NYT: US Constitution sucks

[VMI77]

According to the New York Times, the US Constitution sucks for "modern" living, because it doesn't make entitlement to free food, education, and health care, a RIGHT, but makes it a right to own guns --and equates the US to Mexico and Guatemala. Hey, our Constitution is "terse and old" and guarantees "few rights," but India and South Africa have great Constitutions, they're not a "legal backwater" like the US.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/w ... AY&ei=5065

The authoritarian bootlickers at the NYT can't go bankrupt fast enough (financially I mean, they're already morally bankrupt).

[RoyGBiv]

Not quite as bad as you made it sound...

I'm open for debate about our Constitution... IMO, it needs major work. Commerce clause needs rewriting, term limits across the board, limits on appropriations and spending, in short, more limits on Federal power....

The quote at the end form Scalia was a good one... Where he emphasizes the substance of our Constitution, maybe hinting at We The People's willingness to live by it's words, rather than just be placated by them.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

[VMI77]

Not quite as bad as you made it sound...

I'm open for debate about our Constitution... IMO, it needs major work. Commerce clause needs rewriting, term limits across the board, limits on appropriations and spending, in short, more limits on Federal power....

The quote at the end form Scalia was a good one... Where he emphasizes the substance of our Constitution, maybe hinting at We The People's willingness to live by it's words, rather than just be placated by them.

“The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,” he said, adding: “We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!”

“Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “it’s just words on paper, what our framers would have called a ‘parchment guarantee.’ ”

Yes, I was somewhat hyperbolic......however, what you're suggesting is tuning, and in the direction originally intended, to limit State power. What the NYT suggests, without coming right out and saying so, is a change in the fundamental concept of what constitutes a right. If someone has a right to own a gun, or worship God as they please, it imposes no burden on me. However, if someone has a "right" to be fed, educated, and taken care of, then someone else must be coerced through the power of The State, to provide it. That distinction is what makes our Constitution unique, and frankly, better than any other Constitution. The NYT would have us believe the philosophy embodied in our Constitution is outmoded. So, yes, "sucks" is an exaggeration, but it's clear, they would love to impose an entitlement Constitution, and do away with notions like the right to bear arms.

[bizarrenormality]

Commerce clause needs rewriting

Commerce clause needs enforcing, with felony convictions for politicians who violate the constitution.

[Heartland Patriot]

Commerce clause needs rewriting

Commerce clause needs enforcing, with felony convictions for politicians who violate the constitution.

No, I agree that it needs rewriting, since its so darned vague that some politicians can find it covers FORCING people to buy things...like health insurance. And if they can get the SCOTUS to buy off on that one, they can force you to buy ANYTHING they want you to buy. It needs to be more to the point about the real reason its there...and it wasn't to mandate some national healthcare scam.

[n5wd]

While it could use updating, the chances of getting a majority of folks together to agree on anything would seem to be so slim as to be incomprehensible.

[EconDoc]

Perhaps, it is losing its appeal because most folks want to have limited rights. Also, why should other countries copy ours when our own "rulers" (i.e. elected officials) treat it with such disrespect? After all, most politicians, of both parties will wrap the Constitution around themselves when it suits their purpose and then use it for toilet paper when it gets in the way of what they want to do to us.

Maybe, if US citizens really knew what the Constitution says and how the Founders intended it to be read, then things would change.

Finally, the cynical, suspicious side of my nature is wondering if this is the preamble to a major push by certain groups to "update" or even replace our Constitution with one more to their liking--one that would allow the full establishment of a much different form of government.

[MeMelYup]

People do not have the right to be fed. They do have the right to feed themselves.
The people do not have the right to medical treatment. They do have the right to seek medical treatment for themselves and their families.
I am not my brothers keeper. I will help a brother or sister, I will not support them. It is difficult enough to support my own family.

[MeMelYup]

I read this article and it makes me wonder how a person with the education of a Supreme Court Justice can be so blind, so narrow minded, and not be able to see something unless it is specifically spelled out for them.
They are right in that the U. S. Constitution does not give one any rights, it just reaffirms inalienable rights.

1st Amendment U. S. Constitution states:
Congress Shall Make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Congress Shall Make no law respecting establishment of religion (means to me that the politicians cannot make any law selecting one religion over another, ie., Church of England, or early days of Texas while still part of Mexico one had to be Catholic to be a land holder, it also does not guarantee freedom from religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (a person cannot be stopped from going to church or praying, one cannot require others to pray with them either); or abridging the freedom of speech (you can shout fire all you want, you cannot do it where it might endanger others, it requires common sense), or of the press (I think the reporting should be unbiased and truthful, editorials are for opinions); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (go to church, have a tailgate party, etc., as long as the rights of another are not infringed upon), and to petition the Government for redress of grievances (we have the inherent right to address the government, through our elected officials, if there is something we don’t agree with).

The other amendments are the same; they need to be argued by the people so the interpretations become more fully understood. This is possibly one of the problems with the U. S. Constitution today in that most people, including some of our Supreme Court Appointees, do not understand it. I know I didn’t when I was younger, there are still parts that I could use more knowledge about.

[Heartland Patriot]

I read this article and it makes me wonder how a person with the education of a Supreme Court Justice can be so blind, so narrow minded, and not be able to see something unless it is specifically spelled out for them.
They are right in that the U. S. Constitution does not give one any rights, it just reaffirms inalienable rights.

