Below is my column on the increasing condemnations of “constitutionalism” as the root of our problems as a nation. The latest such attack came from two professors in the New York Times in a column titled The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed. It is part of a crisis of faith sweeping the nation. There are good-faith objections to such institutions as the electoral college, but the growing attacks on the Constitution reflects a more significant break with our constitutional values and traditions.
Here is the column:
It appears that we may finally to be coming out of the campaign on the left to “pack the court” with a liberal majority. That is good news. The problem is that many on the left have turned their ire on the Constitution itself as the root of all evil in our country. In a New York Times essay, law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale are calling for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from Constitutionalism.” In order to accomplish this dubious objective, they call for shifting from the “Pack the Court” to “Pack the States.” The attack on “constitutionalism” is chilling but these professors are not the first to lash out at our Constitution as the scourge of social justice.
The New York Times column called for citizens to view the Constitution as the real enemy and to push to “radically alter the basic rules of the game.” The attack on our Constitution has become something of an article of faith for the far left in recent years.
Recently, Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks drew accolades for her appearance on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” after declaring that Americans are “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
CBS recently featured Boston University Professor Ibram X. Kendi, who proclaimed that the Second Amendment was little more than “the right to enslave.”
MSNBC commentator and the Nation’s Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal has called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should ideally just dump it. Mystal, who also writes for Above the Law, previously stated that white, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans because they care about “using their guns on Black people and getting away with it.”
Doerfler and Moyn make the same case with a twist in seeking to pack the states. They insist that “The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism.” Rather than recognize that this document has produced the longest standing and most stable democratic system in history, professors denounced it as a “some centuries-old text” because it stands as a barrier to their social and political agenda. The problem, they suggest, is that many liberals still believe in constitutionalism as opposed to raw majority power.
Some are calling for “popular democracy” as an alternative approach to governance. The term is often associated with “direct democracy” where citizens have unfiltered and direct say in government decisions. It was the model expressly rejected by the Framers in favor of our system of representative democracy.
In Federalist 10, Madison wrote:
“Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
Instead, he created a system by which public passions could be filtered or expressed through a smaller group of representatives, to temper and refine popular impulse.
In addition to our system of representative democracy, we have institutions designed to resist popular impulse or demands. The United States Supreme Court is the principal example in using elements like life tenure to stand against majoritarian demands and what Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.”
That system has served us well. It was the countermajoritarian role that allowed the Court to strike down bans on interracial marriage, decriminalize homosexuality, and protect the rights of the accused.
However, the constitutional process strives for consensus and compromise, key elements in the success and stability of our system through decades of political and social upheaval. Yet, these professors complain that the left has “agonizingly little to show for it” and should now “radically alter the basic rules of the game.” After all, they noted, “It would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without having to bother with the Constitution.” That is certainly correct. Without constitutionalism, everything then becomes a majoritarian muscle way with little need to compromise or even to consider the views of the minority.
The solution, therefore, is not to “pack the court” but “to pack the Union with new states” to change the Constitution and “reinvent” society.
They are at least open and honest about their motivations and means. The essay confirms the view of critics that the push of Democrats to create new states in Puerto Rico and D.C. are meant to secure an insurmountable majority in the push for radical changes.
It is similar to the remarks of Harvard professor Michael Klarman two years ago for court packing and insisted that Democrats can change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election,” at least not without abandoning their values. However, Klarman warned “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described” so the court must be packed in advance to allow these changes to occur.
Democratic leaders have echoed these sentiments by calling for court packing and questioning core institutions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass, has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and has called to pack the Court for rending opinions against “widely held public opinion.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., even questioned the institution’s value: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.”
The attack on “constitutionalism” says all that one needs to know about this campaign. The Constitution has long been the very thing that defined us. It is a shared covenant of faith, not with the government but with each other. Untethered from such constitutional rules, these professors seek to be freed from constitutional restraints in pursuing radical changes. It is so liberating that these professors can write that Congress should “openly defy” the Constitution to “get a more democratic order.” Such Orwellian doublespeak does not little to shield the true purpose of this campaign to accumulate powers, which Madison declared “justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
For those trying to stay ahead of the mob, we are now moving beyond the Constitution. Now we must “pack the states” to liberate ourselves from that pesky Constitution. After that, our “reinvention” can begin. Ironically, however, we will be reinventing ourselves into the type of system that the Framers rejected roughly 250 years ago.
