National Journal: A How-To Guide to Blowing Up the Constitution

[ArcadiaGP]

Honestly, I hope Democrats run on scrapping the Constitution in 14/16. Would be quite an easy victory for us.

Yeah, Jefferson said that Constitutions need replenishing every 19 years. He also said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." So...

A How-To Guide to Blowing Up the Constitution - NationalJournal.com

 

[ViperJock]

Now is not the time to rewrite the constitution. Freedom loving people would get hosed.

 

[Birds Away]

This drumbeat has been going on and is rapidly gaining momentum. The radical left wants to toss it and shore up it's power. If the constitution is allowed to be rewritten the slide towards authoritarian government that we are currently trying to forestall will be swift and complete.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Better not happen.

 

[RockofStrength]

I notice a strong emphasis on overcoming "gridlock", and Ted Cruz is specifically mentioned as an example.

People do understand that a republic is designed specifically to allow the minority to have their voice, right? People do realize that the only reason any minority; racial, religious, philosophical, legal, economic, etc gets any say or any freedom is because we can prevent the majority from acting if we wish? This is elementary school level understanding of American government, here.

 

[CarmelHP]

This just reflects the Left-wingnuts lust for power. If changes can't make it through the Amendment process, why should a backdoor be opened to sneak them in?

 

[cosermann]

... This is elementary school level understanding of American government, here.

Not across the board in the government schools.

 

[lucky4034]

The 2nd Amendment is the fail safe in preserving the Constitution. It has less to do with personal protection and everything to do with resetting liberty.

Everyone who values the 2nd Amendment should understand this concept well....

The question isn't whether or not Government will attempt to dismantle the Constitution... the question is how far will the people allow the Government to go before they exercise their 2nd Amendment right?

 

[actaeon277]

This author wants to replace the republic with a democracy.
He also would like more populous areas to hold more sway over less populous areas.

I disagree with him.

 

[jrogers]

This drumbeat has been going on and is rapidly gaining momentum. The radical left wants to toss it and shore up it's power. If the constitution is allowed to be rewritten the slide towards authoritarian government that we are currently trying to forestall will be swift and complete.

Let's see some support for the claims that "the radical left" wants to discard the Constitution and replace it with a new one and that this plan "is rapidly gaining momentum." Outright lies from Fox News or InfoWars do not count.

It's absolutely hilarious that you seem to think that authoritarianism is limited to the left side of the aisle.

Better not happen.

It won't. This is an interesting article about modern constitutions that is framed in a certain way to drive clicks. Now is not the time to panic.

The 2nd Amendment is the fail safe in preserving the Constitution. It has less to do with personal protection and everything to do with resetting liberty.

Everyone who values the 2nd Amendment should understand this concept well....

The question isn't whether or not Government will attempt to dismantle the Constitution... the question is how far will the people allow the Government to go before they exercise their 2nd Amendment right?

Are you advocating armed revolt?

 

[jamil]

Let's see some support for the claims that "the radical left" wants to discard the Constitution and replace it with a new one and that this plan "is rapidly gaining momentum." Outright lies from Fox News or InfoWars do not count.

I don't think I'd characterize it as a serious movement to change the constitution. That, however, does not give us cause to dismiss opponents of the constitution or deny their existence. The US constitution doesn't allow for lefty ideologies so much; no authority to redistribute wealth chief among them. It's not so much they want to rewrite it. That's obviously a non-starter at the present time. However they do advocate ignoring it, which the current administration does with regularity.

After all, did YOUR president not say that the constitution is fundamentally flawed? What does RBG think about it? What does the Democratic Underground say about it? What does MSNBC say about it? What do scholars at Georgetown University--you know, that shining beacon of conservative thought--say about it?

The US constitution favors individuals. The modern parliamentary systems favor mob rule. I think that's reason enough for collectivists to tend to ignore the constitution.

It's absolutely hilarious that you seem to think that authoritarianism is limited to the left side of the aisle.

Well at least you got that right. I'm not sure who's authoritarianism is scarier. BHO's, or Dick Cheney's.

