Liberal Academic Says America’s Founding Document Outmoded

All of his ancestors were Russian.

Only an individual who has remained ignorant of the history of nations could claim that America's Constitution is "outmoded."

Where, in all the history of civilization, has their existed a constitution for self government that limits the power of imperfect individuals in government and, at the same time, provided freedom for likewise imperfect individuals in society, as long as they do not harm their fellows?

Perhaps this individual should develop a better understanding of the Founders' struggle to fulfill the philosophy and principles underlying the Declaration of Independence from an oppressive government by taking the time to read John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address.

That Address may be read, in its entirety, as indicated below, but for those who prefer to read a brief synopsis, consider the following:

John Adams' son, John Quincy, was 9 when the Declaration of Independence was written, grew up in a home where his father and his mother, Abigail, understood the struggle for liberty, and he was 20 when the Constitution was framed. From his teen years, John Quincy served in various capacities in both the Legislative and Executive branches of the government, including as President. His words on this subject should be instructive and enlightening, considering the article referenced in this post.
In the Year 1839, he was invited by the New York Historical Society to deliver the "Jubilee" Address honoring the 50th Anniversary of the Inauguration of George Washington. He delivered that lengthy discourse, and in it, he traced the history of the development of the ideas underlying and the actions leading to the establishment of the Constitution which structured the United States government.
His 50th-year summation seems to be a better source than those of recent historians and politicians for understanding the kind of government the Framers, in 1787, framed .
He addresses the ideas of "democracy" and "republic" throughout, but here are some of his concluding remarks:
"Every change of a President of the United States, has exhibited some variety of policy from that of his predecessor. In more than one case, the change has extended to political and even to moral principle; but the policy of the country has been fashioned far more by the influences of public opinion, and the prevailing humors in the two Houses of Congress, than by the judgment, the will, or the principles of the President of the United States. The President himself is no more than a representative of public opinion at the time of his election; and as public opinion is subject to great and frequent fluctuations, he must accommodate his policy to them; or the people will speedily give him a successor; or either House of Congress will effectually control his power. It is thus, and in no other sense that the Constitution of the United States is democratic - for the government of our country, instead of a Democracy the most simple, is the most complicated government on the face of the globe. From the immense extent of our territory, the difference of manners, habits, opinions, and above all, the clashing interests of the North, South, East, and West, public opinion formed by the combination of numerous aggregates, becomes itself a problem of compound arithmetic, which nothing but the result of the popular elections can solve.
"It has been my purpose, Fellow-Citizens, in this discourse to show:-
"1. That this Union was formed by a spontaneous movement of the people of thirteen English Colonies; all subjects of the King of Great Britain - bound to him in allegiance, and to the British empire as their country. That the first object of this Union,was united resistance against oppression, and to obtain from the government of their country redress of their wrongs.
"2. That failing in this object, their petitions having been spurned, and the oppressions of which they complained, aggravated beyond endurance, their Delegates in Congress, in their name and by their authority, issued the Declaration of Independence - proclaiming them to the world as one people, absolving them from their ties and oaths of allegiance to their king and country - renouncing that country; declared the UNITED Colonies, Independent States, and announcing that this ONE PEOPLE of thirteen united independent states, by that act, assumed among the powers of the earth, that separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitled them.
"3. That in justification of themselves for this act of transcendent power, they proclaimed the principles upon which they held all lawful government upon earth to be founded - which principles were, the natural, unalienable, imprescriptible rights of man, specifying among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - that the institution of government is to secure to men in society the possession of those rights: that the institution, dissolution, and reinstitution of government, belong exclusively to THE PEOPLE under a moral responsibility to the Supreme Ruler of the universe; and that all the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.
"4. That under this proclamation of principles, the dissolution of allegiance to the British king, and the compatriot connection with the people of the British empire, were accomplished; and the one people of the United States of America, became one separate sovereign independent power, assuming an equal station among the nations of the earth.
"5. That this one people did not immediately institute a government for themselves. But instead of it, their delegates in Congress, by authority from their separate state legislatures, without voice or consultation of the people, instituted a mere confederacy.
"6. That this confederacy totally departed from the principles of the Declaration of independence, and substituted instead of the constituent power of the people, an assumed sovereignty of each separate state, as the source of all its authority.
"7. That as a primitive source of power, this separate state sovereignty,was not only a departure from the principles of the Declaration of Independence, but directly contrary to, and utterly incompatible with them.
"8. That the tree was made known by its fruits. That after five years wasted in its preparation, the confederation dragged out a miserable existence of eight years more, and expired like a candle in the socket, having brought the union itself to the verge of dissolution.
"9. That the Constitution of the United States was a return to the principles of the Declaration of independence, and the exclusive constituent power of the people. That it was the work of the ONE PEOPLE of the United States; and that those United States, though doubled in numbers, still constitute as a nation, but ONE PEOPLE.
"10. That this Constitution, making due allowance for the imperfections and errors incident to all human affairs, has under all the vicissitudes and changes of war and peace, been administered upon those same principles, during a career of fifty years.
"11. That its fruits have been, still making allowance for human imperfection, a more perfect union, established justice, domestic tranquility, provision for the common defence, promotion of the general welfare, and the enjoyment of the blessings of liberty by the constituent people, and their posterity to the present day.
"And now the future is all before us, and Providence our guide."
In an earlier paragraph, he had stated:
"But this institution was republican, and even democratic. And here not to be misunderstood, I mean by democratic, a government, the administration of which must always be rendered comfortable to that predominating public opinion . . . and by republican I mean a government reposing, not upon the virtues or the powers of any one man - not upon that honor, which Montesquieu lays down as the fundamental principle of monarchy - far less upon that fear which he pronounces the basis of despotism; but upon that virtue which he, a noble of aristocratic peerage, and the subject of an absolute monarch, boldly proclaims as a fundamental principle of republican government. The Constitution of the United States was republican and democratic - but the experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived; and it was obvious that if virtue - the virtue of the people, was the foundation of republican government, the stability and duration of the government must depend upon the stability and duration of the virtue by which it is sustained." - Excerpts from John Quincy Adams 1839 "Jubilee" Address