This column previously appeared in Fox.com
Go ahead – call a Constitutional Convention. I dare them
Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin are doing just that. Calling for a Constitutional Convention. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. What do you call pundits and commentators that work hard to establish conservative credentials to ultimately lead people to a socialist takeover with a Constitutional Convention?
“The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed.” (Quoted by JT)
“The old [U.S.] Constitution will have its place in history and will serve its purpose in the study of governmental evolution and class rule, and among the inspired relics of a past age. It is a class instrument, inspired by class interests, and will survive only to mark a historic epoch in class rule.
“The new Constitution will not be framed by ruling-class lawyers and politicians, but by the bona fide representatives of the working class, who in the day of their triumph will be the people in the complete sense of that magnificent and much maligned term.” (Eugene Debs, 1911, Socialist Party candidate for president)
For about a century, America’s socialists have known that the U.S. Constitution is a barrier to their goal of transforming America into (yet another) socialist dictatorship. What they seek is a dictatorship of the proletariat, with their leaders (e.g., AOC, et al.) as the Voices (read: Absolute Leaders) of the people.
That is why they agitate to make the U.S. Constitution a “relic of a past age.”
Sam: Really good post that serves to remind us of impending challenge[s], thank you.
lin: My pleasure.
Sam, the leftists of today, face the same problems Karl Marx faced after writing book one. He was supposed to go further in the next book to explain the evolution of his ideas, but the world was not acting according to his vision. What happened to his second book? Some like to say he died before he wrote it, but I believe he lived 10-20 years past the first publication.
That leaves us with a question, what happened to the following book promised? (Engles completed the book.) I don’t think Marx could justify his first book to write a second. Perhaps we should view him as somewhat of a nutcase when he wrote volume one of Das Kapital. The left of today faces the same restraints which are why they are so whacky and depend on force where the Constitution becomes irrelevant.
Jonathan: Why is it we almost automatically genuflect before the Constitution? England and New Zealand don’t even have constitutions and they seem to be doing fine. Some scholars look at the Founding document as just “aspirational”. It was almost a poem–a flowery statement about what the Founders wanted for the new nation. Ultimately, the Constitution was a grand compromise. In a Harper’s article “Constitution in Crisis” (Oct. 2019) law professor Mary Anne Franks has said:
“The revolutionary spirit was always, from the beginning, a limited one. It was a revolution for some people, and this idea that
we threw off the yoke of tyranny was immediately constrained by the idea that you didn’t want to throw it off too much. The
founders didn’t want to throw it off for slaves, and they didn’t want to throw it off for women. They wanted to have a very
contained revolution”.
To get the Constitution ratified the Founders preserved the institution of slavery–a legacy that still haunts us to this day. The Founders also ignored the rights of women. While John Adams was hard at work on the document his wife, Abigail, sent him a letter that said: “…in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you to remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors”. Abigail reflected the views of many women at the time. John Adams ignored his wife’s advice and we ended up with the limiting phrase “All men are created equal”. And not all men were included. Only men with property. Neither Adams, nor any of the other Founding fathers, believed “the masses” should participate in running the new government. And it wasn’t until 130 years later that women got the right to vote.
Thomas Jefferson thought every generation should re-write the Constitution. Some have called for a new Constitutional Convention to do just that. But given this “age of rage”, as you call it, it’s unlikely our current political polarization could arrive at any consensus satisfactory to a majority of Americans.
So what is to be done? In a real “democracy” the election of a new president should be based on the popular vote. That’s what happens in all other “democracies”. Our Electoral College is an anachronism. In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million votes but won by carrying key swing states. In 2020 Trump tried to exploit the Electoral College process to hold onto power. Had he been able to intimidate Pence into disregarding the chosen electors reflecting the popular vote we might now be living under a one-man authoritarian regime. And that would have been the end of your precious Constitution! So a first step tp preserving a semblance of “democracy” we need to eliminate the Electoral College.
