NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.xml

    A refreshing editorial by a progressive law professor for 40 years, Louis Seidman,  who has come out of the closet. Liberals only pretend loyalty to our founding documents. Modern progressives consider the US Constitution but a hindrance to their Deity: unlimited Government.

    Prof Seidman states what liberals really believe!

    "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."

    "This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation"...

    [Respect? LOL...Without the Constitution's idea that our rights come from Nature and God, not Government, the 'constitutional commands' would last about a week , in the hands of zealots with no restraints on their greed for power.]

    "The Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text".

    [Yes, progressive judges have long given up on the real Constitution, bizarrely  pretending the Constitution of limited government gives judges unlimited power to impose their own views]

    "....perhaps the dream of a country ruled by "We the people" is impossibly utopian.... we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance"

    [Give up our "bondage" of self reliance , to give the "real freedom" of unlimited Government a chance...this is the intellectual foundation of modern progressives...]

     

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:

    And of course there's the whacko wingnut blatant disregard for the 14th Amend.

    "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for the payments of pension and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be questioned"

     

    Funny how the whacko wingnuts have this selective view of deference to the Constitution.

    If they ignore the Constitution, it's all fine and dandy.

     



    Funny how you can't even read.  Your selection of the 14th amendment says nothing about congress having to authorize as much debt as the executive demands.  It only says once incurred, through law, it is legitimate and must be paid.  I don't know anyone who questions that.

    So, I would say you have it wrong.  Big surprise.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    Well . . .   if it's a "living" document, I suppose that means we would have to kill it before we can abandon it.

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    Now what would Madison think about an assault weapon...?   Can we divine his intention about an instrumentality that did not exist during his time?  Impossible.  And yet people will try... and pretend they have an answer and act with obnoxious conviction that they have the "truth" on the matter.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation"...

    [Respect? LOL...Without the Constitution's idea that our rights come from Nature and God, not Government, the 'constitutional commands' would last about a week , in the hands of zealots with no restraints on their greed for power.]

     



    You really believe in "natural" rights from God?  How do you explain the right to alcohol.  It came, it went and it came back again.  God moves in mysterious ways?

    And I don't think you will find a liberal out there who thinks rights come from the "government".  They come from the people one way or another.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from bald-predictions. Show bald-predictions's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    Insane,

    The Constitution was written so that it essentially couldn't be outdated. It outlines a government that if run according to the documents could not become too powerful. Unfortunately we have ignored the Constitution for too long and we are seeing a government that IS to powerful already.  NYT should be ashamed of themselves, but I wouldn't expect much less from them.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation"...

    [Respect? LOL...Without the Constitution's idea that our rights come from Nature and God, not Government, the 'constitutional commands' would last about a week , in the hands of zealots with no restraints on their greed for power.]

     



    You really believe in "natural" rights from God?  How do you explain the right to alcohol.  It came, it went and it came back again.  God moves in mysterious ways?

    And I don't think you will find a liberal out there who thinks rights come from the "government".  They come from the people one way or another.

     

    To say our rights come from "the people" means exactly the same as our rights come from "Government".  Either we have inalienable rights outside government's reach, or we dont.


    Though drinking alcohol is not an inalienable right from God, you still prove the point with your example ....the Government can give it , and then take it away!

    Alcohol via drunk driving kills more Americans than guns, by the way..consistent with the progressive view of Government's Nanny State role, prohibition was a 'progressive' cause in the early 20th century, along with Eugenics..just as prohibition of gun ownership is a liberal solution today. 

     

    NR:

     The signatories of the Declaration were saying that certain rights are built directly into each human being. You don’t actually have to believe in God to understand the concept. You enter this world with unalienable rights that are not granted by the government… and cannot be withdrawn at the pleasure of government. No one can pass legislation to take these rights away. Even if every single one of your fellow citizens votes to strip one of your unalienable rights from you, the government cannot do so, without sacrificing its legitimacy.

