Posted on 07/03/2022 11:44:06 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
The latest Supreme Court rulings make it clear: Our current constitution is ill-equipped to provide the necessary legal structures and framework of ideas necessary for democracy to flourish as an institution in the 21st century. This may be the real point of the latest rulings of our highest court. Rather than hold the position that the court ruled inappropriately, consider the argument that the court ruled correctly based upon the document they had at hand, namely, the United States Constitution.
During the 1970s and ’80s, conservative groups dreamed of holding a constitutional convention. Why? To write into our governing document ideas and governing beliefs that those on the right believed were missing. I suggest that rather than whine or complain about the court’s current rulings based on its constructivist view of law, why not instead use the energy of our modern times to construct a document that is reflective of a new constructivist view of the world that includes all of humanity, not just selected groups?
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
>>>“new constructivist view of the world...”
What is this supposed to mean? Constructivist.<<<
This refers to a philosophy of education in which students are encouraged to “construct” their understanding of a subject and the contents of what they’re learning.
It’s supposed to be accomplished by students constantly asking questions about a subject, getting the answers, and then using that knowledge to ask more questions. An old-fashioned example of this would be the Socratic method.
The writer is identified as a former teacher. My guess is that he wants society to create a new world.
In its best form, constructivism is fun for students, like woodshop or science experiments. In real life, though, it’s often easier just to present the quadratic equation and lead students through the process to get a right answer, and a school where students are constantly constructing their own answers to problems wastes a lot of time and effort. Constructivism has a place in the teaching tool kit, though.
The left’s view of the Constitution reminds me of an old joke.
“I grew up in a very liberal Jewish family. My rabbi said, ‘We believe in the 10 Commandments, and you can pick the five you like.’ “
The squad was handpicked by the folks at WestExec and the kenyan was involved too.
Thnx...
Guessing somebody ran a focus group and found a term less scary than liberal, progressive, socialist, or communist.
Anything they write still has to get ratified by 38 states.
Why?
Because the constitution we have is the best in the world. We just need judges to follow it. If you get an Article V convention, they will destroy it rather than fix it. Constitutional conservatives are a very small minority in this country.
GiMeDat liberals are the majority.
Loswer mentality. The politicians and judges are never going to live by it.
They can’t take it over or gat anythign done without 38 states approving.
The Framers wrote Article V to empower the people to amend the Constiutton when the politicans wouldn’t.
The “people” include all the libtsrds in America. You want them writing a new Constitution? Really?
Boy the left REALLY loves killing babies, don’t they?
I am unalterably opposed to any attempt to have a new Constitutional Convention of any sort, whether spearheaded by the left or by the right. I have no doubt that a new convention would produce an inferior constitution and gut our rights.
Our Constitution is just fine. The only problems are due to misinterpretations by the Supreme Court, and, as the Court hsa been demonstrating lately, those misinterpretations can be corrected. That’s the way to go.
Such a convention can only consider the thigns for which it’s called. The libs don’t have enough votes to change anything.
Everybody in the world is going to vote on it, including China, Iran, etc. I don't think so.
Yes, they wish to have no hard rules and to govern at the whims of a few men.
That is the horror of a democracy....where a single vote can upend tradition and stable law in an instant.
That leads to a nation of instability and decline because there is no framework people can depend upon.
Nothing is sacred or protected from mob rule.
I would at least give the author credit for realizing that the left could always have gotten what they wanted, by simply amending the constitution (or proposing and ratifying a new one).
Instead the left (and sometimes the right) relies on:
1. Passing a bad law and hoping it won’t be challenged (lack of standing) or the courts “find” a way to make it constitutional, or
2. Challenge good laws in court and hope the judges / justices “find” a way to make it unconstitutional.
In both cases, we the people suffer as our votes become meaningless.
So I say, GO FOR IT! Call a convention and see if you can get sufficient support for your desires of a Brave New World. As others have mentioned, the odds, especially in our hyper-partisan environment of THAT happening are, essentially, nil.
Be careful what you wish for, commies. A new or changed Constitution may not end up being to your liking.
You’re talking about the Nobel prize for stupidity with that one...
First Amendment: Any court ruling can be overturned as a precedent on appeal by a majority of both houses of Congress and a majority of the states. The Supreme Court must respect the precedent resulting from such an appeal.
Second Amendment: If the appeal is rejected, it cannot be renewed except on entirely separate grounds.
Third Amendment: Anyone demonstrating outside a Supreme Court Justice’s home shall be deemed not to have peaceably assembled. The Justice, any passerby or any law enforcement official can shoot them dead.
Fourth Amendment: States who flaunt the federal code, granting sanctuary to illegal aliens, countenancing assaults on federal courthouses, or otherwise wilfully disobeying the lawful orders of federal officials, shall be deemed to be in rebellion within the meaning of the Constitution, and all participants shall be deemed disenfranchised.
Fifth Amendment: Upon decision of a 2/3 majority of the States of the Union, any state found to be incorrigibly in rebellion shall be ejected from the Union and denied all federal tax dollars, benefits, and seats in Congress, and have their star stricken from the national flag, and all persons from there shall be denied entry into the remaining states.
Sixth Amendment: No person shall be denied life, liberty or the right to pursue happiness on account of age or the arbitrary whims of their mother while they are in the womb.
Those war amendments ended slavery at the cost of centralizing power in DC. So much for the 'perfect Constitution ' argument. Other Amendments added by Congress were even worse, like the income tax and direct election of Senators. How about avoiding war this time? The Convention of States that is currently up to 19 States cancels the call if it goes beyond the boundaries set. We are currently in a Dictatorship and only the resistance of two of the enemies Senator's kept it from becoming permanent. We have nothing left to lose.
Mr. Scott sued himself?
Maybe take another swing at fixing.
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.