More on your “Madisonian” views on the Constitution in a forthcoming comment.
England does not have a written constitution. But they do have a constitution.
In England all government power and authority flows from the King.
There was an american revolution specifically because that was required to unyoke us from the authority of that King.
We have a written constitution – because there MUST be some higher authority than whimsy.
“The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
This is why we have a constitution.
If you do not wish to be painted as a radical nihlist – then do not make stupid nihlist arguments.
If you wish to rewrite the constitution – in part or from scratch – feel free to do so.
Article V of the constitution – specifies how to do so. Essentially in the same fashion as the constitution was written in the first place.
The fact that we have on the whole amended the constitution only about once every decade on average speaks to how well it was constructed to start.
Was it perfect – absolutely not – neither our founders nor most living today think it is perfect.
And we have fixed problems – 27 times so far.
If you wish to reject the article V process – that is fine to. Our founders had to make up the process for acheiving legitimacy when they declared independence, when they proposed the articles of confederation, when they proposed the constitution itself.
These actions are legitimate – because they were enacted through processes that confered legitimacy.
We did not declare indepence based on a simple majority vote, or even a 2/3 vote. The declaration of independence required unanimous consent of each state to acheive legitimacy.
The constitution was not adopted until 3/4 of states ratified it, and not binding on any state until that state ratified it.
In 1860 we started a bloody civil war – because several states thought they could opt out.
Has something changed since then – is the constitution – imperfect though it may be, the legitimate law of the land, that can only be changed with the consent of a supermajority ? Or can any state or any person “opt out” ?
You rage at the constitutions flaws – those flaws were fixed – with great difficulty, that process and its diffculty confered legitimacy on the results.
If you wish to opt out now – why couldn’t those who did not want women to vote, or blacks to be free opt out at earlier times ?
Regardless, you are free to try to make it easier to change the constitution. but it is likely you will face strong resistance if you try to do so,
But lets image you succeed – what is to stop those you disagree with from changing things back – using your less dificult process ? Or worse?
If you want a new constitution – or none at all. What prevents those you disagree with from taking advantage of that and putting in place their constitution ?
Democrats have repeatedly over the past decade neutered senate and house rules that required super majorities to accomplish many things. None of this has worked to the advantage of democrats over the long run.
Why do you think if we chucked the constitution that you would end up with something more to your liking rather than less ?
We are not a democracy. We are definitely no a real democracy.
“a lady asked Dr. Franklin well Doctor what have we got
a republic or a monarchy—
A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”
AS USUAL THE LIBTARDS EXPOSE THEMSELVES TO BE SIMPLE MINDED FASCISTS
THEY INSIST ON BLAMING INANTIMATE OBJECTS FOR HUMAN FRAILTIES AND FAILINGS
GUNS CAUSE CRIME
FOOD CAUSES OBESITY
AND OF COURSE AN OLD PIECE OF PAPER CAUSES SOCIETY TO FALL SHORT OF THE LOFTY GOALS STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION
THEN OF COURSE THEY THROW IN THEIR USUAL ARROGANCE AND IGNORANCE
TWO JUNIOR KNOW NOTHING / NEVER ACCOMPLISHED ANYTHING OF NOTE DANE TO STATE THEY COULD WRITE A BETTER CONSTITUTION THAN WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS ACHIEVED
NEVERMIND IT IS THE BASIS OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL SOCIETY AND FORM OF GOVERNMENT EVER DEVISED BY MAN
NEVER MIND THE WISDOM AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
GEORGE WASHINGTON WINNING A WAR vs GREATEST MILITARY POWER ON EARTH W/ RAGTAG BAND OF REBELS
