Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’

[upsideguy]

Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’


Like I've said many times, the left are coming for the Constitution.

This is part of the media tour and promotion. Essay's, books, and interpretive dance numbers are next, and that's when NPR will pick up on it.

As opposed to Trump that had no regard for it...... Don't tell us how much you embrace the Constitution when you elect leaders that had no respect for it.

The US Constitution was written by men in the 18th century attempting to frame the development of a nation. It is a great document, on that we can agree, but it not a perfect document, which far too many on the right want to fantasize about. It seems that many on the right want to hold the Constitution in similar esteem as the Bible. The Constitution is NOT a divine document; it has its flaws, as all things assembled by men do.

I am sorry you feel this gentlemen committed blasphemy. It did not. He only pointed out the human flaws in a document that you wrongly view as divine.

What is blasphemous, is thinking this is how it all went down so many years ago....

 

[Schism]

As opposed to Trump that had no regard for it...... Don't tell us how much you embrace the Constitution when you elect leaders that had no respect for it.

The US Constitution was written by men in the 18th century attempting to frame the development of a nation. It is a great document, on that we can agree, but it not a perfect document, which far too many on the right want to fantasize about. It seems that many on the right want to hold the Constitution in similar esteem as the Bible. The Constitution is NOT a divine document; it has its flaws, as all things assembled by men do.

I am sorry you feel this gentlemen committed blasphemy. It did not. He only pointed out the human flaws in a document that you wrongly view as divine.

What is blasphemous, is thinking this is how it all went down so many years ago....
View attachment 67378905

A fabrication woven of lies. One of the more deceitful posts I've read lately.

Projection, assigning positions, making up ideology, straw men. this one is a doozy.

 

[Phys251]

I consider the US Constitution to be the Supreme Law of the Land that government is required to abide. Those who violate it should be removed from power, permanently.

By what method?

 

[Schism]

By what method?

The ballot box.

 

[Phys251]

The ballot box.

And if that doesn't work?

 

[Ikari]

^^ As I said, they're coming for th Constitution, and this is what's called the "softening them up" stage.

First they came for the statues, they came for the names of elementary schools, they came for historical memorabilia, they came for the police, they came for the businesses, they came for the nations founders, and next up...

They're coming for the Founders Documents, all of them. It will be claimed, and is being claimed now via BLM and 1619 Project, that the Constitution is the embodiment of inequality, and that race, ethnic, and gender equity demand its repeal and replacement.

The above responses prove how easy the support will come. What follows their demands will be their violence to make it happen.

Let me know when they actually try to subvert the Constitution as the Trump-Right did on 1/6.

 

[Schism]

Let me know when they actually try to subvert the Constitution as the Trump-Right did on 1/6.

Let you know? LOL Why, so you can cheer them on?

You'll flip like a Wendy's burger.

 

[Glitch]

Let me know when they actually try to subvert the Constitution as the Trump-Right did on 1/6.

Yet another demonstration of civic illiteracy. The poster clearly has absolutely no clue how their own government functions.

 

[Ikari]

Let you know? LOL Why, so you can cheer them on?

You'll flip like a Wendy's burger.

Oh, I wouldn't cheer for it at all. It's just I don't buy your Chicken Little routine here since it was the Right who actually attempted to undermine the Constitution and I don't hear too much bitching from the right about that.

 

[Ikari]

Yet another demonstration of civic illiteracy. The poster clearly has absolutely no clue how their own government functions.

Nice attempt to downplay sedition.

 

[Antiwar]

The US Constitution has some good and some bad. It was a deed to the stolen land. It says very little about human rights, especially for people 'over there.' It set up the federal gubmint; I don't know why wrong-libertarians worship it. Search for that '**** the founding fathers' webpage. Pledging your allegiance to that parchment is mostly meaningless.

 

[upsideguy]

A fabrication woven of lies. One of the more deceitful posts I've read lately.

Projection, assigning positions, making up ideology, straw men. this one is a doozy.

