Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

Actually I wondered why it has taken so long for the left to get to this point. From the New York Times:

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

S the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Read the whole thing, it's a hoot!

But I would say this is the obvious endgame from an ideology that considers the document a "living" document; open to interpretation depending on the political fancy of the day. But that was just a guise for getting around the constitution. At least now someone on the left is tired of the artifice and is willing to say they want to chuck the whole thing. Ahh liberalism...

 

One Congressman insists on adherence to the Constitution. The rest have been ignoring it for decades.

 

Guy makes an educated point. Certainly is an intreseting one. One designed to be thought provoking. Hmmm.... Didn't the NY times once do a story on should papers act as fact finders? Seems to me this is a clever, but a good stunt at getting people to read this article.

 

Who was the last conservative who opposed going to war WITHOUT the Constitutionally-mandated declaration of war from Congress?

Maybe Ron Paul? I certainly don't recall Rush Limbaugh or Hannity or 99% of Republican politicians who weren't favorable to playing fast and loose with the Constitution.

 

I don't recall any of the TV MSNBC dems objecting to Obama ignoring the provisions of the War Powers Resolution either. He is the first President to ignore that law.

However what does the Constitution actually require for a declaration of war to be a declaration of war? We've had declarations for the use of force. I'm no lawyer (except the barracks lawyer type) but it seems to me that they are declarations of war.

 

There are certainly reforms that could be made that would make our system more functional in the parliamentary vein, but yeah, throwing the baby out with the bath water isn't a good idea.

 

\

It would've been nice if Obama would have kept his promise to eliminate lobbyists in the WH.

 

It would have, but yeah... that was probably his most far-fetched promise.

 

Oh, good lord! Some people have lost their minds. And the fact that something like this makes its way into a mainstream news outlet like the New York Times is what makes it ultra-scary. That means fringe fanaticism is in vogue.

 

Let's give up on the Union. We don't need to all be in this together. I hate government worshiping statists more than I hate any foreigner or foreign government. Even most wishy washy, statist conservatives feel the same way. This union has done more damage to us and the world than any of the single laws it has made. Shut it down.

 

I would be fine with chucking the whole thing and having the states revert to 50 sovereign and independent countries. I'm surprised to hear a liberal suggest abandoning the union. They are typically intent on centralizing all power in washington and subjugating the people of the several states.

 

I didn't read that as abandoning the union. It sounds like he want's the union maintained without limits on it's power.

 

Let's see, the first NON-DECLARED war the U.S. was involved in was The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were Tripoli and Algiers, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire, and the independent Sultanate of Morocco. And guess what, Thomas Jefferson was president and your going to sit there and tell us that He broke the Constitution???

Here's a list of wars that U.S. declared;

War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World War II


The rest, including the Civil War were undeclared wars. And you want to talk about Republicans??? Korean war, Truman. Veit Nam War, Johnson. Over 100,000 Americans killed in those two alone.

 

That was more my interpretation as well.

 

Yes, that appears to be his stance.

But if one ignores the constitution then there is really no legitimate reason for the existence of the federal government.

 

I assume that he intended the federal part to be gradually ignored.

 

The War Powers Resolution was disregarded by President Reagan in 1981 by sending military forces to El Salvador and later the Contras in Nicaragua, by President Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo, and by President Obama in 2011, when he did not seek congressional approval for the attack on Libyan forces, arguing that the Resolution did not apply to that action. All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional.

 

As far as El Salvador and Niaragua go, training and supplying forces isn't reportable under the WPR. Clinton did in fact send a report to Congress two days after Operations began in Kosovo. I'm not sure where you are getting your info on that.

I do share the belief that the the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional, but unless an administration is willing to take the issue to court, it should continue to follow the reporting requirements, which is what each administration (up till now) has done. You shouldn't just ignore the law.

 

It is the constitution that gives power to the federal government. Getting rid of it would return power to the states... which would probably be a good thing. I do not think the New York Times realizes this.

No, what they really want to go after is the Bill of Rights, the first 10 ammendments in the constitution. Several of the original founding states refused to ratify the constitution until these ammednments were added. The federal government never existed without these ammendments.

 

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch. As a result, the Resolution has been the subject of controversy since its enactment, and is a recurring issue due to the ongoing worldwide commitment of U.S. armed forces. Presidents have submitted a total of over 120 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution. Some examples of the Resolution's effect on the deployment of U.S. armed forces include:

1981: President Reagan deployed a number of U.S. military advisors to El Salvador but submitted no report to Congress. Members of Congress filed a federal lawsuit in an attempt to force compliance with the Resolution, but the U.S. District Court hearing the suit declined to become involved in what the judge saw as a political question, namely whether U.S. forces were indeed involved in hostilities.

1993-99: President Clinton utilized United States armed forces in various operations, such as air strikes and the deployment of peacekeeping forces, in the former Yugoslavia, especially Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations were pursuant to United Nations Security Council resolutions and were conducted in conjunction with other member states of NATO. During this time the President made a number of reports to Congress "consistent with the War Powers Resolution" regarding the use of U.S. forces, but never cited Section 4(a)(1), and thus did not trigger the 60 day time limit. Opinion in Congress was divided and many legislative measures regarding the use of these forces were defeated without becoming law. Frustrated that Congress was unable to pass legislation challenging the President's actions, Representative Tom Campbell and other Members of the House filed suit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia against the President, charging that he had violated the War Powers Resolution, especially since 60 days had elapsed since the start of military operations in Kosovo. The President noted that he considered the War Powers Resolution constitutionally defective. The court ruled in favor of the President, holding that the Members lacked legal standing to bring the suit; this decision was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from this decision, in effect letting it stand.

 

The fact that amendments are allowed proves that the Constitution is a living document.

You can't argue that.


"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

Y'all keep harping on the brilliance of the Founding Fathers, but refuse to give them credit for being brilliant enough to realize that the conditions that founded the country might not go on for ever.

The SCOTUS is empowered with certain checks and balances of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch. Their purpose is to interpret the Constitution as a living document through judicial review.

You can't argue that.

 

"That means fringe fanaticism is in vogue." You just realized that? I must introduce you to the tea party.

 

If only the union had no limits on enforcing the correct usage of apostrophes. Sigh.

 

We can throw out the constitution - starting with the authors rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, and due process.

Hearing a liberal democrat demand that we disregard written laws and rely on "tradition" to protect us from the government is too thin a veil.

 

here is a response to the original article:

Our Obsolete Constitution?