NEVERMIND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN ACCOMPLISHMENT BUSINESSMAN AND ENTREPRENEUR , ACCOMPLISHED DIPLOMAT, PROLIFIC INVENTOR
NEVERMIND JAMES MADISON LEGAL SCHOLAR AND PHILOSOPHER- IN CONTRAST TO TWO UNKOWN CRYBABY YAHOOS UPSET THEY DONT WIN EVERY ELECTION
NEVERMIND THE IMPRESSIVE LIST OF INDIVIDUALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE OTHER FOUNDING FATHERS
SPEAKING OF JUVENILE WORLD VIEW- THOSE THAT WANT TO RIG THE SYSTEM SO REPUBLICAN CAN NEVER WIN ANOTHER ELECTION ARE IN FACT IN FAVOR OF 1 PARTY FACIST RULE. BUT ARE TOO SIMPLE MINDED TO REALIZE THE 2 PARTY SYSTEM WORKS TO PREVENT OVERLY RAPID AND IMPETUOUS CHANGE. THE TWO PARTY SYSTEM ALSO WORKS AS A FILTER KILLING THE WORST IDEAS FROM THE EXTREME OF BOTH SIDES AND BUILDING CONCENSUS FOR REASONABLE IDEAS W/ SOME SUPPORT FROM BOTH PARTIES
BUT IT TAKES A MATURE ADULT PERSPECTIVE TO ADMIT ALL YOUR IDEAS ARE NOT GOOD AND ALL OF THE OTHER PARTIES VIEWS ARE NOT ALL BAD- HENCE THE TRUE WISDOM OF THE SEPERATED POWERS CREATED BY THE FOUNDERS IN THE CONSTITUTION STANDS IN STARK CONTRAST TO MODERN LIBTARDS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE, ACCOMPLISHMENT AND WISDOM
LIBTARDS CONTINUE TO PROVE THEY LACK THE WISDOM AND PERSPECTIVE TO EVER BE IN CHARGE OF ANYTHING BEYOND A LEMONADE STAND-
OF COURSE THEY WOULD WANT A SUBSIDY WHEN THEIR STAND GOT CRUSHED BY THE LITTLE GIRL DOWN THE STREET DOING A BETTER JOB SELLING LEMONADE
Any doubt we are headed to a Second American Revolution and Civil War combined?
There ultimately shall have to be a resolution to this that shall not be pretty.
The Constitution is the basis of our system of government and our national values…..and that is why the Military and Police are sworn by Oath to support and defend the Constitution….not the persons running the government…..there is a subtle but huge difference between the two.
Sadly, the senior leadership of the military. have sold their souls for promotions and we can no longer count upon them to see their duty clearly.
As Upstate Farmer has said….war is an ugly and evil thing….have seen that up close and personal myself and bear the scars of that experience.
A war of ideas is fine….so long as it done using words and elections but those that seek real war as the solution know not of War.
This is a “war” the Constitutionalists must win….there can be no destruction of what that Document affords this Nation and its People.
“Sadly, the senior leadership of the military. have sold their souls”
Chappel, I am waiting for the following:
Crisis of Command: How We Lost Trust and Confidence in America’s Generals and Politicians Hardcover – September 6, 2022
by Stuart Scheller (Author)
Ralph Chappell,
Thank you for that well thought out, intelligent post.
JT, Do you agree with George’s views below? See discussion between us. Thanks.
The identities of the direct and mortal enemies of the United States of America, and its Constitution and Bill of Rights, are well known.
The promoters of dictatorship and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are well known.
The inflection point of the Progressive, incremental implementation of the principles of Karl Marx’s communism in America was Abraham Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror.”
Abraham Lincoln was Karl Marx’s zealous and ferocious “…earnest of the epoch…” advancing America toward the “…RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Lincoln’s principles were based in Marx’s dictatorship of collectivism comprising the Communist Manifesto, and opposed to freemen living freely in free enterprise of their own free decisions under the literal, clear and obvious, meaning and intent of the U.S. Constitution.
Lincoln told America that he was bound to destroy it:
“At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.”
– Abraham Lincoln, Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838
_________________________________________________________________
American freedom endured for a mere 71 years.
Freedom did not end with the election of Lincoln. In fact, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments to the Constitution expanded freedom, liberty, and voting rights.
That you enjoy life under the communist “dictatorship of the proletariat” does not bear.