What an incredibly weak, if not cowardly, response.

You never once addressed a thing I said. You have a problem with what I said, please be specific, as most of what I said was rather benign and the facts I used almost axiomatic. You merely displayed an inability to grasp what I said and a further inability to respond intelligently to it.

Lies? My post was substantially opinions. Opinions are not lies unless they are knowingly without foundation. You may not agree with the opinion, but take the opinion apart: challenge the conclusion, the logic in reaching the conclusion or the assumptions that went into it. That is intelligent debate, but you did none of that. Dismissing the body of what I said as lies is the argument of the weak. You often see this here in posts, and even Putin has been doing this lately, as the opinion stands in stark contrast to your own. They lack the capacity and/or the knowledge and/or the truth to take apart the argument, so they just dismiss it a lie without really specifying the lie. That is exactly what you just did.

Let's dissect what I said:

As opposed to Trump that had no regard for it...... Don't tell us how much you embrace the Constitution when you elect leaders that had no respect for it.

The US Constitution was written by men in the 18th century attempting to frame the development of a nation. It is a great document, on that we can agree, but it not a perfect document, which far too many on the right want to fantasize about. It seems that many on the right want to hold the Constitution in similar esteem as the Bible. The Constitution is NOT a divine document; it has its flaws, as all things assembled by men do.

I am sorry you feel this gentlemen committed blasphemy. It did not. He only pointed out the human flaws in a document that you wrongly view as divine.

What is blasphemous, is thinking this is how it all went down so many years ago....
View attachment 67378905

My post included six statements of opinion:
1) Trump had no regard for the Constitution (OK. a separate quip, which I believe. I will give you a separate post supporting that statement)
2) The Constitution is a great, but not a perfect document (it is not divine - See facts below)
3) Many people think the Constitution is a sacred document that should not be questioned, including many that hold Constitution in similar esteem to the Bible. Some almost see God's hand in its authorship (as picture above, which is being sold to people with such beliefs, mount ready for $185, pretty much proves this statement).
4) The gentlemen that acted in a way that you found reprehensible (proven by the fact you started this thread and called him out) was merely
5) That you feel this gentleman committed blasphemy. That he questioned the Constitution. (Ok, prehaps an overreach on my part, but you cut the man no slack for challenging the Constitution, and then immediately ascribed his comments to "the left coming after the Constitution" as if it were a desecration. Am I wrong? You post was quite emotional..
6) People that believe that Constitution should be thought of in similar esteem to the Bible are committing blasphemy. (This is an interesting argument which we can develop -- I would argue that using the Lord's name to endorse anything political is using the Lord's name in vain, which is blasphemy)

My post contained really only two supporting facts, which you would have concede.
1) The US Constitution was written by men
2) The US Constitution was written in the 18th century

Obvious inferences in those facts:
1) If the US Constitution was written by men and men are flawed, the Constitution is likely flawed
2) If the US Constitution was written by men, it is not divine (of course, we could have a theological argument about the Bible -- that is another thread)
3) If the US Constitution was written in the 18th Century, it may not fully speak to all circumstances of the 21st Century

Do you quibble with any of those inferences? If not, what is your problem?

....continued...

 

[upsideguy]

continuation.....

Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’


Like I've said many times, the left are coming for the Constitution.

This is part of the media tour and promotion. Essay's, books, and interpretive dance numbers are next, and that's when NPR will pick up on it.

BTW, your OP is actually, how do you put it .. oh yes, ".... fabrication woven of lies. One of the more deceitful posts I've read lately.
Projection, assigning positions, making up ideology, straw men. this one is a doozy....".

Yes, one guy points out a flaw in the Constitution and you sell it as "the [entire] left coming for the Constitution. Give us a break.

 

[AZRWinger]

Poked you in the eye (figuratively) didn't he?

So one person, who the U.S. Constitution was NEVER written for labels it in his opinion "kind of trash" now becomes in your mind the entirety of the Left and some tidal wave of a Leftist movement to take away your precious Constitution.

