Imbecilic Leftist Law Professor Calls Constitution ‘Imbecilic’

American_Jihad

Flaming Libs/Koranimals
May 1, 2012
11,534
3,715
350
Gulf of Mex 26.609, -82.220
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
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Islam isn't a race, you moron.

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.
 
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.
 
And attacks against Muslims certainly aren't racist by definition.
 
No, I'm just advising you that it's asinine to call someone a racist because they call a specific person (Mohommed) a drunk.

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.

And attacks against Muslims certainly aren't racist by definition.

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".
 
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.
 
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.

How many have Democrats submitted? How many actually passed either house? both? Were signed by Obama and sent to the states?

Do you have a brain?
 
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


Why do we care what this guy thinks?
 
I wonder how much he makes a year to say assholio things like that.
 
In that case, you're a racist for implying QW is a racist.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

I don't know if the OP is a racist or not - that's why I asked him if there was a basis for his claim.

If he has reasonable evidence that Mohammed was a drunk, then I wouldn't consider his comment racist.

If, as I suspect, he has no evidence and his comments runs along the lines of "Jews control the media", "Jews are greedy" or "black people are lazy", then I would day he is a racist.
 
Obviously the OP and many others on the right didn’t read, or comprehend, the actual NYT opinion piece.

The author is advocating what conservatives also advocate: the elimination of the rule of law and judicial review and making judges and courts ‘more accountable’ to the will of the people.

Rightists are equally ‘imbecilic.’
 
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.

Yet some want to return to Senators appointed by state legislators, instead of by the votes of citizens. Where "jihad" finds his political affiliation is unknown. He sounds more extreme right than left.
 
Obviously the OP and many others on the right didn’t read, or comprehend, the actual NYT opinion piece.

The author is advocating what conservatives also advocate: the elimination of the rule of law and judicial review and making judges and courts ‘more accountable’ to the will of the people.

Rightists are equally ‘imbecilic.’


:lol::cuckoo:You betcha, skippy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top