Hey, let’s give up on the Constitution
AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
i wonder how far you’d get before imploding in deprivation, chaos and violence without the blue states’ benefaction.
feel free to liberate yourself from my tax dollars, moron.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 10:52 AM
Your inclusion of that link seems to indicate that your irony meter is broken.
The Schaef on December 31, 2012 at 10:52 AM
This guy taught me criminal procedure, and spent much of his early career as a defense attorney. One can only begin to imagine the shrieks he would emit if someone were to tell him that the people had voted, and that we were going to ditch a few of the amendments that he still finds congenial (including the right against self-incrimination, the right to counsel, the right to trial by jury, the right against “cruel and unusual punishment”). Make no mistake, what the good professor here is advocating is abandonment of the notion of a government of limited powers– and that’s the only thing that’s managed to keep us as free as we are.
Once our rights stop being something inherent in us, and start being something we derive from the government, those rights are one regulatory action away from extinction.
morganfrost on December 31, 2012 at 10:59 AM
No they weren’t. Not even close. The bastardization of the Constitution by progressives is the only problem with the document, and that isn’t its fault, it’s ours.
Donald Draper on December 31, 2012 at 11:01 AM
nonsense. if you treat the constitution as a divine document, and not one created 200+ years ago, through compromise by a flawed and oft’ discordant group of men, you’re the one who’s discrediting yourself.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:02 AM
So what was the point in all that compromise, then, if you’re just going to undermine the authority of the completed work by focusing on how they, like, didn’t agree on everything all the time?
The Schaef on December 31, 2012 at 11:05 AM
what are you mumbling about? speak up, i can’t hear you.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM
That was roughly my point. The reality is our country is falling apart, our liberties being stomped on and our money being squandered by big government establishment republicans and democrats. It’s crumbling before our very eyes, although the establishment tries to divert and distract your attention. Let the union disband, let regions and states go their own way. I’d rather live free, I’d rather my children weren’t saddled with incomprehensible debt and forced to live as virtual serfs to an oppressive central government.
MoreLiberty on December 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Deportation of remaining leftists to the USSA will take care of that. Watching the liberal elite become consumed by their layabout-class Frankenstein would be the mother of all popcorn watching events.
The Count on December 31, 2012 at 11:06 AM
Uh…it’s already happened on a limited scale. The law which was voted in which does such things is called the NDAA of 2012.
MoreLiberty on December 31, 2012 at 11:08 AM
The stupidity… It burns…. Man you really can’t fix stupid, not even when you give them the facts. That idiotic article correctly note the amount of federal dollars going into those Red States, but then proceeds to bungee jump head first off a 50 foot bridge with a 75 foot long bungee cord.
Those federal tax dollars are not going to entitlement spending, i.e. not paying for welfare queens and what not, they are primarily going to non discretionary constitutionally mandated programs, like mandatory military spending.
SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 11:09 AM
it’s useful to keep in mind that the constitution imperfect.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Hard to argue with any of that. There is no bigger separatist on this board than me. We’re actually commenting on an OP-ED in the supposed “paper of record” about getting rid of the constitution. It’s time for a peaceful, no-fault national divorce.
The Count on December 31, 2012 at 11:13 AM
It’s also us3eful to keep in mind that you are an imbecile suffering from Cranial-Rectal Disorder.
SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM
Like an abusive husband, the left would never allow such a thing to happen without smacking the wife around beforehand and constantly harassing her afterward.
The exodus from blue states wouldn’t leave much behind, and then things would get really interesting.
Bishop on December 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM
oh, ok then, for a while i thought that our piss-poor red states really needed my tax dollars.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:17 AM
great comeback!
how dare anyone suggest that the constitution, including art. 1, sec 2, p 3, is anything but perfect?
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:20 AM
Reading comprehension is sooo difficult. Grasping what those federal dollars are being spent on is clearly just beyond your obviously limited intellectual grasp.
SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 11:22 AM
Setting aside our differences between what a perfect constitution looks like, at least we don’t seek to “perfect” it illegitimately by parsing and inventing new meanings for words and phrases.