Too freaking funny.

Ye seem scared?

Some things Elie said on the View:

“It’s [the Constitution] certainly not sacred.”

True or False

“It [the Constitution] was written by slavers and colonists, and white people who were willing to make deals with slavers and colonists.”

True or False

“They [the Founders] didn’t ask anybody who looked like me what they thought about the Constitution.”

True or False

“[A] modern interpretation of the Constitution is essential.”

True or False

“This document was written without the consent of Black and Brown people in this country, and without the consent of women in this country.”

True or False

“[T]he very least we can do is ignore what those slavers and colonists and misogynists thought, and interpret the Constitution in a way that makes sense for our modern world.”

True or False

“It’s [the Constitution] kind of trash.”

True or False

I will say False on that last one; the other six are all True.

But I do very much understand where Elie is coming from intellectually if not in a personal sense on the “kind of trash” opinion regarding the Founders Constitution.

Being born a white male I have received a greater inherent privilege in life via the U.S. Constitution; I recognize this and that allows for me to recognize where others have not.

It could certainly be argued that Elie has a point. But if one notices he did not say to tear the Constitution up and toss it in the dustbin but rather that it is necessary to interpret the Constitution in the full sense of our modern world.

I agree.

Seriously, look at reality, the U.S. Constitution has 27 standing Amendments with one repealed but with over 10,000 amendments having been proposed in it’s life. That is at least 28 times it has been 'fixed'.

Look then at what we call “The Bill of Rights” that was 10 amendments almost immediately added to the U.S. Constitution by the Founders; an admission from the get go that they had erred some in writing their document and they had left out some needful rights and protections for the “people.”

But that wondrous reworking (fixing) of the U.S. Constitution, those enshrined 10 Amendments of 1791 for the “people” did not stand even for freed blacks and definitely not for slaves, those people who looked like Elie Mystal.

I must admit I have no recollection that I knew of Elie Mystal before today so I want to thank the OP for bringing him to my attention.

No, the bill of rights enumerated 10 basic rights protected from the Federal government. They are stated in terms of negative rights, not a socialist wish list of guarantees.

Madison believed the unalienable rights of the DOI were self evident, no reason to specify them in detail. Several states threatened to reject the document without documented rights, fearing the central Federal government would subsume the states. It has but its taken much longer than it would have without the bill of rights.

The modern interpretation of the Constitution is doublespeak for doing away with any pretense of a Republic. The central authority simply interprets rights to conform to its whim same as a monarch or dictator.

 

[LouC]

No, the bill of rights enumerated 10 basic rights protected from the Federal government. They are stated in terms of negative rights, not a socialist wish list of guarantees.

Madison believed the unalienable rights of the DOI were self evident, no reason to specify them in detail. Several states threatened to reject the document without documented rights, fearing the central Federal government would subsume the states. It has but its taken much longer than it would have without the bill of rights.

The modern interpretation of the Constitution is doublespeak for doing away with any pretense of a Republic. The central authority simply interprets rights to conform to its whim same as a monarch or dictator.

 

[The Mark]

Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’


Like I've said many times, the left are coming for the Constitution.

This is part of the media tour and promotion. Essay's, books, and interpretive dance numbers are next, and that's when NPR will pick up on it.

But he's right.

The constitution absolutely was "...written by slavers and colonists and white people who were willing to make deals with slavers and colonists."

Now, I'm not saying that it hasn't been updated since, and I don't think it's without merit, but understanding the context of it's creation is important. Not all the people in the United States at the time of it's writing were involved in it's creation, so the perspectives that went into it were limited, which cannot help but have an affect.

It certainly isn't a sacred document that cannot be changed. But I wouldn't go so far as calling it trash, either.

 

[NotreDame]

Poked you in the eye (figuratively) didn't he?

So one person, who the U.S. Constitution was NEVER written for labels it in his opinion "kind of trash" now becomes in your mind the entirety of the Left and some tidal wave of a Leftist movement to take away your precious Constitution.

Too freaking funny.

