Skip to comments.Dialogues: Shackled to a relic while the world moves on [Constitution Hater]
Posted on 09/05/2011 7:46:06 AM PDT by SandRat
Two or three hundred years from now, when historians dissect the fall of the American Empire, the consensus will be that the City on a Hill crumbled because of a counterproductive devotion to a superstitious religion.
Its not Christianity, not free enterprise and not even an insatiable urge to police the world.
No, the fatal religion will have been unyielding faith in a piece of parchment that each night is lowered into a nuclear bomb-proof chamber a hundred feet below the National Archives.
Even in my younger, more contrarian, more nihilistic days, I couldnt have imagined ever thinking this. Like all Americans, I was raised to believe the unique combination of intellect and courage that defined our Founding Fathers was no accident, and where outsiders might see trivia in four of our first five presidents taking their last breaths on July 4, I saw magic, I saw prophecy proof positive of the eternal providence backing this great and noble experiment of ours.
Apparently, Im not the only one whos beginning to lose faith.
Fareed Zakaria, the leading candidate to unseat Thomas Friedman as the worlds most reasonable geopolitical journalist, took a daring step in his campaign to own the middle last week when he blogged, Why America Needs a Prime Minister.
In the piece, Zakaria pointed out that the U.S. is doomed to fall behind other countries in the world because of political gridlock both constitutional (checks and balances) and procedural (filibusters). As a jumping off point, he notes that the U.S. governments failure to act in a confident and timely manner to raise the debt ceiling leaves only parliamentary regimes as owners of AAA credit ratings.
If you are able to set aside your personal feelings about near and dear things like the Constitution, the flag, mom, apple pie and all the men who died to protect our freedom; and look at the matter coldly and calculatingly, can you honestly say hes wrong?
When the world comes out of this prolonged recession or more likely adapts to this economic malaise as the new norm the European Union will reassemble and compel its more prodigal members to shape up or ship out. Chinas government will go on doing whatever it needs to do to increase its might, and all the while, the U.S. will be busy trying to read the tea leaves from this 18th Century document written by men who rightly feared the British would return any day to reclaim what was once theirs.
Despite their obvious, immediate fears, we believe these men were so clairvoyant they somehow foresaw the problems of today and encoded eternally guiding lights in the founding documents.
Take for instance, abortion.
The argument for it is that society does not benefit from millions of unwanted children who disproportionately become burdens on society. Or, less pragmatically, men should keep their laws off of womens bodies.
The argument against it is that we need greater native-born population in order to be less dependent on immigration in the work force. Or, less pragmatically, abortions make God angry.
But what finally won the day for legalized abortion was an interpretation of the Fourth Amendments clause against illegal search and seizure.
And somehow President Bush revealed himself as a dunce by calling this a reach.
If you could travel in a time machine back to 1787 and could ask an author of the Constitution whether the Fourth Amendment protected a womans right to an abortion, he would say: The Fourth Amendment is there to keep His Majesty from taking your stuff.
How about gun control?
The pro side says guns kill people and the anti says people kill people. Fair enough.
But if on the same time machine trip you ask the same Constitutional author whether the Second Amendment protects a mans right to walk into a public park with a Glock on his hip, his answer would be: The Second Amendment is there to keep His Majesty from taking your stuff.
Constitutional lawyers and scholars are considered impressive people. But increasingly, they look to me like mothers of toddlers trying to analyze their kids letters to Santa as though they were Finnegans Wake.
As inconceivable and blasphemous as it sounds, following Zakarias advice and freeing ourselves of the Constitution, or at least putting it in a proper perspective, isnt impossible and it has happened as little as 10 years ago almost to the date.
Just days after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, President Bush just up and created the Department of Homeland Security, crammed through the Patriot Act and not long after, started two wars.
Though they cried bloody murder once all of these efforts proved unpopular, Democrats did nothing at the time, conceding that in a time of crisis, the president deserves a mandate.
You can disagree with everything Bush did with all this unopposed leverage on principle, but the fact remains that jobs and cottage industries were created and government got things done like it hasnt since.
While were busy trying to decipher which Constitutional quatrain protects or denies gay marriage, China is bulldozing its natural beauty and rural peasantry to build its infrastructure oh, and by the way, has its sights set on beating us to Mars.
While were haggling over the constitutionality of Obamacare, Europe is simply instituting socialized medicine, adapting to it and building around it.
We want our president to go out and do something about jobs. Whats he supposed to do?