The Count on December 31, 2012 at 11:24 AM
And yet, 30% of the nations welfare recipients live in California. California and New Yorkers receive 40 percent of the nations morgage deductions despite housing liberals who want “higher taxes.” Sweetie, us in the red states would be quite fine with out “your” tax dollars.
melle1228 on December 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Most eloquent thing you’ve ever posted here.
A+
Del Dolemonte on December 31, 2012 at 11:27 AM
Do they speak Irony on “what”?
Hey, thanks for the update, Flash. But people don’t revere it because it’s “perfect”. They revere it because it is the contract that was agreed upon, whereby the government is allowed to exist AT ALL. Perfect or not, they have to honor the contract. There is already a process in place to make changes, and it’s been done numerous times in our history; ignoring the parts we don’t personally like is a poor excuse.
Take your ball and go home, then. Frankly, if all you’re gonna do is bitch about it, I’d just as soon not have the money. Maybe those incredibly awesome blue states can take all their incredibly awesome tax money and do something about the fact that they’re on the verge of bankruptcy.
The Schaef on December 31, 2012 at 11:30 AM
English Major?
G-
Del Dolemonte on December 31, 2012 at 11:31 AM
whatever (most of the federal money is going to entitlements, actually), i’m sure you’ll find another source revenue to make up for the loss.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Given the intellectual acuity displayed, I must confess that I am bewildered by your brains ability to generate enough electricity for you to be able to type. Sadly it is clearly way beyond your ability to grasp the difference between amending and fundamentally transforming.
As a framework designed to place limitations upon the government itself restricting the authority and power of the Federal Government and the governments ability to encroach upon the essential liberties and freedom of the individual citizen, yes it is a perfect document.
It is morons and imbeciles like you who constantly fail to grasp and understand the nature or intention of the document who believe that it is flawed.
The United States Constitution is not and never was designed to make the country perfect. That is a concept that can never be achieved. It was never designed so that it could not be tweaked or modified. But ALL amendments to the Constitution MUST remain faithful to the underlying framework of the Constitution.
The underlying framework of the United States Constitution is to place chains of restraint on the Federal Government preventing the Federal Government from ever obtaining a “Monopoly of Violence” over the individual citizens or States.
What the United States Constitution most assuredly is not and was never intended to be, is a “writ of privilege” to the individual Citizen or a “guarantor of authority” to the Federal Government.
SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 11:37 AM
I’m no Georgetown lawyer, but it seems to me our current chaos is due to the fact that we have long ago abandoned the Constitution!
Congress cedes its power to faceless bureaucrats, presidents commit our troops to police actions, not wars, and activist judges slap down the will of the people.
We are in living in a Hayekian nightmare. Almost. All that’s left is class warfare, with real violence, as The O vaguely incites in every public utterance.
As the government gobbles up our private lives, we become the one and only subject of politics. We are serfs now.
PattyJ on December 31, 2012 at 11:39 AM
spare me the tedium. nobody argues that the constitution has failed to make the country perfect. and correcting its flaws would not necessarily corrupt the “underlying framework.” you’re fighting that straw man valiantly.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:43 AM
This Seidman character is the reason why we must have a national divorce. When the federal government has broken free of the domesticating constraints of the Constitution (as has occurred under the Indonesian Dog-Eating Retard) then that government has gone feral and will never return to a civilized state. At this point, there is nothing left but to start over. A feral government is one that will not be long before it consumes the citizenry.
These leftist low-lifes have already killed America. They are uncivilized idiots who cannot be lived with. Seidman is no countryman of mine and no one I want to be associated with in any way, whatsoever. Seidman and his scumbag ilk deserve to be left in the hell of their own making and none of the rest of us deserve to have to be under the thumb of these tyrants. It is time to start anew without these miserable pieces of sh!t who yearn to be led by the imbecilic, affirmative action tyrant of their demented dreams. Let them live alone in their wet nightmare.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM
ironically, we are.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:44 AM
I agree. It would probably take more years of migration shifts followed by increasing economic separation to formalize the split. But, I fully expect that the socialist states will still be unwilling partners in this agreement for obvious reasons.
OTOH, since they’re dumb enough to believe that the failure of their policies is the result of us watering-down their prescriptions, maybe enough of them will support the idea.
The Count on December 31, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Pity you don’t actually understand what a strawman logic fallacy is.
