Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Law Professor on CBS Says ‘Let’s Give Up On the Constitution’

page: 2
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


What a bunch of idiots to say or even think such things.

The U.S. Constitution is quite possibly the single greatest written document in the History of Man...and these morons have the audacity to say GUT IT?

Idiots!

Split Infinity




posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Give up on the constitution? The US constitution is fine as it is and is even more relevant today than 200 years ago. Nowadays there are plenty of braindead fascists who would love to get rid of free speech, right to bear arms and other guaranteed freedoms. And the purpose of the constitution is exactly to prevent such tendencies!

Besides, there is a process to amend it, so if the will of the people is very strong, it can be changed.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:02 AM
link   
A few things from this gentleman:

He states:

For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office.


This is my first indication of someone who despises and does not understand why popular elections were not the path the Founders choice for selecting a person to an office that was to hold no more significance than the Legislative and the Judicial.

My go to Federalist Paper is No. 10.

...it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction...it is that such 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.


The professor continues, entering the fray of "guns" by stating the following:

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do.


My dear professor, it isn't "constitutional-ized"; it is expecting our Federal Government to operate within the parameters it is given.


This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want.


Correct and we have many avenues to make this happen: Article V; Tenth Amendment; our State Legislatures; but we do not have the path of just "desiring" it based on a "majority". This guy teaches?
edit on 3-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-2-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
These so called professors of the Constitution study it so that they are better equipped to dismantle it piece by piece. Obama lectured on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. See the connections...

Dismantle the Second Amendment gun by gun crisis by crisis and soon the First amendment follows... Who's going to resist.

People like this amaze me... That document is old no need to follow it, how could Jefferson know what our country would be like in 2012?... Jefferson would be appalled by this Prof and those like him... I'm sure these folks feel the same way about that crusty, dusty, old Bible too...
edit on 29-1-2013 by jibeho because: (no reason given)


Agreed but I wouldn't use Jefferson as my cornerstone on Liberty or even Governance. Madison is far superior in expressing a form of government that provided the greatest amount of Liberty outside of being on an island by yourself in my opinion.

Other than that, I agree with what you said.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:09 AM
link   
Jefferson wanted to get rid of the Supreme Court, at least limit their power, which led ultimately to judicial review. He was not about fairness in the least.

Thank God that Marshall took him to task.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
The Framers gave us the option of changing it into whatever we want.

Why are you upset about doing what they allow us to do?


Except that option hasn't even been remotely attempted in regards to what this good professor is even basing his arguments around. If the States and the People want to nix the Second Amendment, bring it to a vote. Do you think 2/3rds of Congress will attempt it? What about 3/4ths of the States?

Since those are pretty much unattainable in this political climate, we see a work-around done; utilize and mobilze the Executive bureaucracies; ATF, Homeland Security, TSA, FBI, EPA, FDA, HHS, etc etc to start the stranglehold on what you want done. It worked for the highway system, seat-belt laws, legal age to purchase alcohol, "drugs", etc; why not this?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Spookycolt
The Framers gave us the option of changing it into whatever we want.

Why are you upset about doing what they allow us to do?


Except that option hasn't even been remotely attempted in regards to what this good professor is even basing his arguments around. If the States and the People want to nix the Second Amendment, bring it to a vote. Do you think 2/3rds of Congress will attempt it? What about 3/4ths of the States?

Since those are pretty much unattainable in this political climate, we see a work-around done; utilize and mobilze the Executive bureaucracies; ATF, Homeland Security, TSA, FBI, EPA, FDA, HHS, etc etc to start the stranglehold on what you want done. It worked for the highway system, seat-belt laws, legal age to purchase alcohol, "drugs", etc; why not this?


The second amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear any and all arms. They purposely left it up to Congress to legislate. They were very meticulous with their wording so their intent is clear.

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to regulate firearms.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt
The second amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear any and all arms. They purposely left it up to Congress to legislate. They were very meticulous with their wording so their intent is clear.

