Megyn Kelly Challenges Professor Who Wants America to ‘Give Up’ U.S. Constitution

[g5000]

Interestingly enough, the Constitution did not contain the second AMENDMENT at its signing. Doh!

Interestingly enough, you are ignorant of the fact a chief reason the Constitution was able to be ratified was that the Bill of Rights was agreed to be added by the first new Congress. D'oh!

 

[saveliberty]

Interestingly enough, the Constitution did not contain the second AMENDMENT at its signing. Doh!

Interestingly enough, you are ignorant of the fact the only reason the Constitution was able to be ratified was that the Bill of Rights was agreed to be added by the first new Congress. D'oh!

Which was passed first? Doh.

 

[Charles_Main]

Yet still, that raises the question, with what would you replace it?

why would you need to replace a document that can be amended to reflect what ever the current people want?

The wisest thing our founders did was make our Constitution amendable. The fact you can not gain enough popular support to Amend it the way you may want, Simply means you need to get more support and try again.

Scrap it?

You people are plain fucking nuts.

I love how they call us the Radicals, then run around talking about scrapping the constitution because they don't like playing by it's rules.

Simply outrageous.

 

[boedicca]

Richard Epstein has an excellent refutation to the "Professor" today.

Excerpt:

...James Madison's Wisdom For Today

On these issues we can learn far more from James Madison than his modern critics. In Federalist Number 10, he addressed the problem of factions, writing: “By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

The chief mission of government, he asserts, is to develop permanent institutional restraints to guard against factions. One of those was originally found in Article I, section 8, clause 1, of the Constitution, which stated that “Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” Madison took a very narrow view of that Clause in Federalist Number 41, noting that the Clause had been lifted from a parallel provision in the Articles of Confederation that in no way sought to confer unlimited powers on the federal government.

In his view, the proper way to think about this clause of the Constitution was to link the objects on which Congress could spend money to those that it could regulate under its enumerated powers, all of which were given far narrower readings in 1787 than they are today. If anything, an even narrower version of the clause seems defensible given that all three objects of permissible expenditure of public revenues are public goods of the sort that must be supplied to all individuals if they are to be supplied to any.

Paying off state debts and providing for the common defense are classic public goods. The last power that deals with the “general Welfare of the United States” is not some open sesame clause that renders irrelevant the limitations of paying off debt and providing for the common defense. The key words here are “of the United States,” which refers to the nation as a whole, not—here the link to Federalist 10 becomes explicit—to this or that particular faction.

To see why, it is useful to compare the collective expenditures made for the general welfare of the United States and corporate expenditures that are made for the general welfare of corporations. Limitations are always put into corporate charters to ensure that cash or property is not transferred from one unfortunate group of shareholders to another with more power, like the company’s officers or directors.

The key challenge in the formation of a union among jealous states is to give them confidence that their taxes will similarly be spent on collective goods, and not on transfer payments that subject one faction to expropriation by another. To be sure, there are always some difficult cases, but these are not sufficient to upend the overall system. No one should doubt that the creation of an interstate highway system falls within the conception of general welfare even if the network of local roads does not....

Our Obsolete Constitution? | Hoover Institution


I'd call our recent dysfunction the fault of untrustworthy and corrupt people who violate the Constitution. Blaming it on the Constitution is a blame the victim mentality.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

That professor is wrong for dismissing the Founding Fathers as dead people from 200 years ago.

Those "dead people" were brilliant minds who came out of the Enlightenment Era. The statesman and philosophers of the Enlightenment Era are leaps and bounds ahead of what we call "modern society."



.
.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

A new , modern, updated, 21st century, progressive, living constitution is what we need. With a more socialistically global view............. Lol

 

[Doc91678]

Interestingly enough, the Constitution did not contain the second AMENDMENT at its signing. Doh!

Interestingly enough, you are ignorant of the fact a chief reason the Constitution was able to be ratified was that the Bill of Rights was agreed to be added by the first new Congress. D'oh!

Neither was the First Amendment to the Constitution included. Ergo, ratification by use of the Bill of Rights was created.