The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central NYT now honest and open in assault on Constitution

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinio...ed=all&_r=0

The NYT, and indeed the entire radical left it speaks for has of course been passively hostile to the Constitution for quite some time.

The hostility is now moving out of the closet, and into the open. In a way its kind of refreshing to see some honesty. Not that the entire article is honest - far from it. But at least the hostility towards our system of Govt and the founding principles of the nation is no longer veiled.

Also, the article states : "IN the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. "

Pretty laughable, considering our society becomes ever more Hobbesian with the passage of time, in direct correlation with the de facto disintegration of Constitutional authority.

So, an op-ed piece from a non-regular contributor that no one follows speaks for the NTY and the entire left? And this is a coming out party for constitutinol shredding 99%ers? And this is a constitutional law expert speaking from this expertise and not politics? You are in the right to disagree but easy on the conclusions. Trust me, the green party is just as zealous in their pocket constitutions as the tea party.

Stop making sense when I am in the middle of lobbing bombs please =(

j/k

In all seriousness though, NYT has every bit as much of an editorial agenda as NewsCorp owned properties and even some leftists here on this forum have been questioning the validity of the Constitution in the past. So while what you point out is true, I still find it troubling and it certainly is not being greenlit for the front page (online) in a vacuum.

Well, I read the whole thing. The title and the first couple of paragraphs are actually negatively misleading. It seems to me that all this guy is suggesting is that current policies be free from the interpretation of some of the constitution's arcane language. I don't entirely disagree. While I believe firmly that the founding father's hearts were in the right place when they wrote the document, I also think that it's foolish to believe that they could have drafted such a masterpiece that it would serve us perfectly throughout the ages regardless of the changes in political climate, technology, or social issues. I think this guy may be a bit extreme with some of his suggestions, but I don't think he's completely misguided. My opinion is that his premise is worth exploring, but by using established methods and enacting new constitutional amendments.

Now, there is an established method for changing the constitution by appending amendments. But the fact is that none have been enacted for 20 years, and the last one to be enacted was a congressional salary amendment! Before that, you have to go back another 20 years to find the last amendment. If he believes the president has too much war declaration authority, or the congress needs additional checks on its ability to dip into the treasury, or whatever, then that's fine. We should address such concerns individually and comprehensively in constitutional amendments.

I cannot believe that abandoning the constitution altogether is a responsible course of action. Also, if I were Georgetown University, I might consider asking this guy to teach something other than constitutional law... I'm just sayin.

I don't think these changes make as large an impact as people seem to think. What the founders seem to have understood goes beyond social issues and technology. They seemed to have a fundamental understanding of what drives men to do the things we do. They never claimed it was perfect. It was a work of compromise with the ability to change it built in. The problems we face are not the product of an outdated document. They are exactly the problems the founders predicted would arise when the populace refused to stay educated and informed, and agreed to be lead around like sheep.

The way I read it was more along the lines of "these pesky restrictions on, and delineation of, power and authority are inconvenient".

He was trying to justify scrapping it based on the idea that the Constitution has been ignored to some degree in the past, and the world did not immediately end.

I find this the most dangerous type of thinking, it intentionally crumbles the perceived moral authority of the rule of law in favor of mob rule.

I disagree. I think SCOTUS has by far more impact than the Constitution. Just look on views on Corporations - it drastically changed since the days of founders.

Now at the dawn of Information Age and the end of Industrial Age we will see just how ill-equipped Constitution is to serve our needs and safeguard our freedoms. In 40 years Constitution will be about as relevant as Bible.

Freedom of speech? What does it matter when all communication is done via private corporate-owned medium? Property ownership? What does it matter when everything is license to use with at-will termination clauses in the TOS?

You misunderstood me. I said that things like the societal changes and technology aren't the culprits for undermining the validity of the Constitution, which seems to be the standard argument against it. The SCOTUS running wild and doing whatever they want regardless of the Constitution is a result of people not paying attention and staying educated. Our system of government only works correctly when citizens pay attention, hold elected officials accountable and ensure that the agenda pushed by the representatives is the will of the people. Unfortunately, the largess afforded by the success of our nation has bred a lazy and ill-informed populace who do not have the will nor the desire to work/sacrifice for success.

Now the true sini is out, I see the real progressive finally has come out.