NewYorker Mag "Is it time to torch the constitution?"

[revelarts]

sep 23 2024

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYovbOWW8AElTVt?format=jpg&name=small

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/09/30/constitution-book-reviews-chemerinsky-pierson-schickler



"experts say" so it must be true.

but no one REALLY wants to do it.
Rev's been looking for this... so he found it,
therefore it's not real at all.
& nothing close to it will ever happen.

move along

[fj1200]

:unsure:

It's really not a hard lift to find someone who wants to torch the Constitution.

[Kathianne]

:unsure:

It's really not a hard lift to find someone who wants to torch the Constitution.

My feelings is that those who say it aloud, like Kerry, are just paving the way for the tyrants in waiting.

[Gunny]

:unsure:

It's really not a hard lift to find someone who wants to torch the Constitution.Beat me that response. I posted similar not more than a couple of months ago. Prety much anyone on the left inconvenienced by it want it gone.

I figure it's a wash since I want them gone :)

So, IF they do away with the Constitution, does that free me from my obligation to it?

[SassyLady]

My feelings is that those who say it aloud, like Kerry, are just paving the way for the tyrants in waiting.
Exactly. Just because it's easy to find someone who wants to yeah it doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore the situation.

I'm glad the DS is showing their hand. This kind of shit is waking up the masses and there's cgoing to be a lot of people running around with their hair on fire.

[Kathianne]

This is what the left refuses to get, the solution is Federalism and it's the underlying principle of the Constitution:

https://hotair.com/stephen-moore/2024/10/01/can-we-all-get-along-n3795228


Can We All Get Along?


Stephen Moore (https://hotair.com/author/stephen-moore) 2:00 AM | October 01, 2024



https://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/2024/254/b627f7c7-fb0a-4a12-9b73-992ecd0ffce1-1052x615.jpgAP Photo/Alex Brandon


At the time of this writing, the outcome of the presidential race is pretty close to being a coin flip. So what I write is not in any way influenced by who will win in November, since that is unknowable.


What is a virtual certainty is that on Nov. 6 roughly half the country will be full of joy, and the other half will be in a deep depression likely to last throughout the next four years.
Don't be surprised if the anger and despair of the losing party spills over into prolonged violent protests -- especially in the streets of the major cities. Politics in America is now -- regrettably -- a contact sport.

Whoever wins, America will be further ripped down its seams. Red- and blue-state America will even be more polarized. Don't be surprised if half the country is near rebellion against the policies of either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

Patronizing speeches by the victor about being president of "all the people" and promises to "unite" will only pour salt in the wounds of the losing side. The Left will detest the Trump agenda. The Right will fight against every element of the Harris agenda. It will feel like an occupation for the 49% on the losing side.

We need to accept the unhappy reality that we are today the Disunited States of America. The U.S. is ideologically, culturally, economically more polarized than perhaps any time since the Civil War. The conservative half of the country is on Venus and the liberal half is on mars. Yes, there is a moderate/middle section -- but the tails have grown more populated and influential.

We see in polls that more and more Americans don't even want to associate with those with different political views. We are also becoming more geographically segregated -- not on the basis of race or ethnicity or income but on ideology. Red states are getting redder. Blue states are getting bluer. In recent years, an estimated two million Republicans have moved out of states like New York for states like Florida, Texas and the Carolinas.


Given these realities, is there a way for us to "all get along"?

Fortunately, yes. There is a logical way to keep America "united" as one nation and to avert chaos and mayhem. Fortunately, this solution is entirely consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For those who have forgotten, the 10th Amendment decrees that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to "the states and the people."

We need a radical return to federalism. We need to devolve powers back to the states.

We as citizens of all states are, of course, united by a common national defense, the commerce clause, which made America the largest and most prosperous free-trade zone in world history, and most importantly our inalienable rights as citizens as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A state, for example, does not have the right to pass laws that would violate a citizen's right to free speech or peaceful assembly, or to discriminate against citizens on the basis of skin color or gender.

But given the schisms in society, most everything else is better decided at the state -- not the federal -- level. Issues related to transportation, taxation, education, environment, energy and business regulation belong to the states. Americans are then able to escape from policies they view as oppressive by moving to a state that conforms with their values and lifestyle decisions.


People in Mississippi or Utah have no problem with Californians charging a 13.3% income tax rate, enacting forced union policies, providing free health care to illegal immigrants, shutting down their power plants, abolishing gas stoves or plastic bags, or providing reparation payments to aggrieved groups.

New Yorkers shouldn't mind if Texans impose no income tax, allow people to drive 75 miles an hour down the highways or regulate how cattle are bred.

What residents in red states like Montana and South Carolina object to is New Yorkers telling them how to live their lives.

We can under this framework have Harris policies prevail in blue states and Trump policies prevail in red states, and everyone goes away happy.


No harm, no foul.

Again, the federal government is still responsible for protecting the civil liberties and "inalienable rights" of ALL residents of the United States. There would be no bringing back Jim Crow laws.

