"Let's give up on the Constitution"

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

I cannot believe this has actually been broadcast on a national news program!!! We are closer to loosing our Republic today than ever since the Civil War. This "high-brow" clap-trap is from the most expensive law school in the nation!



http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/01/27/CBS-Runs-Segment-Calle-Lets-Give-Up-On-The-Constitution

From Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman:

I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

[Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay]

This F'ing idiot must not know the Constitution very well! There are provisions written into it from it's inception that allow for changes. We the People can change the Constitution when enough of us agree to do so. What an idiot!

[shinnosuke]

People that lived 200 plus years ago could not know what life in America would be like today. However, they could and did know that human nature doesn't change. They also had a clear understanding of the corrupting influence of power. So they wrote a document that would put limitations on the accumulation of power. We've shredded what they bestowed upon us. So...see my signature.

[Hawkeye]

It annoys me so much when I see things like this. The founders left us a simple and clear method of changing the Constitution if and when the need arises. But these idiots just want to ignore it at best, and scrap it at worst. If you don't like it, work to amend it. But don't just pretend it isn't there. Makes me want to kick somebody in the teeth.

[knibloe]

People that lived 200 plus years ago could not know what life in America would be like today. However, they could and did know that human nature doesn't change. They also had a clear understanding of the corrupting influence of power. So they wrote a document that would put limitations on the accumulation of power.

Bingo!!!

[joemac]

Smells like treason and traitors ought to swing freely.

[Treetop]

I see this piece as a GOOD thing. why? because the constitution was already been bypassed by re interpretation. Atleast now those who dont respect it are starting to admit it! honestly I dont think they understand it, and the relevance of its key tenants. I suspect a good portion of them will regret dismissing liberty and self determination in the end. We are well into a system already diametrically opposed to the foundational principles. We have been for some time.

So my take is atleast this guy is honest. I had a falling out of sorts with a long time lefty friend on a related issue. He swears obama care is constitutional. But by the logic it is constitutional (its claimed its a tax) then ANYTHING is constitutional if its a "tax". So let this guy rant! Lets hope he gains some traction!! Because then those of us who want to head back to the constitution will have a much different dialog with such folks. a more honest dialog. Also as the current system fails, there will be more of a distinction For many Id think between what the constitution was meant to be rather then what it became or worse those who want to dismiss it entirely.

[dpwozney]

The U.S.A. Constitution is not currently being followed.

“No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...”, according to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S.A. Constitution.

Wiktionary’s first definition for the noun “tender” states “A means of payment such as a check or cheque, cash or credit card” and the second definition states “(law) A formal offer to buy or sell something”.

In any financial transaction, there is an offer and an acceptance of the offer. In each and every financial transaction, an offeror makes something an offer to an offeree.

In financial transactions, states in the U.S.A. have been making cheques a “means of payment” in payment of debts. States in the U.S.A. have been making cheques a “formal offer” in payment of debts. States in the U.S.A. have been making cheques a tender in payment of debts. “No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...”, according to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S.A. Constitution.

[IdahoCopper]

The U.S.A. Constitution is not currently being followed.

“No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...”, according to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S.A. Constitution.

Wiktionary’s first definition for the noun “tender” states “A means of payment such as a check or cheque, cash or credit card” and the second definition states “(law) A formal offer to buy or sell something”.

In any financial transaction, there is an offer and an acceptance of the offer. In each and every financial transaction, an offeror makes something an offer to an offeree.

In financial transactions, states in the U.S.A. have been making cheques a “means of payment” in payment of debts. States in the U.S.A. have been making cheques a “formal offer” in payment of debts. States in the U.S.A. have been making cheques a tender in payment of debts. “No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; ...”, according to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S.A. Constitution.

This is why when you get a bill from the City water dept, or a property tax bill, or any bill from a .gov agency or service monopoly, the "amount due" is just a number, there is no "$" symbol in front of the number. Go on, check your bills to verify. When you call the city comptroller, they will always say they do not know why there is no "$" on their bills. All your other bills use that symbol, but .gov does not.

You are supposed to assume they want dollars. You could tender mills instead of dollars, just to see what happens.

You might send them a letter asking exactly what it is they want. Include a piece of paper with the requested number written like: > 72.45 ::: Seventy-two point forty-five < and see what happens.

[Goof]

I think I should try that idea out when paying my grandma's bills. If they do get pissy about it, pretend she did it herself, she's 90 and must be getting senile. hahahaha