    From this concept we draw one of humanity’s greatest moral and intellectual achievements: laws that restrain the government."

    Progressives may mock belief in a Deity, but of course leftists make Bible-thumping Fundamentalists look sober and rational, compared to the Progressive worship and unending faith in a  "God that Failed". And will fail again.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

     

    [/QUOTE]

    To say our rights come from "the people" means exactly the same as our rights come from "Government".  Either we have inalienable rights outside government's reach, or we dont.


    Though drinking alcohol is not an inalienable right from God, you still prove the point with your example ....the Government can give it , and then take it away!

    Alcohol via drunk driving kills more Americans than guns, by the way..consistent with the progressive view of Government's Nanny State role, prohibition was a 'progressive' cause in the early 20th century, along with Eugenics..just as prohibition of gun ownership is a liberal solution today. 

     

    NR:

     The signatories of the Declaration were saying that certain rights are built directly into each human being. You don’t actually have to believe in God to understand the concept. You enter this world with unalienable rights that are not granted by the government… and cannot be withdrawn at the pleasure of government. No one can pass legislation to take these rights away. Even if every single one of your fellow citizens votes to strip one of your unalienable rights from you, the government cannot do so, without sacrificing its legitimacy.

    From this concept we draw one of humanity’s greatest moral and intellectual achievements: laws that restrain the government."

    Progressives may mock belief in a Deity, but of course leftists make Bible-thumping Fundamentalists look sober and rational, compared to the Progressive worship and unending faith in a  "God that Failed". And will fail again.

    [/QUOTE]

    Now I know you are ignorant.  Even under natural rights theory, people have to rationally determine what the rights are (and ultimately what their limitations are).  They create government to protect those rights.  See it all comes back to the people.  But do find the political liberal philosopher that says "government" creates rights.  I will wait...

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    Now what would Madison think about an assault weapon...?   Can we divine his intention about an instrumentality that did not exist during his time?  Impossible.  And yet people will try... and pretend they have an answer and act with obnoxious conviction that they have the "truth" on the matter.




    All firearms in Madison's day were "assault" rifles.  They are important then, important now.  funny how the Brits at the time sought to limit firearms in the colonies.  huh.  I wonder why.

    Easy.  next.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation"...

    [Respect? LOL...Without the Constitution's idea that our rights come from Nature and God, not Government, the 'constitutional commands' would last about a week , in the hands of zealots with no restraints on their greed for power.]

     



    You really believe in "natural" rights from God?  How do you explain the right to alcohol.  It came, it went and it came back again.  God moves in mysterious ways?

    And I don't think you will find a liberal out there who thinks rights come from the "government".  They come from the people one way or another.

     



    natural rights are god-given, they don't change, they always are there.  We don't know what they all are, or why God gave us these rights. 

    Man, or government in this case, like alcohol prohibition, makes a decision about whether a GOVERNMENT respects, identifies, understands, divines, the rights god has granted man.  Man is fallible, God is not.

    Unless of course your god is government.  Then your point makes perfect sense.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    To say our rights come from "the people" means exactly the same as our rights come from "Government".  Either we have inalienable rights outside government's reach, or we dont.


    Though drinking alcohol is not an inalienable right from God, you still prove the point with your example ....the Government can give it , and then take it away!

    Alcohol via drunk driving kills more Americans than guns, by the way..consistent with the progressive view of Government's Nanny State role, prohibition was a 'progressive' cause in the early 20th century, along with Eugenics..just as prohibition of gun ownership is a liberal solution today. 

     

    NR:

     The signatories of the Declaration were saying that certain rights are built directly into each human being. You don’t actually have to believe in God to understand the concept. You enter this world with unalienable rights that are not granted by the government… and cannot be withdrawn at the pleasure of government. No one can pass legislation to take these rights away. Even if every single one of your fellow citizens votes to strip one of your unalienable rights from you, the government cannot do so, without sacrificing its legitimacy.

    From this concept we draw one of humanity’s greatest moral and intellectual achievements: laws that restrain the government."

