Let's face it. The constitution has been violated to the point where its not really viable anymore.
"Freedom of speech." Yet you are not allowed to use a loudspeaker to blare music or political propaganda into a neighbor's home 24/7.
"Right to keep and bear arms" Yet there are many weapons that we are not allowed to have.
"Protection from unreasonable search and seizure." There is admitted widespread surveillance of most citizens.
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" Confiscation of illegal goods.
"nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" Guantanamo Bay.
These are just a few examples.
I think what matters is that we think about whether we want to live in a world where we follow the constitution exactly. If so, are we willing to live in a world where there is unlimited, unrestricted speech? Should human sacrifice be allowed under freedom of religion?
If we don't, we need to be honest about how we're comfortable with making exceptions to the rules and start a national discussion about what we really want in our society.
Absolutely one of the silliest ideas I've heard yet, which is unfortunately being taken seriously. Personally, if he hates what makes America America so much, then he should just leave. He's happy, we're happy. Problem solved.
GloomyPandaBearFeatured By OwnerJan 6, 2013Hobbyist Traditional Artist
We don't necessarily need to give up on the constitution, but rather tweak it a little. Time goes on and things change and people abuse the rights the Constitution has provided us. Like the right to bare arms was originally for protection and now many have died because of the people who abuse that right. It's like what ~qwertywithak It's like the bible just misrepresented. The Constitution is not something that tells you how to live each day, it's just saying what rights we have.
How about instead of taking the right to bear arms away from the sane people, why not just make sure that douchebags like the ones that massacred all those people don't get to buy guns? Or maybe stop giving so much attention to those that do these shootings? They're doing it for attention. We should stop referring to the gunmen by name, and stop even mentioning their genders. Just something like "gunman #(insert random number here) has shot(insert number) people and killed (insert number) before attempting suicide by shooting itself in the head." No name, no gender, no photos or anything. We're turning these murderers into celebrities! I mean, you know how many idiots are fans of that sicko that murdered Sharon Tate? It should have been exterminated for what it did.
qwertywithakFeatured By OwnerJan 3, 2013Hobbyist Writer
How can you argue with the basic tenants, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? It's a great document, it was founded on by those ideas. However the U.S. government likes to amend things, and pick and choose. The constitution has become like the bible, so misrepresented.
The constitution started being amended almost as soon as the ink dried, and more people know what the Bill of Rights amendments say than what the actual constitution contains. The founders were not perfect beings, and we really need to stop taking their ideas as sacrosanct.
P.S. The constitution mentions none of those 'tenants', and their definition of "all men" was appallingly limited.
A Constitution by no means guaratees anything. It is a document, and if the people in power choose to violate it, and their military supports them, everyone else is screwed.
A Constitutional Scholar need not support it any more than an Economist needs to support capitalism. Being well-learned on any subject simply means you are well learned on it, it does not mean your opinion after learning about it, favors it.
darkzero779Featured By OwnerJan 2, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
im all dead inside somewhere....And I dont want to give up....But thanks to my generations ignorance ...i cant do a thing....even if i did...if i did any good it would be pointed out as evil...such an appalling thing to uphold in their minds..
The Constitution is in need of changing, mostly to remove loopholes that allow opportunistic politicians to sneak things in, but with today's current thinking, any changes will only be for the worse, not the better.
I don't know that the constitution is as special as we make it seem. But there are some good ideas. Some fine proscriptions against the excesses and abuses that have haunted societies through recorded history.
But constitutional law desperately needs clarification and strengthening, so that it will be forever outside the ability of our bought-and-paid for Supreme Court to pervert it. Moreover, it needs teeth - so that when officials such as those in both the Bush and Obama Administrations flout it, they will face swift removal from office, legal consequences, and public disgrace.
Required reading: [link] While I don't agree that the Constitution should be thrown out entirely, I do think that Professor Seidman's points are extremely well made and that this 'antiquated document' as *Abstract-Mindser put it, can and should be (massively) updated.
Can't really comment on it, other than that America isn't the only "democracy" in the world, and ditching our Constitution as written doesn't necessarily mean embracing fascism or other undesirable forms of government. Also given that he's a professor at an East Coast university, and given no bias for or against political conservatism by virtue of it being a Jesuit school, chances are excellent he's a liberal.
I think the Constitution is fine, in a general sense. We just need to accept that it was written in a different era, and worry more about translating the spirit of it to the modern world than sticking to the letter that obviously couldn't fortune tell.
I can't view the link as it's demanding I log in, so my opinion here is limited. It really depends on the context he meant whether this is a great idea or an abhorrent one. Throwing out the constitution would mean throwing out the current government structure, as the 3 branches of American government were created by it. It's not bad in the context of setting up an innovative new government structure that better addresses the sources of modern corruption, economics, and information but utterly idiotic in the context of pursuing anarchy. Either way I feel it's an unrealistic goal in itself though.