SWalker on December 31, 2012 at 11:50 AM
I’m a little tired of your 1st Amendment right threatening my 2nd Amendment right. There needs to be some common sense restrictions on the 1st Amendment, wouldn’t you agree?
ButterflyDragon on December 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM
there are restrictions already that have served us well.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:56 AM
i’m glad you agree with the rest of my comment.
sesquipedalian on December 31, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Collectivist socialist statist doesn’t like Constitution? Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.
petefrt on December 31, 2012 at 12:00 PM
I’ve got some “common sense” ideas for limiting “high capacity” media coverage for fame-seeking mass murderers. Wonder how many rats would sign on for a plan that would actually provide immediate help but do nothing to advance the ball on stripping citizens of their guns. My guess: zero.
The Count on December 31, 2012 at 12:01 PM
I agree that you should move to Cuba or Venezuela.
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 31, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Why should they continue to operate without term limits? It could only help.
Most people didn’t notice that Hawaii’s Senator Daniel Inouye, who passed the other day, has been in the Senate since January 1963. When JOHN F KENNEDY WAS PRESIDENT.
He was an honorable man, but that is beyond ridiculous.
Moesart on December 31, 2012 at 12:06 PM
That is exactly what’s wrong with political climate nowadays. If term limits are good for a president, they’re equally good for members of Congress.
When you’re more worried about votes impacting the next election instead of what’s right for your constituents, then you know something is wrong. Of course, that should only apply to the House. The Senate needs to go back to the way it was prior to the 17th Amendment. Senators should be accountable to the state they represent and look out for the state’s best interests.
ButterflyDragon on December 31, 2012 at 12:14 PM
How disappointing, sesq.
But I do think Hayek meant something specific with “genuinely insurable risk” and “helping organize” rather than single payer, which is where the Dems want to end up.
PattyJ on December 31, 2012 at 12:21 PM
Yeah, the guy’s a dweeb. Unfortunately law schools are full of them; I learned that first hand. That’s not to say that I didn’t have some great professors, mind you.
Othniel on December 31, 2012 at 12:31 PM
God damn LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN and all the azzholes who don’t get it.
May all who brung Obama, and theirs, suffer a horrific fate, hungry, in the cold/dark.
Schadenfreude on December 31, 2012 at 1:02 PM
Christ, this is dangerous thinking. He openly asks us to “Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country,” as if such a thing matters in the first place. He thinks politicians should have unilateral ability to make decisions and implement them, but those pesky power seperatatagoogoo stuff makes real progress impossible!
That the Gray Lady would even publish this speaks to the belief of liberals everywhere that they now are in a position to dismantle everything this country was created to be and institute the change they’ve been believing in for so long. They’re showing their cards, and we should be scared that they think enough people side with them that they can just say stuff like this so openly.
mintycrys on December 31, 2012 at 1:07 PM
Well, what’s stopping you there, big shot? Turn the computer off, walk outside, and get to it. Organize with your buddies. Embrace your second amendment rights and act on your steadfast principles instead of just sitting there.
What are you doing except calling out for someone else to start it for you so you can jump on board then?
Get to it, Mr. Revere. The British are coming. Or are you gonna sit there and do nothing but drown in your induced bitterness, fear, and constant feelings of victimization?
Genuine on December 31, 2012 at 1:14 PM
The term “parasite” goes beyond the garden variety welfare queen and the public sector union thug. Probably the biggest, greediest and most damaging parasite is the lawyer class. Completely incapable of creating wealth, will only consume it.
fitzfong on December 31, 2012 at 1:28 PM
Guess my response disappeared down the censorship hole.
Do they speak Irony on “what”?
Hey, thanks for the insight, Flash. People don’t revere it because it’s “perfect”. It’s a contract whereby the government is even allowed to exist, and when a contract is in place, you honor the terms. Ignoring the parts we don’t like is a poor excuse, when there is already a construct to change that contract which has been utilized numerous times.
The Schaef on December 31, 2012 at 1:41 PM
As someone who has taught Constitutional law for 40 years, you should be ashamed for your students who must have come away with amazingly bad ideas about that very Constitution because of your idiocy.
GWB on December 31, 2012 at 1:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2