TexasCHLforum.com

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?

Link, but sit down with smelling salts handy if you read it: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opini ... =all&_r=1&

This is undoubtedly one of the most obscene editorials I have read. I don't even have words to describe the contempt I feel for this supposed intelligent writer.

It is inconvenient that so many of us still cling to our guns, our religions, our Constitution, our principles. Hopefully those members of the House will continue to do so, without fail. That may be all that stands in the way of the triumph of world-wide Communism, the last hurdle before victory at long last.

The Communists formerly known as Democrats have been ignoring the Constitution bit by bit for decades, and now, like eating an elephant, it is time to try to serve the final morsel, the Pièce de résistance!

Written by a professor of Constitutional Law none the less. Sad.

JALLEN, I tried, but just couldn't make it through that disgusting pile of garbage. That is the type of person who enables horrific events like the Holocaust, the Holodomor, the Killing Fields...because he believes that the government should simply just change whatever the laws are at any given moment to suit the people running the government and that the end justifies the means. And due to the rules of decorum on here, that is about all I'm going to say about that guy.

He's a constitutional schooler. Wasn't Obummer a teacher of constitutional law?

If you can get past the bad feelings that his title brings, the author asks some valid questions, IMO.

If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

Obama is "The Great Divider".
Never in my lifetime have I experienced the effect of someone so uniquely unqualified to lead a great nation.

RoyGBiv wrote:If you can get past the bad feelings that his title brings, the author asks some valid questions, IMO.

If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

Obama is "The Great Divider".
Never in my lifetime have I experienced the effect of someone so uniquely unqualified to lead a great nation.

Where does the Constitution force people "to give up their moral and political judgments?"

The Constitution sets up the structure of the federal government, divvying up the various powers and duties. Congressmen get two year terms, Senators get 6, the President 4 etc. Judges serve for life during good behavior.

The Bill of Rights doesn't force anybody to do anything. Completely to the contrary, it forces the government to limit what it can do to us.

So, he wants to get rid of the Constitution. Well, go ahead. No Constitution, no Supreme Court, no Congress, no Presidency. No federal government.

JJVP wrote:So, he wants to get rid of the Constitution. Well, go ahead. No Constitution, no Supreme Court, no Congress, no Presidency. No federal government.

He doesn't want to get rid of government. He just doesn't want it restrained by a Constitution.

RoyGBiv wrote:If you can get past the bad feelings that his title brings, the author asks some valid questions, IMO.

If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

Obama is "The Great Divider".
Never in my lifetime have I experienced the effect of someone so uniquely unqualified to lead a great nation.

...and I served under Carter.

Dragonfighter wrote:

RoyGBiv wrote:If you can get past the bad feelings that his title brings, the author asks some valid questions, IMO.

If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

Obama is "The Great Divider".
Never in my lifetime have I experienced the effect of someone so uniquely unqualified to lead a great nation.

...and I served under Carter.

for that, I would not only say "Thank you for your service".... but also add thank you for your resolve and dedication under the circumstances.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of "scholars" that our educational system produces. Not a single mention is made of the Federalist papers which explained in detail what the framers of the Constitution were using as a basis. And not a single hint about a better way to do things. I'd bet that, with intense questioning, it would be abundantly clear that Mr. Seidman favors dictatorship because it is so much more efficient. After all, why would you want to force deliberate governmental action with silly things like a balance of power? A good dictator could simply do whatever he wanted without such arcane incumbents.

Nor am I surprised that such a article would emanate from the cesspool that is the NYT. I only wish that we could force the Sultzbergers to live under the government that they are trying to impose on the rest of us.

I'm keeping a link to the article so that when some Lib tells me that his group is not trying to abandon the Constitution, I can rub his/her nose it it. It is exactly like Feinstein and the AWB. It is nothing more than a small first step towards the end that she wants.

All of you who don't want to live under the Constitution are very welcome to take the next plane out of the country. Call me - I'll hold the door for you as long as you leave and promise never to come back.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

JJVP wrote:So, he wants to get rid of the Constitution. Well, go ahead. No Constitution, no Supreme Court, no Congress, no Presidency. No federal government.

He doesn't want to get rid of government. He just doesn't want it restrained by a Constitution.

The government was created by the Constitution. Without a constitution, there is no government. But, I agree that Obama would like to get rid of the constitution and proclaim himself a dictator.

They've always believed the Constitution is evil, where "evil" is defined as any impediment to the left gaining power and total control over the rest of us. It's just that now the re-election of The One has emboldened them to reveal their true feelings. All signs continue to indicate that the collectivists are going for broke while the Dear Leader holds the reigns of power. Ein volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer.