Posted on 09/07/2018 6:15:23 AM PDT by C19fan
Well all the Dictators and Socialists are doing ,LOL
Oh the irony. Suggestion: if you're wanna be a playa, you might consider coming prepared. The arguments the British make about American independence and slavery are exactly the same associations made with respect to the Confederacy. But, because I'm a nice guy, I usually provide some informational links to help potential allies up their rhetorical game so to say.
1772 - after decades of abolitionist agitation within the church/society of England, the High court decides that slavery has no common law support. Ergo, the slaves are freed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerset_v_Stewart
1776 - US declares independence. All 13 states still preserve slavery as a core feature within their respective charters. PA is the first 'state' in 1780 to begin introducing abolitionist legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states
You might know that the earliest divide in the US - in fact, the one that eventually manifested in the first Civil war - wasn't really about slavery per se, but the political legacy each region experienced from the original founding of the two key colonies: Plymouth (New England) and London (Virginia). As is quite evident, the reason certain northern states were the earliest to abolish slavery were they where the ones in closest alliance/influence from England and English intellectual thought. Virginia was associated with the French and a more rigid, stratified society.
Anyway, this is the thinking behind the arguments made by the Guardian, et al. They make a very good point: how come Washington & Jefferson, the two richest men in N America and both slave holders are heroes gaining independence, while those who led the South under exact same rationale, are somehow just historical footnotes?
I am embarrassed to admit that Sanford Levinson is a law professor at my alma mater, the University of Texas Law School. He was a contemporary of Elizabeth Warren, who also taught at UT before going to Harvard.
This is the legal thinking that is being taught to the new generation of attorneys and government officials. Any conservative views are penalized with low grades (trust me, I know from experience).
What needs a re-boot is the ability to understand the clear language of the document, and amend it where it no longer represents the societal consensus of our nation, also with clear language. Instead, they have debased the language and imposed chaos and randomness on the field of “constitutional law” so that it is incomprehensible to anyone who does not hold their progressive orthodoxy.
This guy and most of his fellow faculty need to be fired, but that will never happen. They keep getting appointed to even more prestigious endowed professorships.
I was kicked off The Guardian years ago.
This is nothing more than “we can’t get our way so we want to throw out the Constitution and start again”.
Of course their new Constitution, should they want one at all, would look nothing like the one we have.
Their biggest problem OR is it really our biggest problem, is they are spoiled rotten brats and bullies, who are determined to inflict their illogical and irrational Will upon the rest of us. They think “Live Free or Die.” means “Live Free Our Way or You Will Die.”, as they will subject any opposition to their constant state of angry temper tantrum.
Their behavior is unhealthy, unhelpful, dishonest and downright harmful to our way of government; even though much of their behavior is allowed by our Constitution.
Precisely! If you want to be a ‘social engineer’, start a commune and keep your approach to yourselves. Leave us alone. I would have been shocked if the author ‘Sanford V. Levinson’ wasn't indoctrinated in one of the moronic overrated Ivy League universities - and indeed he was (Princeton). I'm quite sure I have more years of education than he does, but that doesn't mean anything. The point is that we should never, ever, ever cede our self-determinism to a pseudo-elite pseudo-intellectual oligarchy. They are never qualified to do much of anything, except pontificate, and have a very, very bad track record when put in positions of power.
I would much rather have a plumber or carpenter decide critical issues than an Ivy trained attorney - unless it was specifically about a court case, lawsuit, or how to avoid one. Even then, I certainly wouldn't preferentially pick one with an Ivy education. I would pick one based on acumen and track record.
Among the MSM worldwide Ignorance, Stupidity, and Cupidity is tolerable.
Among leaders of Nations, inexcusable.
The Rights of Man as a concept from Great Britan is the grandather of our Constitution, which begs the question : When did the British Empire finally outlaw slavery?
Hmmmm?
Sanford V. Levinson needs a boot to the head, then a reboot and another and another
Has California reached this point yet? ;)
Regarding CA, seems that the legitimate way of achieving redress of grievances is to petition, vote and lawfully seek correction, and or separation.
The DOI describes how man is empowered by his Creator to form governments for the protection of rights and liberty, so if the people of CA decide that breaking CA into several states or regional autonomies is the best way to preserve the liberties and will of the people of those regions, then they ought to seek that end. If we are talking violence and armed rebellion, I am not part of that.
The people of CA have a republican form of government, they have representation and available legal and civil courses of action.
Now, if the Executive of CA declares the legislature dissolved, and the courts and legislature do not remove the executive and restore the legislature, then they have descended into tyranny and the fedgov would be required to step in and restore a republican form of government. Right wing or left wing folks armed in the streets because they don like the direction their elected officers are heading? That’s unlawful rebellion.
If the majority of Californians want the government they have, and others cannot stand that , they have choices within the lawful construct- either active political action or vote with their feet- they can move to a more agreeable state. Of course, many would reject that out of hand, so then they can become activist and seek office, or apply pressure politically to seek change. But I doubt they will see any major swing in the statehouses or the executive or the judiciary- they are the epitome of the leftist/statist/socialist paradigm, as is IL, NJ, NY MD etc.
Unfortunately, socialism runs out of OPM (other peoples money) and fascism (govt control of private economy) is the natural result as we have seen in EUR with Hitler and Mussolini- the devolution from there is outright communism when the state seizes private assets as the descent into statist anarchy progresses.