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to regulate firearms.


It doesn't? Explain your reasoning here with historical references as well as modern references. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

While I agree that they spared extra wording, they wrote it pretty concisely; as with the whole of the Constitution. We could argue that the Constitution itself, sans the "Bill of Rights" makes no reference or gives no authority to the Federal Government to even regulate arms and therefor would be outside their realm of responsibility....but that is the Madison in me.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939)


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.


Affirmed in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)


The Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."


Why argue that the federal constitution be assumed to mean one thing when it says another? The court already addressed that concept in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803)

The constitutions of Pennsylvania and Vermont expressed the specific purpose:


The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.


That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State


It wasn't until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) that the court made the ambiguous assumption that

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


I can accept that I'm in the minority in this idea though.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Three things I have come to learn about laws in the U.S.A. is that . . .

* The truth is not relevant.

* The people in power think that the laws are really just guidelines.

* And the constitution is just a piece of paper.

Just MHO based on observation over the last 15 or so years.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


I say the Constition we need - a few less "law professors" might be a better answer...

5000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean would be a good start as the saying goes.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Totally and utterly insane.

That is all I can type about that.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 07:10 PM
link   
I guess this law "professor" received one of those honorary degrees since he doesnt know that we CAN ammend the constitution without dumping the whole document. Id say just ignore fools and the programs that feel that they should suffer a fool any airtime. Its also never much of a shock here on ATS at who buys into the BS and who doesnt.


I guess email the "professor" this... he needs to read it as much as a few ATSers..
www.lexisnexis.com...
uspolitics.about.com...
law2.umkc.edu...



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Here is another one of his "pearls":


According to the Georgetown University academic, the Constitution, “with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions”, is the “culprit” behind our broken system of government.


www.policymic.com...




posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 05:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff
Times change.

Take Hammurabis code of of laws, groundbreaking and brilliant in its day but by todays standards basically just barbaric.

As technology and peoples values change so should laws and customs.

Blindly clinging to something because "its always been done that way" or because some magical mystique has been built up around it is just as bad and very similar to religious extremism.

Nothing is infallible, one day, it may not be today or tomorrow or even 20,50,100 years, the constitution will need to be replaced. Thinking otherwise is just putting your head in the sand.
This goes for all countries founding documents not just the US.
Look at the Magna Carta as another example, fantastic in its time but not really applicable for today.

Maybe all the experts mentioned by the OP are onto something and arent part of some big conspiracy to take away your freedoms, just a thought.



If you can write something better than the US Constitution then go write it....

...and if you had a clue you would know the US Constitution stems from the Magna Carta and the post English Revolution Bill of Rights 1689.

The Federal Government is given power by the States and the People of those States...not the other way around, it's not for Law Professors or anyone else to give up the Constitution....for without the Constitution there is no US and all laws become null and void......it's a power grab.

If it ain't broke don't fix it ...

C...



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


So your implying the US isnt broken or at the very least in need of an overhaul?

If you werent blinded by idiotic patriotism you would see how silly you sound



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by arthurfonzarelli
 


What does murkin mean? It sounds like baby talk.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by schadenfreude
 


Somebody had him some toilet paper to wipe his mouth off because he is talking out of his butt. I am quite sure he is being paid by an enemy of freedom to say those things.



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spookycolt

The second amendment doesn't say you have the right to bear any and all arms. They purposely left it up to Congress to legislate. They were very meticulous with their wording so their intent is clear.

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to regulate firearms.


Really? The last time I read the second amendment it had this phrase "shall not be infringed" at the very end of it. Perhaps you've read a different version?



posted on Feb, 4 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


It is the lack of "idiotic patriotism" that has got this country in the current mess.

I would like to know what part of the COTUS is "outdated"....

SO, horses go faster, information travels faster..... What does that have to do with freedom and civil rights? If anything the COTUS is needed now more than when it was written. As all these new wonders are much more usable as a weapon against free men and women.






top topics



 
14
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join