One current communist debacle is the forbearance of student loan debt; the overall, unconstitutional, communist scandal was created by zealous, greedy unions and their corrupt, allied, elected officials, with whom no contract should have ever been considered or negotiated, as is the case with military personnel.
No communist principles in effect in America, you say?
The entire communistic American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, HHS, HUD, EPA, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY money, the “flow” of commerce, and land and naval Forces. Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property is not qualified by the Constitution and is, therefore, absolute, allowing Congress no power to claim or exercise dominion over private property, the sole exception being the power to “take” private property for public use. If the right to private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to merely facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure only.
Saying everything that happened in the US after 1860 is Marxist, communistic, and unconstitutional does not make it so.
Your selected quotes and your conclusions seem most contradictory. So out of context are your remarks, so limited your sourcing, I fear you have pretty much lost your “mind.”
And yet you successfully counter none of the facts I present because it is impossible to.
By the way, what, exactly, does it mean to “fundamentally transform the United States of America?”
Let me guess, comrade.
It is essential that we Americans have a “refounding” based on the greatest document for freedom in the history of the world – our Constitution.
Perhaps if our Constitution was mandatory reading for our children we would be in a better place as a country.
THE “REFOUNDING” AND REIMPLEMENTATION OF ONLY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS
__________________________________________________________________________________________
THE “RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENTS” ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ILLEGITIMATE
Understanding that the “Reconstruction Amendments” must have been properly ratified for the benefit of citizens of the U.S.
Understanding that the U.S. government has no authority over the status of illegal foreign citizens or subjects, beyond compassionate repatriation.
Understanding that the “Reconstruction Amendments” were illicitly ratified and remain illegitimate.
Understanding that the “Reconstruction Amendments” could not benefit freed slaves because freed slaves must have been compassionately repatriated per extant immigration law.
Understanding that the “Reconstruction Amendments” could not be enforced retroactively.
Understanding that the Founders intended that amendments be “…of such a nature as will not injure the constitution.”
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”
– James Madison, Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
____________________________________________________________
Understanding the unconstitutionality of the “Reconstruction Amendments” on the prima facie evidence of the impossible ratification of three amendments in one fell swoop.
Understanding that the ratification of one amendment is arduous and nearly impossible, and only through corruption were, not one, not two, but three amendments incredibly ratified.
Understanding that the “Reconstruction Amendments” were improperly ratified in an environment of tyranny and oppression under the duress of brutal post-war military occupation.
Understanding that the “Reconstruction Amendments” were Lincoln’s successors’ gift to Karl Marx.
Understanding that the entire “Reign of Terror” of Lincoln was immutably unconstitutional from the outset of the denial of fully constitutional secession (slavery must have been abrogated legally – abductees must have been compassionately repatriated per law and intuitively as all usual and normal abductees request and deserve).
The reconstruction amendments were properly ratified and are well recognized and accepted. In fact the entire Supreme Court this past June in the Bruen and Dobbs opinions (majority and dissent) implicitly recognized the the validity of the 14th amendment.
You qualified your statement with “implicitly.”
___________________________________
“If you’re half right, you’re half wrong, if you’re half wrong, you’re all wrong.”
– Anonymous
___________
You…are all wrong.
Further, it was recently the very Supreme Court you referenced that overturned the criminal, anti-Constitutional Supreme Court of 1973.
Oh, my, you’re a real piece of work!
But do keep trying; you provide the opportunity to clarify and edify.
“After that, our “reinvention” can begin.”
It is everywhere and has already begun. They are quietly reimagining and remaking education with ReMake and ReImagine education and “learning”. WEF and Marxist elements quietly creeping into schools because not enough people dig into what and who is marketing and promoting this stuff. They are aiming for quite a few things by 2025.
Public schools are as strong and as effective as the people in the community aim for them to be. What are you aiming at in your community? What sort of education should kids be learning so they can uphold the Founders’ ideals, the Constitution, and self-governance as a wise and free people?
The Constitution is the enemy of socialists and the friend of individual freedom that is their true objection to the Constitution.
