Skip to comments.
The perils of constitution-worship
Economist ^
| 23 Sep 2010
| Economist
Posted on 09/25/2010 1:04:09 PM PDT by Palter
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
To: Palter
"Constitutional idolatry" is sneering mockery, not sober analysis. In fact, there is nothing in the least wrong with insisting that the social contract that forms the political foundation of the country be adhered to. Adhering to an agreement does not constitute worship.
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.
To: Palter
That is nothing but sophistry. The premise, that conservatives worship the Constitution, is false. The author also displays a rather profound ignorance of what the Constitution is and what it represents. Which is amazing since the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out what it represents. Our unalienable rights to be freely functioning human beings to the best of our individual abilities.
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.
62
posted on
09/25/2010 4:44:40 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Defend liberty. Destroy socialism.)
To: Palter
That is nothing but sophistry. The premise, that conservatives worship the Constitution, is false. The author also displays a rather profound ignorance of what the Constitution is and what it represents. Which is amazing since the Declaration of Independence clearly spells out what it represents. Our unalienable rights to be freely functioning human beings to the best of our individual abilities.
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.
63
posted on
09/25/2010 4:44:40 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(Defend liberty. Destroy socialism.)
To: noinfringers2
It can be criticized as crap but it is also part of the other guys agenda i.e. our Constitution is a living document and is and should be subject to change. It is wise to know if not understand what we are up against. They are out there.
It can be criticized as crap or it is crap? This was not some eloquent argument. It was the mindless ramblings of a complete idiot. What was so special about this that it deserved posting on FR without comment?
64
posted on
09/25/2010 4:48:47 PM PDT
by
GLDNGUN
To: P-Marlowe; Palter
Should gays marry? No answer there.
What an ignorant comment by an ignoramus! Any power not specifically delegated to the Congress belongs to the states or the people.
The Constitution says the people's vote in California is the ruling law. Some asswipe judge says it falls into his personal baliwick.
These people are such liars.
65
posted on
09/25/2010 5:28:16 PM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it. Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
To: NavySEAL F-16
I will never understand the thought process of a liberal/socialist. That's because there is no thought process.
66
posted on
09/25/2010 5:39:38 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
(LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
To: P-Marlowe
"Wouldn't it be splendid if the solutions to Americas problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, " Nobody believes that the Constitution holds all the answers to all the problems, but it surely holds the answer to protecting individuals from a predatory, power-hungry state.
67
posted on
09/25/2010 7:13:25 PM PDT
by
cookcounty
(Dec 31st is coming: .....Stop Obama's Midnight Jack-Up!)
To: Palter
The Rothschild toadies have spoken.
Now they can shut the hell up.
68
posted on
09/25/2010 7:26:49 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(The Democrats were the Slave Party then; they are the Slave Party now.)
To: RightInEastLansing
"This guy totally misses the point. Should gays marry? He is correct that the Constitution doesnt address gay marriage, and that is why it falls back to the State authorities."One thing is certain that some judges seem unable to get. It absolutely does not compel gay marriage.
To: Billthedrill; Publius
Anti-constitutional tripe being put forth. Perhaps a link to the current project?
70
posted on
09/25/2010 10:07:20 PM PDT
by
Don W
(I keep some folks' numbers in my 'phone just so I know NOT to answer when they call...)
To: Palter
71
posted on
09/25/2010 11:51:32 PM PDT
by
SuperLuminal
(Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)
To: NavySEAL F-16
I will never understand the thought process of a liberal/socialist. ....only because they don't have one.
72
posted on
09/26/2010 12:03:16 AM PDT
by
upsdriver
(The revolution begins on Nov. 2 to take back our country. The American people vs the ruling elite.)