    Progressives may mock belief in a Deity, but of course leftists make Bible-thumping Fundamentalists look sober and rational, compared to the Progressive worship and unending faith in a  "God that Failed". And will fail again.



    Now I know you are ignorant.  Even under natural rights theory, people have to rationally determine what the rights are (and ultimately what their limitations are).  They create government to protect those rights.  See it all comes back to the people.  But do find the political liberal philosopher that says "government" creates rights.  I will wait...



Once again you fail to understand the simplest of concepts.  Man is not the determinant of what rights we have, only what rights we can exercise.  That a government denies or infringes on a right doesn't make it "right".

You lean on social theory because you deny the existence of god.  Understandably, your knowledge rests on the imperfection of man, i.e. flawed.

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    Now what would Madison think about an assault weapon...?   Can we divine his intention about an instrumentality that did not exist during his time?  Impossible.  And yet people will try... and pretend they have an answer and act with obnoxious conviction that they have the "truth" on the matter.




    All firearms in Madison's day were "assault" rifles.  They are important then, important now.  funny how the Brits at the time sought to limit firearms in the colonies.  huh.  I wonder why.

    Easy.  next.




    Yuck, yuck.  In a world of single shot flintlocks Madison could not conceive of semi-automatic weapons. Easy. Next.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation"...

    [Respect? LOL...Without the Constitution's idea that our rights come from Nature and God, not Government, the 'constitutional commands' would last about a week , in the hands of zealots with no restraints on their greed for power.]

     



    You really believe in "natural" rights from God?  How do you explain the right to alcohol.  It came, it went and it came back again.  God moves in mysterious ways?

    And I don't think you will find a liberal out there who thinks rights come from the "government".  They come from the people one way or another.

     



    natural rights are god-given, they don't change, they always are there.  We don't know what they all are, or why God gave us these rights. 

    Man, or government in this case, like alcohol prohibition, makes a decision about whether a GOVERNMENT respects, identifies, understands, divines, the rights god has granted man.  Man is fallible, God is not.

    Unless of course your god is government.  Then your point makes perfect sense.



    Your statement is absurd.  There is no way you can prove the idea of "God-given" rights, let alone how many there are and what are their limitations.  And funny thing is: they are not in the Bible anywhere which is your dogma of choice. 

    We have rights because people find the idea socially useful.  They use the government to protect them.  Therefore rights can change and adapt to the people's wants and needs.  It is a rational undertaking without any need to embrace vague mythologies.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    To say our rights come from "the people" means exactly the same as our rights come from "Government".  Either we have inalienable rights outside government's reach, or we dont.


    Though drinking alcohol is not an inalienable right from God, you still prove the point with your example ....the Government can give it , and then take it away!

    Alcohol via drunk driving kills more Americans than guns, by the way..consistent with the progressive view of Government's Nanny State role, prohibition was a 'progressive' cause in the early 20th century, along with Eugenics..just as prohibition of gun ownership is a liberal solution today. 

     

    NR:

     The signatories of the Declaration were saying that certain rights are built directly into each human being. You don’t actually have to believe in God to understand the concept. You enter this world with unalienable rights that are not granted by the government… and cannot be withdrawn at the pleasure of government. No one can pass legislation to take these rights away. Even if every single one of your fellow citizens votes to strip one of your unalienable rights from you, the government cannot do so, without sacrificing its legitimacy.

    From this concept we draw one of humanity’s greatest moral and intellectual achievements: laws that restrain the government."

    Progressives may mock belief in a Deity, but of course leftists make Bible-thumping Fundamentalists look sober and rational, compared to the Progressive worship and unending faith in a  "God that Failed". And will fail again.



    Now I know you are ignorant.  Even under natural rights theory, people have to rationally determine what the rights are (and ultimately what their limitations are).  They create government to protect those rights.  See it all comes back to the people.  But do find the political liberal philosopher that says "government" creates rights.  I will wait...



