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.