To: Don W
FReeper Book Club: The Debate over the Constitution5 Oct 1787, Centinel #16 Oct 1787, James Wilsons Speech at the State House8 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #19 Oct 1787, Federal Farmer #218 Oct 1787, Brutus #122 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #127 Oct 1787, John DeWitt #227 Oct 1787, Federalist #131 Oct 1787, Federalist #23 Nov 1787, Federalist #35 Nov 1787, John DeWitt #37 Nov 1787, Federalist #410 Nov 1787, Federalist #514 Nov 1787, Federalist #615 Nov 1787, Federalist #720 Nov 1787, Federalist #821 Nov 1787, Federalist #923 Nov 1787, Federalist #1024 Nov 1787, Federalist #1127 Nov 1787, Federalist #1227 Nov 1787, Cato #528 Nov 1787, Federalist #1329 Nov 1787, Brutus #430 Nov 1787, Federalist #141 Dec 1787, Federalist #154 Dec 1787, Federalist #165 Dec 1787, Federalist #177 Dec 1787, Federalist #188 Dec 1787, Federalist #1911 Dec 1787, Federalist #2012 Dec 1787, Federalist #2114 Dec 1787, Federalist #2218 Dec 1787, Federalist #2318 Dec 1787, Address of the Pennsylvania Minority19 Dec 1787, Federalist #2421 Dec 1787, Federalist #2522 Dec 1787, Federalist #2625 Dec 1787, Federalist #2726 Dec 1787, Federalist #2827 Dec 1787, Brutus #628 Dec 1787, Federalist #301 Jan 1788, Federalist #313 Jan 1788, Federalist #323 Jan 1788, Federalist #333 Jan 1788, Cato #74 Jan 1788, Federalist #345 Jan 1788, Federalist #358 Jan 1788, Federalist #3610 Jan 1788, Federalist #2911 Jan 1788, Federalist #3715 Jan 1788, Federalist #3816 Jan 1788, Federalist #3918 Jan 1788, Federalist #4019 Jan 1788, Federalist #4122 Jan 1788, Federalist #4223 Jan 1788, Federalist #4324 Jan 1788, Brutus #1025 Jan 1788, Federalist #4426 Jan 1788, Federalist #4529 Jan 1788, Federalist #4631 Jan 1788, Brutus #111 Feb 1788, Federalist #471 Feb 1788, Federalist #485 Feb 1788, Federalist #495 Feb 1788, Federalist #507 Feb 1788, Brutus #12, Part 1
73
posted on
09/26/2010 12:18:25 AM PDT
by
Publius
To: Palter
For example, they say that the framers aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the constitution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republics Articles of Confederation of 1777. I take issue with this statement, simply because the Founders saw the failings inherent in the Articles of Confederation and sought to build a strong, but specifically limited and delineated system of government. It worked, not because either the Federal Government nor the States were at the top, but because the power of both levels of government came from the people. (...government derives its just poweers from the consent of the governed...)
The powers of both levels of government were delineated and limited by the Federal Constitution on the one hand, and the State Constitutions on the other, all other power being reserved to the People.
Were that still the case in practice, we would not have the mess we do.
74
posted on
09/26/2010 12:24:38 AM PDT
by
Smokin' Joe
(How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
To: Carry_Okie; Palter
The Rothschild toadies have spoken. Unfortunately, there aren't very many left here on Free Republic who even understand what you're talking about.
To: Palter
Dear Great Britain,
We had a war once on how to run our countries. In the immortal words of our President Obama, “We won. Get over it.”
You go right ahead and continue to run your country into the cesspool of Europe, while we try to recover from our private little disaster (the afformentioned President), via the Constitution you malign — hopefully, to return to being the driving force of innovation and human rights on the planet.
Love,
Laz
76
posted on
09/26/2010 5:00:34 AM PDT
by
Lazamataz
(The battle lines are drawn: On one side, are Dems and Repubs. On the other, the Tea Party (us).)
To: Palter
Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the constitution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a document written in the 18th century This "analysis" is infantile. Swaddled in diapers to hold in the excrement.
I noticed that this "analysis" quotes the Brookings Institution and some pinhead from Haaaaavard.
'Nuff said.
77
posted on
09/26/2010 5:05:43 AM PDT
by
sauropod
(The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
To: texmexis best
The more surveillance cameras you install, the safer you are. Since this has proven to not be the case as the perps simply wear hoodies, attempts to shut down these cameras have been made. The bills have failed. The UK is now the most surveilled country in the world. Without any effect whatsoever. And we are headed down exactly the same path. They're just a little further along it.
78
posted on
09/26/2010 5:13:04 AM PDT
by
sauropod
(The truth shall make you free but first it will make you miserable.)
To: Palter
It is codswallop such as this that led me to cancel my subscription to The Economist earlier this year. They have long ago abandoned their libertarian-leaning free market direction and decided to give a full frontal face plant to Obama in 2008.
The decline of The Economist tracks well with the UK's slow, steady descent into third rate power status. Sad.
79
posted on
09/26/2010 5:34:25 AM PDT
by
hcmama
To: Palter
the complex political arguments of today
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The political issues are NOT NOT NOT complex! They are simple.
There are those who wish to move continually forward toward a communist Utopia., and those who wish to see the Constitution followed as written.
80
posted on
09/26/2010 5:44:46 AM PDT
by
wintertime
(Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-84 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson