Posted on 01/28/2019 1:41:53 AM PST by Jacquerie
“The American Constitution is an outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk,” wrote Ryan Cooper in a 2018 column for The Week.
After the obligatory cheap shot at our Framers for their imaginary yet unforgiveable original sin of slavery, he launched into a tirade about a divided Washington in which elections generally do not produce functioning governments, meaning government responsive to passing popular whims. His remedy? Adopt the governing structure of “normal” countries, a parliamentary system.
To counter what he calls the “right-wing fringe” in the House of Representatives, he proposes three reps from enlarged congressional districts. In this scheme, what I call the Happy House, non-Uniparty candidates have a chance. He would retain the current 435 membership and extend their terms to four years. What could possibly go wrong?
On the bright side, and unlike former Michigan congressman-for-life John Dingell, Cooper wouldn’t do away with the Senate. But it’s small comfort because instead of restoring a federal government through repeal of the 17th Amendment, he would neuter an already feeble Senate into something like the flaccid British House of Lords. Just mimic the unwritten British constitution, where the party is government and government is the party. Bad idea.
I don’t know anyone who spends much time studying anything they dislike. Just ask my wife about algebra. But hey, maybe I’m wrong about Cooper. Maybe he knows of what he writes. If so, then it’s that much worse because he keeps his Constitutional knowledge hidden from his readers. He believes our Constitutional structure, which was de-federalized by the 17th Amendment, is still an inadequate sluice for Leftist legislation. To further lubricate the skids in his ideal party government, he would have the Happy House appoint Presidents! This corrupt arrangement guarantees his “functioning government,” flow of bills into laws, like you-know-what through a goose.
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
I read something here the other day that I initially reflected on only momentarily but it stuck in my mind. That we made a mistake in “Western Civilization” when we based everything on the supremacy of the smallest political unit. The Individual. Like all mistakes in logic, once a false premise is accepted as true everything built upon that p;revise becomes unstable and cause problems that require band aids down the line. The TRUE smallest political unit is a man, a woman, and their child. Look at all the problems we have. Imagine how those problems would just disappear if we had true priorities. Roe v Wade. Taxes. Water supplies. Once you have true priorities a lot of our problems would never even happen.
Think about it. A HUGE problem we are wrestling with is we accept as “true” that government should treat men and women as equals. Why the hell would we do that? One look and an idiot can tell men are not women. Why would we accept a premise that is so clearly ridiculous? But how many of our social ills could be cured by simply admitting women are not men? Is it any wonder weak minds get confused about gender?
They’re not confused about gender. Leftists are confusing commonly understood terminology on purpose, to get control of language and to break down society completely so they can rebuild it in their image.
Found yesterday on Pinterest: “Our generation is becoming so busy trying to prove that women can do what men can do that women are losing their uniqueness. Women weren’t created to do everything a man can do. Women were created to do everything a man can’t do.” Amen.
If I follow you correctly, I think the problem is generally solved if SJW courts admit states and localities to limit individual license, the corruption of liberty.
I am sure he would feel more at home is North Korea
No one here objects to this conspicuous lie right at the start of the article?
Regards,
But slavery had existed in the colonies for more than 100 years and the Founding Fathers were not in a position to force slaveholders to free their slaves, except where the slaveholders were a very small minority. If the Constitution had included provisions permitting the federal government to interfere with or abolish slavery, none of the states where slavery was important would have ratified the Constitution.
Even some states where slavery was not very important dragged their heels when it came to ending it. So maybe a Constitution which took a firm stand against slavery would have been ratified by four or five states.
The Framers, as you said, were not responsible for what progs blame them, what they equate to original and unforgivable sin.
WTF are you writing about? The Framers weren’t responsible for slavery.
Let's remain civil, please!
They tolerated Slavery, and enshrined it in our Constitution.
Even if not even a single Framer had ever owned a Slave, they would still have been aiding and abetting its existence as an institution.
Regards,
Excuses, excuses...
So you're saying that they had no choice but to accept and enshrine Slavery in our Constitution (since it otherwise wouldn't have been possible to establish the Union)?
Are you saying that makes them not culpable? Do they not have to "own up to" any responsibility? Are they totally guiltless?
Sorry, but the Founders were "tainted" by their aiding and abetting the institution of Slavery.
Regards,
Bookmark
At the Constitutional Convention they had to agree to the compromise of not ending the slave trade for 20 years, or otherwise South Carolina and Georgia would not have agreed to the Constitution, even though the delegates from the other slaveholding states wanted to end it right away.
Jefferson was a slaveholder and only freed a few of his slaves in his will, but his writings helped inspire the anti-slavery movement and his efforts to ban slavery in the western territories helped lead to the ban on slavery in the Northwest Territory ensuring the creation of five free states in that area--many of whose settlers would have been happy to have established slavery there.
The Founding Fathers won our independence and created the best government known in history. Yes, they should have taken more actions against slavery but they did what they thought feasible. This was at a time when indentured servants and apprentices were often treated as badly as slaves (only it was not a lifetime sentence). I don't think our generation can stand in judgment--we inherited a society without slavery. How do we know we would have done better in their place? And they would be appalled by many of the things we accept.
I don't think our generation can stand in judgment--we inherited a society without slavery.
I did not "judge" the Framers. I merely observed that it is false to claim that slavery was imaginary, or that they had no part in it.
Regards,
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.