    Once again you fail to understand the simplest of concepts.  Man is not the determinant of what rights we have, only what rights we can exercise.  That a government denies or infringes on a right doesn't make it "right".

    You lean on social theory because you deny the existence of god.  Understandably, your knowledge rests on the imperfection of man, i.e. flawed.



  • Your theory is flawed because it relies on a vague mythology.  Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were priests determining the mind of God?  And they concluded that God's will was that we should have slavery?  And do you have the arrogance to speak of the mind of God on such matters now?  Absurd. Hint:  God is not a homophobe. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    Now what would Madison think about an assault weapon...?   Can we divine his intention about an instrumentality that did not exist during his time?  Impossible.  And yet people will try... and pretend they have an answer and act with obnoxious conviction that they have the "truth" on the matter.




    All firearms in Madison's day were "assault" rifles.  They are important then, important now.  funny how the Brits at the time sought to limit firearms in the colonies.  huh.  I wonder why.

    Easy.  next.




    Yuck, yuck.  In a world of single shot flintlocks Madison could not conceive of semi-automatic weapons. Easy. Next.




    The weapon is not the issue. Self defense is the issue.  The brits sought to keep the colonies disarmed.  they marched to concord to confiscate their arms and guns.  They were stopped. 

    This is the condition into which the 2nd amendment was written, recognizing our right to bear arms.  Doesn't say flintlocks. 

    Easy.  next.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    To say our rights come from "the people" means exactly the same as our rights come from "Government".  Either we have inalienable rights outside government's reach, or we dont.


    Though drinking alcohol is not an inalienable right from God, you still prove the point with your example ....the Government can give it , and then take it away!

    Alcohol via drunk driving kills more Americans than guns, by the way..consistent with the progressive view of Government's Nanny State role, prohibition was a 'progressive' cause in the early 20th century, along with Eugenics..just as prohibition of gun ownership is a liberal solution today. 

     

    NR:

     The signatories of the Declaration were saying that certain rights are built directly into each human being. You don’t actually have to believe in God to understand the concept. You enter this world with unalienable rights that are not granted by the government… and cannot be withdrawn at the pleasure of government. No one can pass legislation to take these rights away. Even if every single one of your fellow citizens votes to strip one of your unalienable rights from you, the government cannot do so, without sacrificing its legitimacy.

    From this concept we draw one of humanity’s greatest moral and intellectual achievements: laws that restrain the government."

    Progressives may mock belief in a Deity, but of course leftists make Bible-thumping Fundamentalists look sober and rational, compared to the Progressive worship and unending faith in a  "God that Failed". And will fail again.



    Now I know you are ignorant.  Even under natural rights theory, people have to rationally determine what the rights are (and ultimately what their limitations are).  They create government to protect those rights.  See it all comes back to the people.  But do find the political liberal philosopher that says "government" creates rights.  I will wait...



    Once again you fail to understand the simplest of concepts.  Man is not the determinant of what rights we have, only what rights we can exercise.  That a government denies or infringes on a right doesn't make it "right".

    You lean on social theory because you deny the existence of god.  Understandably, your knowledge rests on the imperfection of man, i.e. flawed.



    Your theory is flawed because it relies on a vague mythology.  Do you honestly think the Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were priests determining the mind of God?  And they concluded that God's will was that we should have slavery?  And do you have the arrogance to speak of the mind of God on such matters now?  Absurd. Hint:  God is not a homophobe. 



  • You deftly point out that men are flawed, and God is not.  That you can't see God at work in the founding fathers recognizing our rights is to your detriment, not your advantage.

    It is dangerous to think that rights are created by men.  You consider the founding fathers to be evil, and yet you consider Obama to be angelic.  That, my friend, is the danger in dependence on man.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    "We have rights because people find the idea socially useful."

    Such a frightening statement proves how dangerous it is to think that natural rights are created by men.

    The disabled and elderly are not very "socially useful", are they?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You deftly point out that men are flawed, and God is not.  That you can't see God at work in the founding fathers recognizing our rights is to your detriment, not your advantage.

