General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGeorgetown law prof: Give up on the constitution?
Clip: Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
"This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation." http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?exprod=myyahoo&_r=0
Freddie
(9,265 posts)He's not so much advocating "giving up" on the Constitution as finding ways to improve those things that are impeding progress.
DavidDvorkin
(19,477 posts)coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)DavidDvorkin
(19,477 posts)It's not a single written document, but it has a collection of laws, traditions, and legal rulings that together add up to the country's fundamental law.
We do have a constitution. If we collectively decide to ignore it, then we will either descend into legal chaos or, more likely, we'll quickly evolve our own collection of laws, traditions, and legal rulings that will function as our new fundamental law. The result will be the same as the current situation, but with a lot of needless disruption along the way.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)"Constitution," although precedent and common law function effectively as one for it.
I like our Constitution and don't want to see it become nullified, especially b/c it contains provisions for its own modification and evolution within it, an orouboros of self-governance if you will. I do think some of its provisions and language are a bit antiquated now, but overall I say we keep it
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)A UK Government with a big parliamentary majority has way too much power. The House of Lords can only delay legislation, and laws are not subject to judicial review (except in limited cases by the European courts).
AlinPA
(15,071 posts)for his point, but we are quite dysfunctional now and he has some good points to think about.
"Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens."
patrice
(47,992 posts)doing. As I mentioned below, there's a mistake that is similar to thinking that 2 X 2 = 4 is identical with 1111 of anything.
We should not treat any words as though they are identical with what words, by their very nature, ONLY refer to. That's a rather superstitious supposition if you think about it.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)constructed. Plenty of modern advanced countries are constitutional democracies, such as many of those in western Europe. Many of them function perfectly well. Better than ours in many respects (e.g. rights of women, sensible gun control).
DavidDvorkin
(19,477 posts)In which case, I repeat, what's the point of having a so-called fundamental law? The fact is, we do have it. The arguments are always about interpretation and application, not whether to acknowledge the existence of our own fundamental or whether to regard it as fundamental.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)optimally and we can do better.
I for one am gratified to hear a law professor finally say this, altho Justice Ginsburg alluded to it a couple of summers ago during Arab Spring. She said that she would not recommend that new emerging democracies fashion their constitutions after ours. She talked about the constitution of South Africa instead...
This is why there is a trend of these emerging democracies to steer away from using our Constitution, which at one time was the sine qua non. It no longer is. It is considered unwieldy for the needs of people in a modern 21st century democracy.
moman
(73 posts)Argue the facts.When you don't ?Argue The Constitution!
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)and he does make sense..
here is his bio on wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Michael_Seidman
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)We're getting to brass tacks. Our Constitution is the oldest one in existence. Its time for a major revision or re-write. A Second Constitutional Convention.
Good on this law prof.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Freedom of religion? Gone.
Free speech? Gone.
Holy shit.
Bake
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Change isn't always for the worst.
Bake
(21,977 posts)This country is almost 50/50 divided between people who care about the nation and those who care only about themselves, who would be more than happy to do away with freedom of speech, freedom of/from religion, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, etc.
Not risking it. There's nothing wrong with the current Constitution that a good electoral sea change won't cure.
Bake
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Not to mention the entire 3 branch system which many Parliamentary democracies chortle at on a regular basis because of its divisiveness.
Here's a great idea - let's make three branches of government and have each one, including two houses in the legislative, be owned by a different party. Chances are they'll all agree for the good of the nation...
Even Washington knew that the system wouldn't survive in a party system. And it isn't. Parliamentary democracies work on a completely different wavelength -
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Odin2005
(53,521 posts)AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I think it's fair to say that the US Constitution has a better track record over the last century or so.
patrice
(47,992 posts)The Bible: mistaking the words for the real world that the words ONLY refer to. This is like insisting that 2 X 2 = 4 IS THE EXACT SAME THING AS IIII of anything.
This error in logic causes people to throw away the nutritional content and then to make a false god out of "the peel". Think banana here; it needs the peel to be a banana, but the peel is NOT the point of the thing that we refer to as a banana.
randome
(34,845 posts)We would do fine without the Constitution. We have laws. We need better laws. That's all it takes.
patrice
(47,992 posts)are not the laws themselves.
And perhaps we'd need a new way for people to be directly involved in creating those laws instead of the indirect pay to play game that we have now.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I would argue that there's little difference.
patrice
(47,992 posts)move to a different state, in a market that COULD be fully aware of your disadvantaged position, so that one doesn't have to live in a state that comes to a legal configuration that is against one's understandings of things like Civil Rights (ethnic & sexual orientation), women's autonomy over their own bodies, religious cartels that rule your state, etc. etc. etc.
patrice
(47,992 posts)is intolerable too?
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Its done pretty much everyplace else but here. We live in a Republic, as in "Friends, Americans, Countrymen, lend me your SuperPACs" - which is why (fun fact incoming) all the original DC buildings were designed using Roman architecture and not Greek.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)who pass a law extending their terms to 20 years, establish Christianity as the official national religion, mandate Christian prayer in all schools, ban all abortions without exception and make it illegal to criticize any Government official?
Would that be "doing fine without the Constitution"?
randome
(34,845 posts)AldoLeopold
(617 posts)This way we have a vote of no confidence and national referendums.
forthemiddle
(1,379 posts)Without the Constitution, and the SCOTUS interpretation of it, Alabama would have the 10 Commandments in the Court House.
Prayer in school would still be a requirement, Roe V Wade would not be in existence, and on and on and on........
We may also have complete gun control (or no guns), and other liberal laws which you may like, but what about the ones you don't like.
The Constitution does have two provisions for changing it, the Amendment process, and a new Constitutional Convention. They were deliberately made difficult to do, but not impossible. Start there........
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The Constitution is overrated.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)And police should only obtain search warrants before breaking into and searching your house "out of respect, not obligation"?
And it should only be "out of respect, not obligation" that prayer cannot be required in public schools?
Sorry, I think we need an "obligation" to enforce these things. That is a really stupid article.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)We need to get the document updated, remove the ludicrous 2nd amendment and write in more protections/rights for women, just for starters...
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Let's just do it. Well, unless there's not enough people that want to do it. Then it's just a matter of educating the people. We can do that, right? Like Occupy Wall Street.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Hell, it doesn't even make him rational. And for the record, I think he's dead wrong.
Bake
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)Coyote_Tan
(194 posts)You have to have gone to college to say something that stupid...
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)seized his stuff, and roughed him over, while telling him that they were choosing to disregard the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, that his viewpoint might change significantly.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)What we MUST do is to retain the progressive, individual rights aspects of the constitution, remove the unnecessary elements such as the alcohol amendments (counterweight), slavery amendments (obsolete and redundant), consolidate the federal government officeholder elements, and finally, introduce items such as mandatory environmental statutes, anti-corporate statutes, taxation and wealth limitation statutes, and finally, an ability to easily adapt itself into a global constitution that can be a part of other countries' self-governing documents. To this end, why the hell do we need to follow the edict of old white slave owners? The constitution should be a living, breathing document that caters to our progressive movement while denying the capitalist, repressive agenda of the republicanistas.
aptal
(304 posts)Society is nothing without laws. Many people, unless forced, will not just respect my right to Freedom of speech and religion, etc...
This is a ridiculous notion.
moondust
(19,981 posts)Anybody who believes in representative government would never allow gerrymandering, which amounts to defeating representative government by rigging the game in one's own favor. People who would do this don't care if there is a Constitution or what it might say or anything else--they're always going to look for a way to rig it to serve themselves.