The perils of ignoring it are far worse. You end up with an oligarchy of people who firmly believe that they can do whatever they want regardless of what the mere mortals want or think.
The Economist is a Brit rag. They can’t stand that our forefathers won this nation’s Independence from their sorry asses!
A number of judiciaries claim otherwise - I won't say they believe it, but they claim it nonetheless. In any event, either such judges are correct, and the Constitution really does grant a host of hidden rights nowhere mentioned by name or they're incorrect and are subverting their positions for their personal goals. Either way, it's an issue that must be addressed; and what's truly infantile is the author's thinking he can just brush the question aside based on his own preferences.
Major tailspin into an uninformative thud.
>> Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today...
Possession where? The infantile editors at the Econimist?
infantile?
he can got to hail
figures he’s from hah vuhd
“Wouldn’t it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket?”
It could fit on a slip of paper “Get rid of those who hate America and support the Conservatives and entrepreneurs. Study the Bible throughly and follow its wisdom.”
Now - how much space did that take?
We (as Americans) must believe in the "consent of the governed." That consent is embodied in the founding documents, and is protected by the limitations put upon our government within them.
It isn't a matter of government worship - It is a liberal mind that even conceives that notion. It's all about enforcing the original contract.
There is something infantile in the belief of half-educated British media poofs that human nature has changed at all since the 18th century.
Don't even need that much print. Legalize freedom. Works every time.
this from a country that lets illegal squatters throw a elderly man out of his house and the police are too PC to deal it or deal with the yobs
Just what we need. Another newbie telling us that the Constitution is outdated and inadequate for “modern” times.
Get lost.
Pssst--hey, copy editor---"venerated" means "revered". So, if these documents were "venerated" for 2 centuries, where is the "peril of Constitution worship"?
IATZ?
Seems to me that the only thing that the original Constitution did was form the monster in Washington. It was written in language that invited the usurpation that has taken place for over 100 years. Thank God some folks saw the shortcomings and insisted on that list of “negative rights for the government” before they agreed to ratify Mr. Madison’s document.
The first 10 amendments are the only part of the Constitution worthy of high esteem and they exist to protect us from the entity created by the original document. Judging by the number and scope of the usurpations by that entity, they really haven’t done a good job.
Don’t think anybody considers any of the Constitution sacred but it was the agreement between the states when they created the monster and we would just like to get back to that point. We were a free people when the monster was created and now; not so much. Sort of like “Restore to a prior date”.
The author's case, if it might be flattered by the term, is a sad example of how far down the Economist has fallen in terms of editorial standards. The same pen that mocks those wishing to live up to an agreement writes the silliest nonsense as if it were received wisdom, with no argument or evidence in support. For example:
But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation...
Really? Why is that? Does the author really believe that the basis of a country's legal code and governmental structure needs to be reinvented each generation from first principles? What on earth for? And who says so?
The reply is silence, which is probably a mercy. Clearly the author has very little familiarity either with the Constitution or the numerous arguments that (1) we have strayed from the plan, and (2) that returning to it might serve the country's interests. For example, why do we have a Department of Labor and a Department of Commerce under the Executive when Article I states that those interests are properly under the Legislative? Why has that basic guarantee of no search without a specific warrant been simply disregarded? These are perfectly legitimate questions, not "worship", and if the author thinks that they may be evaded by reinventing the entire agreement once a generation, he or she badly needs to reconsider.
On the contrary, a return to a form of government described by the Constitution is the very key to reduction of the overall size of government. Where government has exceeded its Constitutional mandate, it may be cut. We already have a plan, a pattern, an agreement, and to insist that it is infinitely negotiable serves to negate every reason for having it in the first place.
The author is simply mistaken, both in appreciation of the motivations of the Tea Parties and in apprehension of what a 200-year-old document serves to offer in the way of contemporary guidance. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is burning incense to the Constitution. It would be sufficient if people would read it.
The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint for a government, created by us, to protect that which it represents. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our basic human rights. If those things aren't the basics of human life to the author then what ideals or goals does he want to pursue? Spell it out. If he has a better way to secure basic human rights then spell that out.
Ridiculing reverence and reliance on the best plan we have for securing our most basic needs is infantile. Lacking any argument for a better plan or a more basic need of humanity than life and liberty the author is just ranting incoherently. As it stands our Constitution is the only document that has been written that establishes a government for the express purpose of protecting the natural rights of man.
It seems to me that the author isn't making fun of the Constitution's ability to achieve that purpose he's making fun of the purpose itself. If life and liberty aren't worthy of a passionate defense then what is? Equating that passion with idolatry is sophistry.
The Constitution is nothing more than a blueprint for a government, created by us, to protect that which it represents. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Our basic human rights. If those things aren't the basics of human life to the author then what ideals or goals does he want to pursue? Spell it out. If he has a better way to secure basic human rights then spell that out.
Ridiculing reverence and reliance on the best plan we have for securing our most basic needs is infantile. Lacking any argument for a better plan or a more basic need of humanity than life and liberty the author is just ranting incoherently. As it stands our Constitution is the only document that has been written that establishes a government for the express purpose of protecting the natural rights of man.
It seems to me that the author isn't making fun of the Constitution's ability to achieve that purpose he's making fun of the purpose itself. If life and liberty aren't worthy of a passionate defense then what is? Equating that passion with idolatry is sophistry.
Now they can shut the hell up.
Anti-constitutional tripe being put forth. Perhaps a link to the current project?
Hogwash Alert!