 

[YoungGunLover]

I'm beginning to think that when Jefferson said The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, that he was talking about what would happen if there was another constitutional convention. Because we know tyrants from both sides would try and take our liberties, and hopefully patriots would stand up to them.

 

[lucky4034]

Are you advocating armed revolt?

Explaining the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is advocating an armed revolt? Who are you... Obama?

No, I am simply stating that the gentlemen who created the document understood that government by its own nature evolves tyrannically and therefore designed the Constitution to protect the people and ward off totalitarianism... the 2nd Amendment was given to the people should the rest of the Constitution fail (which it is).

Obviously society has changed and people are more tolerant (of the .gov) than they were in the 18th and 19th centuries. We allow public officials to get away with murder (literally) and we don't do **** about it. In the 1700's somebodies house would have been burned down and the owner of that house would get paraded through the streets dressed in tar and feathers.

In the 1700's a tax on tea sent ordinary citizens on the warpath... In 2013, for most working Americans, well over 50% of the money we earn and spend is taxed and we are allowing the government to force us to pay for socialized medicine. In 2013 we are arresting war veterans, on public property for visiting a war memorial built specifically in their honor.

I agree with the author of the article that the Constitution has failed... and its failed because the people who the Constitution was entrusted to (all American citizens) -- have failed it.

I'm not advocating revolt... and I'm not telling anyone to run out and fight the government... but at what length will this lackadaisical society determine enough is enough? What will it take for ordinary citizens to stand face to face with government officials and say "stop... OR ELSE"?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The 2nd Amendment is the fail safe in preserving the Constitution. It has less to do with personal protection and everything to do with resetting liberty.

Everyone who values the 2nd Amendment should understand this concept well....

The question isn't whether or not Government will attempt to dismantle the Constitution... the question is how far will the people allow the Government to go before they exercise their 2nd Amendment right?

Is it? I submit that this belief is obviously false.... (this may need a thread all to itself)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Are you advocating armed revolt?

Strawman. I didn't read that at all in what he said.

 

[jrogers]

Strawman. I didn't read that at all in what he said.

That's not what a strawman is.

But the poster responded and denied it, so you're a little late to the party.

 

[Johnny C]

Most of the sheeple would probally support it, a little propaganda goes a long way.

"Fundamental Change of America"

Sure there are a lot of things wrong, sure a lot needs to be fixed, but changing the very fabric of our great nation would destroy the very roots of what made us great in the first place!

 

[Johnny C]

I notice a strong emphasis on overcoming "gridlock", and Ted Cruz is specifically mentioned as an example.

People do understand that a republic is designed specifically to allow the minority to have their voice, right? People do realize that the only reason any minority; racial, religious, philosophical, legal, economic, etc gets any say or any freedom is because we can prevent the majority from acting if we wish? This is elementary school level understanding of American government, here.

Sure, but the bulk of the populous thinks otherwise, Everywhere we hear the word democracy, not republic and voting is thought to allow the majority to have their way.
Most folks dont understand what form of government we have (are supposed to have)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

That's not what a strawman is.

But the poster responded and denied it, so you're a little late to the party.

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version"

You created something where it didn't exist, and questioned him about something he didn't say.

I don't care that he denied it, you still accused him of it.

Possibly more accurate to say "loaded question", as in... when did you stop beating your wife, jrogers?

 

[jrogers]

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version"

You created something where it didn't exist, and questioned him about something he didn't say.

I don't care that he denied it, you still accused him of it.

Possibly more accurate to say "loaded question", as in... when did you stop beating your wife, jrogers?

Yes, I know what a strawman is. You still don't seem to despite quoting a reasonable definition. The post seemed to call for armed revolt, so I asked for clarification. That's not a logical fallacy no matter how much you want to call me out on one.

It's also not a loaded question. There is a fundamental structural difference between ""Are you advocating armed revolt?" and ""When did you stop beating your wife?" but if you're unable to see it I'm not willing to invest the time in educating you.

Wait until I actually make an error before you try to score Forum Points next time. It's bound to happen eventually, but today ain't the day.