Ye seem scared?

Some things Elie said on the View:

“It’s [the Constitution] certainly not sacred.”

True or False

“It [the Constitution] was written by slavers and colonists, and white people who were willing to make deals with slavers and colonists.”

True or False

“They [the Founders] didn’t ask anybody who looked like me what they thought about the Constitution.”

True or False

“[A] modern interpretation of the Constitution is essential.”

True or False

“This document was written without the consent of Black and Brown people in this country, and without the consent of women in this country.”

True or False

“[T]he very least we can do is ignore what those slavers and colonists and misogynists thought, and interpret the Constitution in a way that makes sense for our modern world.”

True or False

“It’s [the Constitution] kind of trash.”

True or False

I will say False on that last one; the other six are all True.
It could certainly be argued that Elie has a point. But if one notices he did not say to tear the Constitution up and toss it in the dustbin but rather that it is necessary to interpret the Constitution in the full sense of our modern world.

I agree.

Seriously, look at reality, the U.S. Constitution has 27 standing Amendments with one repealed but with over 10,000 amendments having been proposed in it’s life. That is at least 28 times it has been 'fixed'.
But that wondrous reworking (fixing) of the U.S. Constitution, those enshrined 10 Amendments of 1791 for the “people” did not stand even for freed blacks and definitely not for slaves, those people who looked like Elie Mystal.

I must admit I have no recollection that I knew of Elie Mystal before today so I want to thank the OP for bringing him to my attention.

But I do very much understand where Elie is coming from intellectually if not in a personal sense on the “kind of trash” opinion regarding the Founders Constitution.

Being born a white male I have received a greater inherent privilege in life via the U.S. Constitution; I recognize this and that allows for me to recognize where others have not.

I’ll explore the flawed perspective of Elie in another post. I want to address this fiction you espouse.

Your “greater inherent privilege” as a “white male” is a direct product of human beings tremendously sucking in their treatment of other human beings. Yes, the discriminatory practices, the sexist practices, the abhorrent institution of slavery, the racist practices, weren’t mandated by the Constitution. People, human beings, behaved in such deplorable conduct and it just so happened under the Constitution. In fact, many of these practices pre-existed the Constitution. The Constitution didn’t mandate the perseverance of such practices and neither did the Constitution forbid the abolishment of those practices should the people so decide to do so.

So, you’ve recognized a “false cause” for your current day “inherent privilege” as a white person. At best, the Constitution is a tertiary cause, a minimal cause.

Your reasoning is parallel to blaming the Weimar Constitution of 1919 to 1933 and after the passage of the Enabling Act, as the cause for the discrimination against Jews and increasing advantages of the German aryan people at the expense of Jewish discrimination, since it occurred under the Weimar Constitution. This ignores that it takes people behaving badly under both the Weimar Constitution and U.S. Constitution.

Look then at what we call “The Bill of Rights” that was 10 amendments almost immediately added to the U.S. Constitution by the Founders; an admission from the get go that they had erred some in writing their document and they had left out some needful rights and protections for the “people.”

“Erred”? This is revisionist history. The Federalist arduously argued not having the BOR was a stroke of genius, not an error. Why? Because A.) It was impossible to enumerate any and all rights and liberties of the people and B.) An enumeration of some jeopardizes the other unemerated rights. They were prescient regarding B.) as conservatives deny liberty interest on the basis such a liberty interest isn’t spelled out in the Constitution or Amendments. So, no, the BOR isn’t an acknowledgment of an “error” but a compromise some Federalist, such as Madison, proposed in exchange for votes to ratify. Such historical account is easily discoverable in a Google search.

I’ll address Elie’s POV and your agreement in another post.

 

[NotreDame]

Poked you in the eye (figuratively) didn't he?

So one person, who the U.S. Constitution was NEVER written for labels it in his opinion "kind of trash" now becomes in your mind the entirety of the Left and some tidal wave of a Leftist movement to take away your precious Constitution.

Too freaking funny.

Ye seem scared?