Ooops - embarrassed. . . second para should read, "Where . . . has there existed . . . ."

Media superstar??? Well, I for one never heard of him (and I consider myself well-informed as to current events). Maybe that's because the media outlets he appears on are all far left, and I don't generally get exposed to them because of the anger they provoke in anyone with the capability of rational thought.

I will point out that virtually all the large media outlets are all on the far left.

Thanks.

'through the exercise of virtues, most notably forced justice and forced charity.”

Worse than a Borgia Pope if these are the people speaking for/advising the Vatican.

Tree’s over yonder.

Ah, nevermind then. Large brain fart from me in that case.

Jeffrey Sachs? well I dont own a TV....but I dont think Ive ever heard or seen the name on the new...until now

Jeffy is Nummber 1001 with a Bullet?

A real with it sort of Vatican Advisor?

The ERF INSTITUTE?

My TV blew up when the ojay simpson verdict was announced....and ive been TV FREE ever since

...to challenge this “American idea” by “proclaiming that the path to happiness lies not solely or mainly through the defense of rights but through the exercise of virtues, most notably justice and charity.”

"The American idea" includes virtues like justice and charity, but those virtues were to be exercised predominantly by the civil society, NOT by a "Big Brother" leviathan government. (I assume here that they are not using "justice" in the strictest legal sense of the term.)

The founders knew that governments and the individuals positioned within them were inherently NOT virtuous for the most part, so to have government "exercise virtues" was unrealistic and self-defeating from the perspective of the citizenry as a whole.

There is little to be said in favor of Sachs' ideology; it's been proven time and again throughout history to lead to tyranny and repression.

Just don't see the need for further debate. Sachs is dead wrong. The American founders got it right.

Forgive me for suggesting that there is a common error, here, in trying to blend different purposes; which are far better analyzed separately.

The legal, contractual, compact theory of Government to secure the basic Natural Rights--those which Man has in a State of Nature--is not something that must inevitably either affirm or deny, such virtues as justice, charity or a healthy sense of community (something we have really begun to lose in America).

While the social virtues that thrive in the society of a people motivated by religious values, are correctly seen as beyond merely important to the health of a social or political order; understanding those virtues--and what they mean to the social order--is not helped by seeing them as some sort of alternative to our traditional recognition of the Natural Rights of Man. Quite the contrary. There can be no "justice," that ignores the rights--including the free will of the individual in the pursuit of truth--that Man has from the very nature of the creature.

It cannot be over-stressed, in my opinion, that American principles grew out of actual experience & reason, in sharp contrast to the fantasy wish lists that drive every form of Socialist meddling with the natural development of a social order.

Thus, charity is a giving of oneself to help another. It is not, by any reasonable interpretation, a situation where you discover a need, and say, "Wait a moment, while I go rob my neighbor for your benefit"--either literally or via counting a leftist mob at the polls.

Understand that Welfare in Jefferson's Day worked, because it was not confused with the role of Government. That does not mean that it was not important, valuable, etc..

We need both raiment & shelter; both food & sleep. They are not the same thing; nor are they alternatives in the ultimate sense.

The pope's expected encyclical on climate change is supposed to help mobilize the governments of the world in this crusade. But a prestigious group of scholars, churchmen, scientists, economists and policy experts has issued a detailed rebuttal, entitled, "An Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change," pointing out that the Bible tells man to have dominion over the earth... Released by a group called the Cornwall Alliance, the letter urges the Vatican to consider the evidence that climate change is largely natural, that the human contribution is comparatively small and not dangerous, and that attempting to mitigate the human contribution by reducing CO2 emissions "would cause more harm than good, especially to the world's poor." The Heartland Institute held a news conference on April 27 at the Hotel Columbus in Rome, to warn the Vatican against embracing the globalist agenda of the climate change movement. The group is hosting the 10th International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, D.C. on June 11-12... Voice of the Family, a group representing pro-life and pro-family Catholic organizations from around the world, has taken issue not only with the Vatican's involvement with Sachs but with Ban Ki Moon, describing the two as "noted advocates of abortion who operate at the highest levels of the United Nations." Sachs has been described as "arguably the world's foremost proponent of population control," including abortion. Voice of the Family charges that environmental issues such as climate change have become "an umbrella to cover a wide spectrum of attacks on human life and the family." ...Pope John Paul II had worked closely with the Reagan administration in opposition to communism and the global population control movement. He once complained that a U.N. conference on population issues was designed to "destroy the family" and was the "snare of the devil." Pope Francis, however, seems to have embraced the very movements opposed by John Paul II.

I cannot trust the United Nations—Nor any who promote a New World Order governed by men divorced from God. The only Kingdom I can Pray come —is that of Jesus Christ/God.