Even the establishment of an infrastructure bank, which everyone seems to think is a good idea, cant even get passed because Republicans cant sell anything beyond tax cuts to their constituents.
We are stuck, we are falling behind and, thanks to the Constitution, theres no end in sight.
This is what happens when you put new wine into old wineskins.
Dont get me wrong, the Constitution is a beautiful and inspired document that celebrates the best intentions of humanity and is worth dying for.
But make no mistake about it, it is a corpse we are shackled to and we will sink with it into the archives of history when the sun sets on our empire.
MATT HICKMAN can be reached at
He’s absolutely Correct. Therefore, when I become Dictator and President for life, and I burn him at the stake for a spelling error, and he starts yelling about his so-called “rights” from the smoke, I can remind him of this article, and smile...
....and economically thriving, eh Matt?
The “author” is an idiot of the lowest order. He has no understanding of history and his obvious contempt of the Founding Fathers is abysmal.
My suggestion to the “author” of that tripe would be that he read, if he has the ability, the Federalist Papers.
Then he might, just might have a clue. But I won’t hold my breath. The man is delusional.
There is no arguing with a worldviiew that has such a different premise. He rejects the initial inalienable rights doctrine of individuals, and asserts there are no inherent rights, ONLY “rights” decided (conveniently) and defined by folks like him.
It goes something like this: “Oh, that useless piece of parchment, written by dead white guys. You know how they were. Don’t bother reading a document designed to be read and understood by 18th century backwoods farmers, you are completely too stupid today, to comprehend such literature, and besides, the Supreme Court ruled, and the constitution is Unconstitutional and they are the Final Authority on that, unless they rule that it isn’t, then of course they are wrong, because we’re the Experts.
Get out of the way.
The Second Amendment is there to keep His Majesty from taking your stuff.”
You left out something very important Matt.
“The second amendment is there to keep the federal government we are forming in 1787 from enslaving the people of the thirteen sovereign states, by the power of usurpation, but in the meantime, only the Continental army and what weapons we have are going to be able to keep the king from taking our stuff.
Matt, what can I say. Stupidity, is a fatal disease. You have it, and nothing I say will cure you, so sorry. I do have some compassion, but not for you, mostly for the country you are doing your damnedest to destroy with your democrat ideas and talking points.
While the rest of the world “swirls around the toilet bowel”, is more like it...
This article is a glaring example of why “interpreting” the Constitution in essence nullifies it.
While the world moves on... collapsing, in flames, over the edge of the cliff.
You cannnot reason with a far-Lefty who has no concept of history or context. The Fairy Tale obsession with European Socialism as a model to emulate here is flawed in concept and in practice.
He is the problem, and one day, the enemy.
This is what comes when mediocre minds possess such high self esteem .
This guy is either a complete idiot or is simply a propagandist trying to prey on idiots in our society.
“Take for instance, abortion.
The argument for it is that society does not benefit from millions of unwanted children who disproportionately become burdens on society.”
Well if there are no inalienable rights and the Constitution needs to be thrown out in order to get things done and not have gridlock then why stop at children yet born?
We need to get things done, right? So forget about just legal abortions, lets just get rid of all the human waste that is burdening our society.
Hopefully if we get a new form of government we can start with getting rid of this dictator loving imbecile. Then he can see how well his new streamlined system of government will work.
Sorry for such a negative sounding post but it is so disheartening to read such extreme ignorance being promoted today by the left.
He is simply arguing for fascist dictatorship pure and simple.
Why would anyone want to?
One cannot help from smiling at the solemn invocation of the credit rating of publicly-issued bonds as a measure of governmental excellence, as if either author had a faint clue what he is talking about. That isn't the purpose of the Constitution. The measure there, and it has been from the very beginning, is the protection of the liberty of the individual citizen. The "inefficiency" inherent in checks and balances was placed there deliberately for that purpose. This isn't complicated, it used to be a part of grade-school curricula before the emphasis was shifted toward the ability of five-year-olds to put a condom on a banana.
However, the Constitution was also designed - Article V - to be subject to modification should political geniuses such as Zakaria and the author manage to convince a supermajority of their fellow citizens to agree to dispense with this outdated piece of parchment. However bleak my personal view is of the march of ignorance within American society, we're not that dumb yet, thank God.
Troll him on a 200’ rope behind a boat headed for the Cuban coast, and if the sharks have left anything, Fidel can have it.
The author proved the Framers were correct; our Constitution is only fit for a virtuous people. It is unfit for him and his fellow monkeys. They are surely fit for the despotism we are headed for.