Some things Elie said on the View:

“

True or False

“It’s [the Constitution] kind of trash.”

True or False

I will say False on that last one; the other six are all True.

But I do very much understand where Elie is coming from intellectually if not in a personal sense on the “kind of trash” opinion regarding the Founders Constitution.

Being born a white male I have received a greater inherent privilege in life via the U.S. Constitution; I recognize this and that allows for me to recognize where others have not.

It could certainly be argued that Elie has a point. But if one notices he did not say to tear the Constitution up and toss it in the dustbin but rather that it is necessary to interpret the Constitution in the full sense of our modern world.

I agree.

Seriously, look at reality, the U.S. Constitution has 27 standing Amendments with one repealed but with over 10,000 amendments having been proposed in it’s life. That is at least 28 times it has been 'fixed'.

Look then at what we call “The Bill of Rights” that was 10 amendments almost immediately added to the U.S. Constitution by the Founders; an admission from the get go that they had erred some in writing their document and they had left out some needful rights and protections for the “people.”

But that wondrous reworking (fixing) of the U.S. Constitution, those enshrined 10 Amendments of 1791 for the “people” did not stand even for freed blacks and definitely not for slaves, those people who looked like Elie Mystal.

I must admit I have no recollection that I knew of Elie Mystal before today so I want to thank the OP for bringing him to my attention.

It could certainly be argued that Elie has a point.

Having a “point” need not be “argued” as having a “point” is easy, just open one’s mouth and express their thoughts, or type, or write one’s thoughts. Having a rational, lucid thought, that’s something else entirely.

So, “The Constitution is kind of trash.” Okay. This statement certainly is a “point.”

“It [the Constitution] was written by slavers and colonists, and white people who were willing to make deals with slavers and colonists.”

Okay. The overwhelming majority of the text of the Constitution is devoted to subject matter not related to slavery. How exactly the status of being “slavers” impugns those portions of the Constitution is a mystery. Ellie commits a genetic fallacy here, a kind of ad hominem, where the text of the Constitution is attacked but not on the basis of its content but the identity of the people who wrote and ratified it. It’s parallel to the reasoning of discounting what someone said because they’re black, Muslim, white, conservative, progressive, etcetera.

“They [the Founders] didn’t ask anybody who looked like me what they thought about the Constitution.”

Yes, but this doesn’t establish had they’d done so that the Constitution would have been vastly different. Yes, there most likely would be fundamental changes, as the fugitive slave clause doesn’t exist, a specific clause forbidding slavery is included, 3/5s clause is eviscerated, and equal protection for race and voting regardless of race is included.

“A] modern interpretation of the Constitution is essential.”

The above statement isn’t obvious, despite yourself and Elie treating the above as having been delivered to the masses by Elie on a stone tablet from Mount Sinai.

“This document was written without the consent of Black and Brown people in this country, and without the consent of women in this country.”

Yep, in fact, the Constitution “was written without the consent” of all people alive today.

““[T]he very least we can do is ignore what those slavers and colonists and misogynists thought, and interpret the Constitution in a way that makes sense for our modern world.”

Why? Again this is the pathetic genetic fallacy. So, because of their status as “slavers” they cannot possibly have an educated and informed view of a proper understanding of the war powers of Congress and the President? Or a proper understanding of the extent and limits of Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce?

Elie has a “point” but not a rational or logical “point,” at least not as expressed presently.

 

[AZRWinger]

I’ll explore the flawed perspective of Elie in another post. I want to address this fiction you espouse.

Your “greater inherent privilege” as a “white male” is a direct product of human beings tremendously sucking in their treatment of other human beings. Yes, the discriminatory practices, the sexist practices, the abhorrent institution of slavery, the racist practices, weren’t mandated by the Constitution. People, human beings, behaved in such deplorable conduct and it just so happened under the Constitution. In fact, many of these practices pre-existed the Constitution. The Constitution didn’t mandate the perseverance of such practices and neither did the Constitution forbid the abolishment of those practices should the people so decide to do so.