Alas, this framework is exactly the opposite of what Democrats seek. If you examine the Biden and Harris agendas, the Dems are determined to FEDERALIZE nearly all policies, which forces all Americans in every state to live under the same sets of laws and policies. They want to nationalize union policies, environmental policies, energy policies, welfare policies, taxation and so on. They want to de facto toss out the ninth and 10th amendments altogether.


This inevitably leads to the tyranny of the majority, which now and after November will be a razor-thin majority dictating policies on all Americans. This tyranny will be even greater felt if either a victorious GOP or the Democrats overturn the filibuster rule of 60 votes to muscle sweeping legislation out of the Senate.

Amazing that some 250 years ago our Founding Fathers had exactly the right vision for keeping America united in 2024 and beyond.

Stephen Moore is a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He is also an economic advisor to the Trump campaign. His new book, coauthored with Arthur Laffer, is "The Trump Economic Miracle."

[fj1200]

Exactly. Just because it's easy to find someone who wants to yeah it doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and ignore the situation.

I'm glad the DS is showing their hand. This kind of shit is waking up the masses and there's cgoing to be a lot of people running around with their hair on fire.

Nobody is shrugging it off. Some folks are considering voting for a buffoonish, narcissistic, man-child who has his own issues with constitutional integrity in the hopes that the traditionally small-government, Constitution-adhering party won't let him fall to his base desires.

[revelarts]

Nobody is shrugging it off. Some folks are considering voting for a buffoonish, narcissistic, man-child who has his own issues with constitutional integrity in the hopes that the traditionally small-government, Constitution-adhering party won't let him fall to his base desires.

We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.
If Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Paul, John Adams, James Madison or George Washington were running I suspect there'd still be complaints about "extremist" or "populist" or the OH so vital personality Issues. + George Washington is not a "true" republican.

They want pro-constitution TALKERS who look respectable even as they piss on the constitution & keep the establishment status quo & a facade of order, while working for more war, corporations and less personal & national sovereignty.
Establishment scum bags who make excuses that republicans & conservatives swallow like milk as these respectable politicians whittle away their rights.
Brainwashing them to the point where they deny many (any?) rights are "really" being taken. And are shocked, confused & angered by those who point out the layers of clearly unconstitutional (& corrupt) moves that the "right" makes (has made) under the excuses of "safety", commerce and national/military strength.

All the while these conservatives seem FAR more concerned about having polite adult politics than wether or not the constitution is in any danger.
All their emotion is pointed at the personalities they dont like. With pearl clutching at how things are said rather than what's been said and done.
Unable to get past, or see beyond, their desire for proper decorum even while the floor is being pulled out from under their feet.

The mentality where if firemen show up at a house with smoke coming out of it & scream
"Hey! The house is on fire! let's get a water hose! Everyone get out, NOW!"
And the reply of the people inside is "I dont like his/her tone! So I can't take them seriously. Why can't we get proper firemen who shave & know how to speak to people? & I'm not minimizing the fire but the fire isn't that bad."
The mentality is tragic & weird.

When i was a kid I use to think that this kind of POV was just something made up in the movies for dramatic effect.
You know, where the lone scientist, official &/or Crackpot WHO IS RIGHT is ignored by the regular sensible folks because... they're sensible... & know better than the outlier who wants to do "EXTREME" things to secure the family/area/world.
The sensible folks know better... until their kid is eaten by the shark, they freeze to death or the flood/fire/quake/enemy gets to them ...pretty much like the weird uncouth 'hair on fire' people who 'no one should listen to seriously' said.

Sad thing is, real life is too often just like that.

But hey, FJ I'd love to see a list of "proper" candidates who we can count on to move back towards constitutional limits... I'd LOVE to see them. please point them out.
If that's what you really want?
Instead of candidates who PRIMARILY have proper social skills, adult personalities, who are sensible, who don't rock the boat (especially for corporations) & have a clear record of speaking well about the constitution from time to time. Because the constitution, rights and sovereignty are not really in any danger as long as enough politicians speak well of it. Sensible people know this.

[fj1200]

We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.

...

But hey, FJ I'd love to see a list of "proper" candidates who we can count on to move back towards constitutional limits... I'd LOVE to see them. please point them out.
If that's what you really want?

I don't really know what you want here. We could have had a lot of things. If you're right and "most" don't want that then we take what we can get and not be surprised when nobody is left to defend the Constitution. If most don't want that then there are no candidates that we can count on and all we can do is vote for the ones that come along. After that we can hope the Overton Window shifts where those candidates are there or window shifting candidates come along which would be preferred. As for today I can tell you/agree with you that most of the Republican presidential primary and caucus voters don't really give a whit about it because... well, see my previous post.

[revelarts]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXqaE7IakAAnSji?format=jpg&name=small

[Gunny]

We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.
If Rand Paul, Thomas Massie, Ron Paul, John Adams, James Madison or George Washington were running I suspect there'd still be complaints about "extremist" or "populist" or the OH so vital personality Issues. + George Washington is not a "true" republican.