It is clear these people are after one thing – revolution, probably neo-Marxist. Apparently, the people are not capable of self-determination, rights come from the State to service the State, and faith and family are obstacles for these revolutionaries. Either this will go nowhere, or blood will flow in the streets, which is what some want. Cool heads and steely determination are needed now.
The major principle of human organization that JT doesn’t cite:
Power in human societies must run in parallel with responsibility-taking — Not a verbal promise to “take responsibility”, but the actual capacity to manage activities responsibly acquired through a provable track record of leadership experience.
Without a Constitution, there is no agreed-upon blueprint for how leadership shall be chosen, how leadership shall be distributed, who gets what responsibilities, and how conflicts are to be settled peacefully.
Could the US Constitution be strengthened through Amendments?….yes, but first people must understand that the Constitution is not where policies go to be enshrined (those belong in statutes). Then you need an intelligent group of institutional-constructionist-futurists to convene a Constitutional Convention who are willing to restrain themselves to only process improvements, and leave policy issues to be sorted out after process improvements have been Ratified by 3/4 of the States.
Political activists at this time are so expedient (strident, corrupt), I’m pretty certain they would try to commandeer a Convention, and use Amendments to cement themselves into permanent, unchallengeable power. There has to be an atmosphere of intellectual modesty restored before attempting a Convention.
There has to be a strong sense of WANTING TO SHARE POWER…WANTING for power to be distributed widely, not concentrated. At this moment, the most politically active don’t trust other Americans to share power with.
At this time, the cloud of sensationalist alarmism and media-driven paranoia make it so that activists are “gaming” every institution to “win” (i.e., obtain full capitulation from their opposition through a final dominance-submission outcome). This is a wild, childish fantasy, exempt from critical thinking. Capitulation of opposition will NOT happen, but believing it can happen effectively stalls progress.
I look forward to the moderate center regaining the upper hand…in the political parties, in journalism, is academia, in k-12, in tech. At that point, it might become possible to convene a Convention — not before.
There has to be a strong sense of WANTING TO SHARE POWER…WANTING for power to be distributed widely, not concentrated.
100% Marxist.
Pro-tip: advocate Marxist thought while living in Cuba, China, Nicaragua, Venezuela, etc, and get back to us how that works for you. Spouting Marxist talking points from your mancave in North America is totally disingenuous and a sign of someone who lacks cojones
Better reinvestigate your understanding of Marxism. Marxism is an anti-capitalistic ownership of property idea that became the basis of communism. Ever see a communistic society that had rulers who wanted to share power with the masses? I believe you misinterpreted the general meaning of his statement.
pb says; “Could the US Constitution be strengthened through Amendments?….yes, but first people must understand that the Constitution is not where policies go to be enshrined (those belong in statutes). Then you need an intelligent group of institutional-constructionist-futurists to convene a Constitutional Convention who are willing to restrain themselves to only process improvements, and leave policy issues to be sorted out after process improvements have been Ratified by 3/4 of the States.”
In this contemporary times you can not compile a group that will proceed forward with this mentality of agreement. The leftists’ mentality is, it will be our opinion rules or there will be no rules. That attitude now includes the provisions to have another UN-Civil war to implant their opinions on to current scene, if necessary. I will wager that a big cleansing is coming, and the Dems will not be happy. Best buckler up tight. Selah
Spot on! In New Mexico, fools look to “enshrine” the rights of children in the NM constitution. Instead of legislating and executing, these kind hope to feel better about a few new lines in a constitution – rather than addressing problems faced by some children. They will be able to brag about an amendment, one that will change little to improve one of the worst (if not the worst) state for childhood educational outcomes, poverty, non-English speaking, abuse, etc. etc. The third world this place is!
Republicans need to go scorched earth!
1) cut 50% of fed spending
2) ban federal aid to colleges
3) move 75% of remaining FED gov from DC to the heartland
4) make any non-profit entity benefiting anyone more than a $!00k…a TAXPAYING entity…colleges, hospitals, non-profits, PGA, etc
5) a 5% tax on gross value financial transactions…stocks, bond, Derivatives, options, moving money offshore….make it about investing not high speed gambling! Wall Street needs to be reined in!