So, you’ve recognized a “false cause” for your current day “inherent privilege” as a white person. At best, the Constitution is a tertiary cause, a minimal cause.

Your reasoning is parallel to blaming the Weimar Constitution of 1919 to 1933 and after the passage of the Enabling Act, as the cause for the discrimination against Jews and increasing advantages of the German aryan people at the expense of Jewish discrimination, since it occurred under the Weimar Constitution. This ignores that it takes people behaving badly under both the Weimar Constitution and U.S. Constitution.



“Erred”? This is revisionist history. The Federalist arduously argued not having the BOR was a stroke of genius, not an error. Why? Because A.) It was impossible to enumerate any and all rights and liberties of the people and B.) An enumeration of some jeopardizes the other unemerated rights. They were prescient regarding B.) as conservatives deny liberty interest on the basis such a liberty interest isn’t spelled out in the Constitution or Amendments. So, no, the BOR isn’t an acknowledgment of an “error” but a compromise some Federalist, such as Madison, proposed in exchange for votes to ratify. Such historical account is easily discoverable in a Google search.

I’ll address Elie’s POV and your agreement in another post.

Liberty interest is a blank check for ad hoc revision of the Constitution. Abortion, homosexual marriage and the Federal takeover of healthcare with a carte blanche taxation system are all based on so-called liberty interest, assertion of new rights not included in the Constitution. Worse, liberty interests are used to assassinate the states ability for self governance.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Worse, liberty interests are used to assassinate the states ability for self governance.

"States have a right to enslave"

 

[Skylar Nova]

Nation Writer Labels the Constitution ‘Trash’


Like I've said many times, the left are coming for the Constitution.

This is part of the media tour and promotion. Essay's, books, and interpretive dance numbers are next, and that's when NPR will pick up on it.

Well there are definitely aspects of it that someone could find to be "trash" for any number of reasons, or the ludicrous ways in which many (often ill-informed) people try to interpret it.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Well there are definitely aspects of it that someone could find to be "trash" for any number of reasons, or the ludicrous ways in which many (often ill-informed) people try to interpret it.

Soooo....this is pretty awkward, but I've heard a few things.....and....I guess you're not going to be posting here anymore huh?

 

[NotreDame]

Liberty interest is a blank check for ad hoc revision of the Constitution. Abortion, homosexual marriage and the Federal takeover of healthcare with a carte blanche taxation system are all based on so-called liberty interest, assertion of new rights not included in the Constitution. Worse, liberty interests are used to assassinate the states ability for self governance.

Not really…the very impetus of the 9th amendment was to protect unenumerated liberty interests.

 

[Nickyjo]

"[T]he left are coming for the Constitution," seriously?

Were you born yesterday?

The Democratic Party has been willfully and systematically violating the US Constitution since their inception in 1828. Biden's illegal federal mandates, the rent moritorium, and the CARE Act of 2020 where Congress paid hospitals for each COVID patient they reported. Those are just the more recent violations of the US Constitution.

The Democratic Party doesn't give a shit about the US Constitution. The Supreme Law of the Land means absolutely nothing to the party of "defund the police." This is what makes them leftist filth. The worst sort of scum imaginable, and why the Democratic Party has always been, and remains today, the greatest threat the US has ever known.

It's rare to see such over the top paranoia. You are to be commended. Can you link us to the lawsuits where these constitutional violations were challenged? But you forgot minimum wage laws, the right to organize, Social Security, Medicare, the ACA, unemployment insurance, worker's comp, the full American carnage the democrats have created.

 

[wist43]

As far as schools go in "religion" if a school receives federal funding then it is prohibited from teaching one particular religion or promoting one particular religion over another. Public schools are allowed to teach about religion as long as all religions are offered. This does not apply to private schools who receive no federal funding.

And how is FedGov authorized by the Constitution to fund public schools??

Madison himself used school funding as an example of exactly what was NOT Constitutional.

We've slipped all the way down that slippery slope.