My uneducated take on it anyway.
1. The Electoral College is not a problem, it is a benefit; a benefit in tyring to help the nation remain a Constitutional republic (not a “democracy”). Blaming the electoral college comes from the error of not understanding unlimited one-man one-vote democracy does not work (leads to tyranny and eventual dictatorship) when applied beyond a local jurisdiction. We are a republic consisting of a nation of states, not a unistate, and the electoral college is part of insuring that the chief executive is elected by a majority of the states, according to their electoral strength identified by how many representatives they have in Congress.
When you look at a county by county map of the 2016 election results, you see why the electoral college is not only not a problem, but why it works. Such a map shows clearly that in as much as “the nation” is a collection of places - villages, towns, cities, counties and regions - the electoral college victor has - every time - captured more of the places that make up “the nation”. Hillary’s blue “popular vote” is swamped, across the country, in a sea of GOP red. THAT does not represent “a problem”.
2. Neither the Electoral College nor Article V of the Constitution (how to amned the Constitution) have anything to do with removal of a president. The author’s comment implying that one or the other also makes it harder to remove a president should have been a red flag to readers that the author does not know what they are talking about.
3. What the author considers as making it “too difficult” to remove a president was considered by the founders as constitutional speed bumps to insure presidents could only be removed to due the most egregious acts that would obtain a very wide consensus in Congress in favor of impeachment. That approach is a plus, not a minus, for a stable republic.
4. The author does not identify what “veto gates” he says makes passing legislation difficult, nor does he demonstrate which of any such “gates” are mandates of the Constitution and which are just rules & traditions the houses of Congress adopted for themselves.
5. In re: “Many Americans are rightly perturbed by Trump’s claim of near-dictatorial powers with regard to mobilization of the American military, control of immigration or the imposition of tariffs against one and all countries around the world.” The author is making stuff up. Trump has not grown for himself any powers with respect to the military, exercise of our immigration laws, or trade and tarriffs that the law had not already been granted to presidents, nor that Congress had previously restriucted presidents from using, including all of Trumps most recent predecessors. The author may not like how, why and to what end that Trump has done things, but nothing about it has been beyond the powers already demonstrated under law by his predecssors.
6. In Re: “And if a non-supine Congress actually did attempt to rein in the president by limiting powers it has delegated to him”. Ahhh, he admits he is really talking not about a tyrant taking illegitimate powers, but powers the people’s elected representatives have granted him.
7. In re: “the Constitution gives him veto power over any such legislation—and it would take two-thirds of each house of Congress to override such a veto.” Again, the author sees as a “bad” thing, that when the chief executive and the legislature may be at odds on legislation, that legislation could need to have more than a mere simple majority (51%) to rise above an executive’s veto. Again, that helps prevent the adoption of controversial legislation that does not have a super-majority behind it. That is a good thing, not a bad thing.
8. In Re: “The national Constitution, however, relies only on the character and judgment of a president to honor the independence of the attorney general and the Department of Justice...........The Framers simply didn’t anticipate how deeply partisanship would hollow out Congress’ willingness to hold a president accountable.”. No. The framers correctly saw the FEDERAL attorney general as part of the executive branch overseen by the chief executive. What the framers did not anticipate was that Congress and some chief executives would grant themselves powers - and thus extend the depth, breadth and length of federal law - beyond the limited enumerated powers the Constitution granted it. Wiht the Constitution breached, a federal attorney general holds powers the Constitution did not place in their hands. THAT is the problem.
The auhor neither understands the Constitution nor all the good reasons for so much in it that the author wrongly sees as “bad”.
Funny how well this Canadian actor in a fictional sci-fi series encapsulated things…
Hope you were kidding.
If not, oh well...howz that SJW degree doing?
More commie BS from an “academic”.
ACADEMIC: An individual educated beyond his intelligence who is unwilling to or incapable of creating or providing goods or services of value to others, who pontificates and expects to be paid for it, usually from public funds.
yeah... i posted the /sarc tag later...
sorry.
t
SJW is neither Social, Justice or Warrior... discuss.
Elitist demons are having seizures.
Uhhh ... I think I'll pass ...
If one Constitutional Amendment is essential for the survival of the Republic, as well as to prevent the continuation of functional ignorant, uneducated barely literate legislators in our bicameral Congress, is to require knowledge of the Constitution, but also of preventing any freshmen from introducing legislation until competence is demonstrated.
I was at first tempted to list all the incompetent of the last 40 years from damaging the Republic, but I quickly realized it would be an endless list and I can't afford to waste the entire month of September.
Instead, I would insist on at least passing familiarity with the following...
A Matter of Interpretation, Antonin Scalia, Princeton University Press, 1997
Reference 1
Witnesses at the Creation, Richard B Morris, Barnes & Noble, 1985.
Reference 2
Original Meanings, Jack N. Rakove, Alfred A. knopf, New York, 1997
Reference 3
When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams, Rowman & Littlefield, 2000.
Reference 4
The Complete Federalist Papers, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Project Gutenberg, various formats
Reference 5
I apologize for linking to books which may not be available in the same editions today as the ones I used as reference directly from my personal library. But all are available as used.
Kudos!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.