This original song & video by Tim Pool, sung by Tim, sums up our political times.
What does one even say to this? They aren’t even trying to hide their Marxism anymore. The only thing I can think is either A: they are insane, or, B: they are counting on our electoral process to fail. Let’s prove them wrong on the latter, please. It’s time to stop being petty about what Dan Crenshaw may have said about the FBI and think about the actual preservation of our country. It isn’t just Republicans anymore, folks. If you disagree with the regime, whatever your voting affiliation, even if you are a registered Democrat and simply disagree and exhibit freedom of thought and vote accordingly – you are the enemy, period. This is no longer about parties, and people that still think it’s 2008, or 2001, or even 1971 or 1961 really, really need to check themselves. What we are confronted with today is completely new and unprecedented. It has quite simply never been this bad in the United Sates. The actual Civil War was more civil.
It has quite simply never been this bad in the United Sates.
I used to think like you. When BLM ANTIFA anarchists took over Richmond in 2020, and they blocked the interstate highways, impeded first responders and set businesses, homes and public buildings on fire, it all made me delve into the history of the US Civil War. Best thing I could have ever done to compare and contrast then and now. I chose Civil War Historian and UVA Professor, Gary Gallagher’s American Civil War Great Courses and I was hooked. The course is super long and I got more than halfway through it, but I strongly recommend it. I found no ideological bent in it, favoring neither liberal nor conservative filters
https://www.amazon.com/The-American-Civil-War-audiobook/dp/B00DTO4NNE/
We are no where near the travesty of the US Civil War. People on the Left / Right hoping for one are likely the most ignorant in America. The lives of the soldiers was tragic, especially those many in the South who enlisted just so that they could eat, have clothing and impress women. Few really had any idea what they were fighting for. Two-thirds of the deaths of soldiers were from infectious diseases. If Americans fought today in a civil war, most would not make it after running half a mile. The soldiers of the Civil War were malnourished, emaciated and in no physical condition for physical combat, just like Americans today.
I was using hyperbole. I don’t disagree with you, at all, particularly in your observation that most Americans would go about two feet trying to even pick up a rifle. Shotguns are heavy and have a helluva kickback. Actual automatic assault weapons, more so. And no, not an AR-15. You would go,’Ow, ow, ow.’, if you were shot in a non-vital place with one of those; the hollow point bullets that are apparently now being distributed to *The Smithsonian*, by our administration, are the ones that explode heads.
Ultimately, though, again IMO, the bullets in the 21st century are dollars and complacency. And to the others, I don’t respond to trolls. There’s quite literally no point, hence the moniker of ‘troll’. My opinions are just my opinions, and no evidence is needed for a great many things when there are already hours of video footage and the accompanying written reinforcement out there for anyone to see. Your fingers can type here; they can type just as well doing your own research.
James,
I would argue a few of your points.
Recoil management can be mitigated with training. I do not recall her name, but there is a Olympic Gold medalist, using a over/under 12ga can shoot off two shots in less than a second between shots. She weights like 110lbs soaking wet.
I have a 12ga auto-loader that feels like a gentle push. No worries. Out here, I got fox and coy going after the chickens and ducks.
The M16A2 service rifle or M4? Recoil is minimal. Muzzle rise on the other hand, 3-round burst, that is a different story.
The MG240, my personal favorite. She is heavy, but I can get down on her and put some real rounds down range. Get some!
Ah, hollow points? What bullet is that? To be honest, some premium hunting bullets can give you head exploding results. Just depends on caliber, bullet design, FPS. Note, I have been reloading for over a decade and advance reloads to exceed SAAMI specs to reduce bullet jump. I have also shot NRA High Power competitively.
Estovir,
I have stated on this blog multiple times, civil war is a path we must not take.
I have my DD214 under honorable conditions. I spent a year in Afghanistan. I know what war looks like. It is not pretty.
And it would be even worse in the US.
I like to think you are correct in your assessment that we are not close to a real shooting war. But I fear that day is coming closer. I think social media, MSM are fueling and accelerating that day closer.