They want pro-constitution TALKERS who look respectable even as they piss on the constitution & keep the establishment status quo & a facade of order, while working for more war, corporations and less personal & national sovereignty.
Establishment scum bags who make excuses that republicans & conservatives swallow like milk as these respectable politicians whittle away their rights.
Brainwashing them to the point where they deny many (any?) rights are "really" being taken. And are shocked, confused & angered by those who point out the layers of clearly unconstitutional (& corrupt) moves that the "right" makes (has made) under the excuses of "safety", commerce and national/military strength.

All the while these conservatives seem FAR more concerned about having polite adult politics than wether or not the constitution is in any danger.
All their emotion is pointed at the personalities they dont like. With pearl clutching at how things are said rather than what's been said and done.
Unable to get past, or see beyond, their desire for proper decorum even while the floor is being pulled out from under their feet.

The mentality where if firemen show up at a house with smoke coming out of it & scream
"Hey! The house is on fire! let's get a water hose! Everyone get out, NOW!"
And the reply of the people inside is "I dont like his/her tone! So I can't take them seriously. Why can't we get proper firemen who shave & know how to speak to people? & I'm not minimizing the fire but the fire isn't that bad."
The mentality is tragic & weird.

When i was a kid I use to think that this kind of POV was just something made up in the movies for dramatic effect.
You know, where the lone scientist, official &/or Crackpot WHO IS RIGHT is ignored by the regular sensible folks because... they're sensible... & know better than the outlier who wants to do "EXTREME" things to secure the family/area/world.
The sensible folks know better... until their kid is eaten by the shark, they freeze to death or the flood/fire/quake/enemy gets to them ...pretty much like the weird uncouth 'hair on fire' people who 'no one should listen to seriously' said.

Sad thing is, real life is too often just like that.

But hey, FJ I'd love to see a list of "proper" candidates who we can count on to move back towards constitutional limits... I'd LOVE to see them. please point them out.
If that's what you really want?
Instead of candidates who PRIMARILY have proper social skills, adult personalities, who are sensible, who don't rock the boat (especially for corporations) & have a clear record of speaking well about the constitution from time to time. Because the constitution, rights and sovereignty are not really in any danger as long as enough politicians speak well of it. Sensible people know this.


We could have had more adult constitution friendly candidates over the past 20 years, but most republicans & conservatives didn't/don't want that really.Not even you and/or most anyone else. THAT is the problem. You want what YOU call a conservative by your definition.

Inherent to those who put individual/personal liberty above all things is a herd of cats. And it shows.

[fj1200]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GXqaE7IakAAnSji?format=jpg&name=small


Problem solved with a meme. :slowclap: It would be the first time.

[SassyLady]

Problem solved with a meme. :slowclap: It would be the first time.

Memes are powerful images that convey what's going on in our culture these days. You really should get on board fj.

[revelarts]

Problem solved with a meme. :slowclap: It would be the first time.

Right here's the problem I outlined.

You're far more concerned about HOW the idea is presented than the IDEAS presented themselves.
Focused on the Form, Pitch & moan about it... but completely ignore content.

[revelarts]

Not even you and/or most anyone else. THAT is the problem. You want what YOU call a conservative by your definition.

Inherent to those who put individual/personal liberty above all things is a herd of cats. And it shows.

Gunny, if you put the constitution beside Ron Pauls proposals and record, then beside Mitt Romneys or George Bush's or Donald Trump's who's policies would align more closely in your view?
If we're being honest we know the answer.

The constition and Politician's proposed and actual policy records are not Cloudy amorphous things.
The words of the constitution have meaning, & it's not written in legalese. We don't have to be scholars to get the main points.
That's why they want to TORCH IT.

[fj1200]

Memes are powerful images that convey what's going on in our culture these days. You really should get on board fj.

Memes are the domain of the simple-minded, those with questionable arguments, and/or those who are unable to express effective arguments. Their only service is to validate those who already agree with the sentiment. I'm glad they work for you but my previous statement is fact; it would be the first time. :)


Right here's the problem I outlined.

You're far more concerned about HOW the idea is presented than the IDEAS presented themselves.
Focused on the Form, Pitch & moan about it... but completely ignore content.

Incorrect. It won't change anyone's mind (see above) and nobody here disagrees with the sentiment anyway. What I'm concerned with is effective arguments that have a chance in hades of changing anyone's mind.

[Gunny]

Gunny, if you put the constitution beside Ron Pauls proposals and record, then beside Mitt Romneys or George Bush's or Donald Trump's who's policies would align more closely in your view?
If we're being honest we know the answer.

The constition and Politician's proposed and actual policy records are not Cloudy amorphous things.
The words of the constitution have meaning, & it's not written in legalese. We don't have to be scholars to get the main points.
That's why they want to TORCH IT.

The US Constitution, like all law, is open for interpretation. That is why we have a judiciary that rules based on juris preudence. I will go as far as agreeing that the law and its intent aren't that hard to understand, but our agreement ends there and I default to my previous post. You believe in your interpretation of the Constitution. Just like everybody else does.

Nobody on your list is/was a strict Constitutionalist. No one is. Ron Paul is an isloationist. Isolationism will doom whatever the Hell is left of this nation. That's every bit as dangerous as warmongering. It's a slow, painful death rather than a quick one.