    It is dangerous to think that rights are created by men.  You consider the founding fathers to be evil, and yet you consider Obama to be angelic.  That, my friend, is the danger in dependence on man.

    [/QUOTE]


    The point is that rights are rationally determined by the people. The Founders were exceptional people, but still imprisoned in the environment of their times.  Hence slavery was legal and they had a whole Amendment devoted to quartering.  And we should not be imprisoned by that environment now.

    And the Founders are in no way evil: that's just a nonsense retort by you.  And Obama is no angel: again a nonsense retort.  Why do you feel it necessary too so grossly exaggerate the views of liberals?  It really shows a high level of willful ideological ignorance.  Think more.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    "We have rights because people find the idea socially useful."

    Such a frightening statement proves how dangerous it is to think that natural rights are created by men.

    The disabled and elderly are not very "socially useful", are they?



    Now, now... surely you know their are democratic theorists who don't believe in natural rights.  Is John Stuart Mill a "frightening" and "dangerous" political thinker?  You really ought to read some philosophy.  Try some history and law books too.

    And compassion towards the downtrodden is far more an element of liberal social policy than conservative.  You would be quite happy depriving them of rights to social welfare benefits, rights created and maintained by liberals as socially useful and beneficial.  You don't really like rights much you would love to exclude a bunch according to your "moral" precepts.

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    The point is that rights are rationally determined by the people. The Founders were exceptional people, but still imprisoned in the environment of their times.  Hence slavery was legal and they had a whole Amendment devoted to quartering.  And we should not be imprisoned by that environment now.

     

    Which is why they had the foresight to place the means of changing the constitution directly in the constitution. If you want it changed then amend it, just don't pretend that you and people like you are wiser than they were.

     

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    The point is that rights are rationally determined by the people. The Founders were exceptional people, but still imprisoned in the environment of their times.  Hence slavery was legal and they had a whole Amendment devoted to quartering.  And we should not be imprisoned by that environment now.

     

     

    Which is why they had the foresight to place the means of changing the constitution directly in the constitution. If you want it changed then amend it, just don't pretend that you and people like you are wiser than they were.

     



    No need.  Words have meaning and many of the words used in the Constitution have expansive meanings.  This was done purposely so that future generations could have the flexibility of law and ideas that are not frozen in time. 

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     



    You deftly point out that men are flawed, and God is not.  That you can't see God at work in the founding fathers recognizing our rights is to your detriment, not your advantage.

    It is dangerous to think that rights are created by men.  You consider the founding fathers to be evil, and yet you consider Obama to be angelic.  That, my friend, is the danger in dependence on man.




    The point is that rights are rationally determined by the people. The Founders were exceptional people, but still imprisoned in the environment of their times.  Hence slavery was legal and they had a whole Amendment devoted to quartering.  And we should not be imprisoned by that environment now.

    And the Founders are in no way evil: that's just a nonsense retort by you.  And Obama is no angel: again a nonsense retort.  Why do you feel it necessary too so grossly exaggerate the views of liberals?  It really shows a high level of willful ideological ignorance.  Think more.




    I get your point, it is just that I think you are wrong.  People don't determine rights, people determine privledges.

     

    As far as quartering troops and slavery, two different issues.  Let's take the more interesting one:  quartering troops.  So,  is it your position that being protected against quartering troops is no longer an issue.  So, in your view, that means what, that you no longer have to fear quartering troops, or that it is O.K. to have the government demand you quarter troops?

     
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: NY Times editorial: Let's Give Up On the Constitution

    Oh, the prominent mocking of the small group of unhappy conservatives who proposed secession after the election was endless. They deserved mocking, playing with such a radical notion.

    Yet, a leading liberal intellectual is given prime editorial coverage in the NY Times , to propose trashing the 220 year old US Constitution, because it is inconvenient for liberals. Obama wants to "fundanentally change the US", and this old parchment stands in his way. The NY Times will do its part.

     

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share