those who want to throw away the Constitution are the same ones who would like to substitute it with a document that does not guarantee individual liberties. The Constitution we have now was designed to keep the government from trampling on the God-given liberties of the citizens. It was intended to restrain the government. Those who want to change it prefer that the government have more power over the citizens and what they produce.