1st Amendment U. S. Constitution states:
Congress Shall Make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Congress Shall Make no law respecting establishment of religion (means to me that the politicians cannot make any law selecting one religion over another, ie., Church of England, or early days of Texas while still part of Mexico one had to be Catholic to be a land holder, it also does not guarantee freedom from religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (a person cannot be stopped from going to church or praying, one cannot require others to pray with them either); or abridging the freedom of speech (you can shout fire all you want, you cannot do it where it might endanger others, it requires common sense), or of the press (I think the reporting should be unbiased and truthful, editorials are for opinions); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (go to church, have a tailgate party, etc., as long as the rights of another are not infringed upon), and to petition the Government for redress of grievances (we have the inherent right to address the government, through our elected officials, if there is something we don’t agree with).

The other amendments are the same; they need to be argued by the people so the interpretations become more fully understood. This is possibly one of the problems with the U. S. Constitution today in that most people, including some of our Supreme Court Appointees, do not understand it. I know I didn’t when I was younger, there are still parts that I could use more knowledge about.

(I highlighted and underlined part of what you said that I wanted to reply to...)

It seems that many people are of this opinion...that is, they believe those on the left to simply be mis-informed or misguided. And on that, I disagree wholeheartedly. Those folks on the left KNOW what it is that they say...they KNOW that its not correct. They simply DO NOT CARE. They want things to be re-made a certain way and they don't care what gets shoved aside to remake things they way they want them to be. They want UTOPIA (even though it is simply an impossibility). They think that if they just make the rules and regulations a certain way, and have the right people running things, that they can bring utopia about...they are ideologically driven by that and they use any means at their disposal to get to that goal. (See Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" for one version of a tactics manual.) Not ONE of us ____________ (fill in the blank with words like teabillie, fly-over country, clinging to guns and religion, etc) means a darned thing to them, not matter what they might spout. They only care about the goal and if hundreds, thousands, even millions of us "regular folks" get ground up in the process, so be it. Look at what those such as Lenin, Stalin, Hilter, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, the Kims of NK, and the rest of their ilk did to get an indication of who these people are...the only difference is in DEGREE. THAT is how that Supreme Court "Justice" really is...that is who she is in her HEART...and I'm NOT trying to be hyperbolic to prove a point...this is how I see "The Left" in all its incarnations. I only wish I were as eloquent at this stuff as TAM is, then maybe what I say would make more sense.

[VMI77]

I read this article and it makes me wonder how a person with the education of a Supreme Court Justice can be so blind, so narrow minded, and not be able to see something unless it is specifically spelled out for them.
They are right in that the U. S. Constitution does not give one any rights, it just reaffirms inalienable rights.

1st Amendment U. S. Constitution states:
Congress Shall Make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.

Congress Shall Make no law respecting establishment of religion (means to me that the politicians cannot make any law selecting one religion over another, ie., Church of England, or early days of Texas while still part of Mexico one had to be Catholic to be a land holder, it also does not guarantee freedom from religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (a person cannot be stopped from going to church or praying, one cannot require others to pray with them either); or abridging the freedom of speech (you can shout fire all you want, you cannot do it where it might endanger others, it requires common sense), or of the press (I think the reporting should be unbiased and truthful, editorials are for opinions); or the right of the people peaceably to assemble (go to church, have a tailgate party, etc., as long as the rights of another are not infringed upon), and to petition the Government for redress of grievances (we have the inherent right to address the government, through our elected officials, if there is something we don’t agree with).

The other amendments are the same; they need to be argued by the people so the interpretations become more fully understood. This is possibly one of the problems with the U. S. Constitution today in that most people, including some of our Supreme Court Appointees, do not understand it. I know I didn’t when I was younger, there are still parts that I could use more knowledge about.

(I highlighted and underlined part of what you said that I wanted to reply to...)

It seems that many people are of this opinion...that is, they believe those on the left to simply be mis-informed or misguided. And on that, I disagree wholeheartedly. Those folks on the left KNOW what it is that they say...they KNOW that its not correct. They simply DO NOT CARE. They want things to be re-made a certain way and they don't care what gets shoved aside to remake things they way they want them to be. They want UTOPIA (even though it is simply an impossibility). They think that if they just make the rules and regulations a certain way, and have the right people running things, that they can bring utopia about...they are ideologically driven by that and they use any means at their disposal to get to that goal. (See Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" for one version of a tactics manual.) Not ONE of us ____________ (fill in the blank with words like teabillie, fly-over country, clinging to guns and religion, etc) means a darned thing to them, not matter what they might spout. They only care about the goal and if hundreds, thousands, even millions of us "regular folks" get ground up in the process, so be it. Look at what those such as Lenin, Stalin, Hilter, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel, the Kims of NK, and the rest of their ilk did to get an indication of who these people are...the only difference is in DEGREE. THAT is how that Supreme Court "Justice" really is...that is who she is in her HEART...and I'm NOT trying to be hyperbolic to prove a point...this is how I see "The Left" in all its incarnations. I only wish I were as eloquent at this stuff as TAM is, then maybe what I say would make more sense.

While I am in broad agreement I think the fundamental distinction can be rather simply addressed: the US Constitution is based on the belief that groups don't have rights, only individuals do; and the liberal/left/socialist view is that rights accrue to groups, and in fact, individuals have no rights, but merely privileges allowed solely in the interest of benefiting the group. Or, as said on Star Trek, the Constitutional position is that the right of the one outweighs the desires of the many and the collectivist position is that the desires of the many outweigh the rights of the one, or the few.

The collectivist position sounds good to the ignorant and unthinking but the practical consequence of collectivism is to eliminate all limits to power (which is essentially the definition of evil) since ANY act may be justified merely by referencing the "needs" of the group that justifies the desired application of power. That's why collectivism is the most voracious killing machine ever created. The Founders understood this and created a Constitution that celebrates individual rights and limits the power of one person over another.