http://www.nytimes.com/2012...nstitution.html?_r=0

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: http://www.nytimes.com/2012...nstitution.html?_r=0

Sounds like typical liberal philosophy to me. Some one just put it in other words "The Constitution is a living breathing document". IF that were true then ANYTHING could be made "LAW" and would lead to the kind of government that the article alludes to.

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 01-02-2013).]

quote Originally posted by MidEngineManiac: http://www.nytimes.com/2012...nstitution.html?_r=0

I couldnt finish the article. If I did, Id be driving to new york to knock on that guys front door...

Article: "AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken."

Um no, still the best.
We do grow more and more skilled at trying to undermine it though.

Yup, remove the check and balances from the system along with the document that defined the nation and you can make anything you want to be the law.

Not surprising but certainly appalling.

the constitution in our economy has worked for hundreds of years and is not the culprit. the culprit is the measure of the select fews greed and what they will do to feed it.

The guy is a complete ****ing idiot. No thought or consequence to the fact that the house was under Democrat rule for the past decade with the exception of the past 2 years... and completely ignoring the fact that our constitution has been a model for countless other countries and which has allowed us to become the #1 superpower that we are today.

I'm not going to put the blame on all Democrats, but there is a growing number of Democrats that believe a debt limit is silly and that it's economically feasible to grow the economy through printing money and spending it in the private and public sector.

I could not possibly dissagree more... but there are a LOT of Democrats who believe this philosophy... and that's essentially what this "journalist" is basically suggesting the house should have done.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: Sounds like typical liberal philosophy to me. Some one just put it in other words "The Constitution is a living breathing document". IF that were true then ANYTHING could be made "LAW" and would lead to the kind of government that the article alludes to.

Ya, that statement annoys the hell out me.. almost as much as the people that actually believe it.

I agree with all of you (with the exception of going to beat the guy ). His historical points of Constitutional abuse only prove that some have gone beyond their constitutional authority...not that it was a great idea. I can't even fathom trying to run our country without a written mandate. If you don't like the Constitution, amend it. Funny how his first amendment rights allow him to voice an opinion.

The Constitution has already been twisted and abused. This has happened before, and will happen again.

The only real question is if the changes will come in our current government, or the one that rises from it's ashes after it collapses under it's own weight.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 01-02-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The guy is a complete ****ing idiot.

Heh, I actually like the idea he espouses. We are held together by our ratification of the Constitution. Getting rid of the Constitution would make succession much easier. I am all for allowing the bastions of Liberal and Progressive ideology to fail on their own.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: Heh, I actually like the idea he espouses. We are held together by our ratification of the Constitution. Getting rid of the Constitution would make succession much easier. I am all for allowing the bastions of Liberal and Progressive ideology to fail on their own.

Careful, California needs States like yours to keep us afloat

The author of the article appeared on Fox News, upon invitation, and discussed his reasoning. Kudos for him having more balls than Nobama. He actually made a logical case, though not one I would buy. He didn't just write that op-ed, he also has a book.
I was on the way out the door and did not catch the interview fully but I recorded it. Let me get his name, and a few of his points, and post back.

Did Fox actually let me complete his thoughts? Or did they cut him short and warp his already screwed up opinions?

Define FOX. Yes, I know O'Reily and Hannity push an agenda. I know FOX has a lean. Not surprising in today's media outlets.
Yes, he was able to articulate his thoughts. He was on FOX's America Live with Megan Kelly. I appreciate her show's more neutral reporting, as well as Cavuto's, and Bret Baer's Special Report. The actions you allude to are reprehensible to me also. Sometimes though, a guest will not directly answer a question and need to be pressed.
Fair and balanced, is something I gain by entertaining different news/info/propaganda sources. Along with asking questions, and discussions such as we have here.
Back to the topic.
I went back now that I had time and really listened to the dude (Mike Siedman). It was disclosed that he has a book out. "Constitutional Disobedience". Heh, me thinks he sensationalized the op-ed for book sales publicity. However, here were his points he made to Megan Kelly, paraphrased by me.
He said we do not want the Europeans telling us how we should live, nor anyone else. He questions why we are letting 200+ year old dead corpses do so.
He questions why the Constitution is so hard to amend, lamenting that a small majority can block amendments.
He was misinterpreted as advocating majority rule. He danced a little denying it, suggesting instead, that the tenants of the Constitution need to be defended in today's terms (which mirrors the Constitution being a living document argument, in my opinion).
He claimed he believed in the right to own guns. His belief he claimed was from the arguments of today by the NRA that gun control will not work.
He also opined with disgust that when the Constitution needs defending today, lawyers get involved, judges legislate from the bench etc.

I won't be buying his book.

I also watched the interview and found that the author.made.some very interesting and thought provoking statements. I did not think he was a.liberal kook. He has been a professor of constitutional law for many decades, and has evaluated the many ways that the the constitution has been attacked and manipulated by politicians since our founding. I got the impression that his thesis is more about strengthening and reaffirming the values and limitations on governmental power set forth in our constitution, rather than dismantling it.