Imbecilic Leftist Law Professor Calls Constitution ‘Imbecilic’

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by American_Jihad, May 31, 2012.

  1. American_Jihad
    Offline

    American_Jihad Flaming Libs/Koranimals

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    Messages:
    8,634
    Thanks Received:
    1,902
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
    Ratings:
    +3,248
    Imbecilic Leftist Law Professor Calls Constitution ‘Imbecilic’

    Posted by Joseph Klein
    5/31/12

    In his New York Times op-ed article on May 29th titled “Our Imbecilic Constitution,” a law professor named Sanford Levinson demonstrated wacky, imbecilic progressivism in action.

    Professor Levinson believes that our Constitution itself is the source of what he characterizes as the “dysfunctional, even pathological” American political system. The learned professor would do away with our system of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” altogether. It’s just too darned difficult, he believes, to allow legislative and judicial interference to an omniscient president whose superior wisdom we should just learn to accept, unless of course a future president happens to be conservative.

    Levinson would “permit each newly elected president to appoint 50 members of the House and 10 members of the Senate, all to serve four-year terms until the next presidential election.” I wonder if Russian President Vladimir Putin is listening.

    ---

    Finally, Levinson complains that it is far too difficult to change the Constitution through the amendment process set forth in Article V. In another piece he wrote several years ago attacking the legitimacy of the Constitution, he claimed:

    Because it is so difficult to amend the Constitution — it seems almost utopian to suggest the possibility, with regard to anything that is truly important — citizens are encouraged to believe that change is almost never desirable, let alone necessary.

    Our Founding Fathers provided a framework for government that purposely made it difficult to allow the passions of the moment to override reasoned debate and prudent action. They tried to find a balance between an unchangeable document cast in stone for all time and an overly malleable document that could be sacrificed to transient whims. As James Madison described the amendment process in Federalist 43:

    It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.

    There are currently twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution. The first ten, the Bill of Rights, confirm the protection of our basic liberties. Other amendments have expanded the reach of these liberties. However, if Professor Levinson had his way and constitutional amendments were as easy to pass as legislation, Obamacare would be a constitutional amendment enshrining the made-up “right” to universal health care on terms dictated by the government. Amnesty would be granted to all illegal immigrants in some sort of made-up open-borders human rights amendment. And so on.

    ---

    Imbecilic Leftist Law Professor Calls Constitution ‘Imbecilic’ | FrontPage Magazine
     
  2. tererun
    Offline

    tererun BANNED

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    1,109
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    carolinas
    Ratings:
    +159
    Oh I am sorry, I read this wrong and thought it was about right wing presidential candidates saying the US is a christian country and should go by biblical law. No no, go on with your bitching about a law professor with no legislative power mattering like the no ones running for republican president calling the constitution idiotic in one of it's most important amendments.
     
  3. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    The guy sounds like a bit of an idiot with the idea to have the president appoint senators, but I don't see why you insist he is "leftist" - whatever that means.

    His points about the difficulties in amending the constitution sound reasonable, and I don't see a left/right angle to it.

    Why do you?

    btw. In your sig line you suggest Mohammed was a drunk - what do you mean by that? Or is it just mindless racism?
     
  4. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    61,336
    Thanks Received:
    9,145
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +21,089
    Islam isn't a race, you moron.
     
  5. rdean
    Offline

    rdean rddean

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    60,057
    Thanks Received:
    6,881
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    chicago
    Ratings:
    +14,904
    Republicans have submitted 42 Amendments since Obama took office. Guess they don't like it as much as the say they do. Separation of Church and State? We know they don't believe that.
     
  6. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Then it's lucky no-one said it was.

    If you check on this, you'll probably find that attacks on both Jews and Muslims are generally considered racism, even though technically they are not actually races.

    If you are uncomfortable with this, perhaps let the relevent authorities know that attacks against Jews and Muslims are not racist by definition.
     
  7. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    61,336
    Thanks Received:
    9,145
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +21,089
    No, I'm just advising you that it's asinine to call someone a racist because they call a specific person (Mohommed) a drunk. Calling one person a drunk isn't an indictment of a race...particularly when that person isn't recognized for his race but for the religion he founded.
     
  8. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    61,336
    Thanks Received:
    9,145
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +21,089
    And attacks against Muslims certainly aren't racist by definition.
     
  9. Saigon
    Offline

    Saigon Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2012
    Messages:
    11,434
    Thanks Received:
    870
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    Ratings:
    +1,240
    Then it is lucky I didn't call anyone anything. I asked if there is a reason he posted it.

    Please try and stick to what I post - not what you think I might post.

    That's good to know...I'm not sure all of our Jewish posters will agree that attacks against them are not racist, though.

    I would say a great many attacks I see posted about Jews would meet most legal definitions of the term "racism".
     
  10. koshergrl
    Offline

    koshergrl Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    61,336
    Thanks Received:
    9,145
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +21,089
    That attacks against Jews I've seen on this site have come from Progressive whackadoodles, who definitely are racist.

    But calling Mohommed a drunk isn't indicative of racism, any more than it's racist to call Obama a crappy president.
     

Share This Page