If The New Yorker would limit itself to actual literature instead of trying to pontificate itās far leftist ideology on the readers, it would become a far better magazine.
The government has no imperative to dictate what is true and what isn't. People can make up their own minds.John Kerry: First Amendment stands as a major block
āBut, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda, and theyāre putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer it out of existence,ā Kerry said...
www.usmessageboard.com
"Oh, no! It's too hard to change the Constitution!"The New Yorker said no such thing. A writer who contributes to the New Yorker wrote a book titled, "No Democracy Lasts Forever."
Chemerinsky had little to say that was critical of the Constitution, and he praised the difficulty of amending it. Something like 11,848 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789. (You can examine them on Jill Leporeās Amend Project Web site.) Congress has ratified only thirty-three by the required two-thirds majority, and only twenty-seven were then ratified by three-quarters of the states, becoming law. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written by James Madison to help the Constitution secure ratification, so they are essentially part of the Constitution itself, and two of those which followed are the prohibition amendment and its repealāwhich nets fifteen amendments in two hundred and thirty-three years.
Isnāt this undemocratic, sticking us with a dead-hand document that we canāt change when the times do? Not at all, Chemerinsky explained. The reason the Constitution was made difficult to amend is the tyranny-of-the-majority problem. In times of crisis, majorities may want to suspend individual liberties, and the Constitution makes it very hard for them to do this (which doesnāt mean that it has never been done). āThe Constitution is societyās attempt to protect itself from itself,ā Chemerinsky concluded.
That was then. Chemerinskyās new book is āNo Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United Statesā (Liveright), and the difficulty of amending the Constitution is Exhibit A. āThe framers of the Constitution went too far in preventing amendments,ā he now argues. As a result, we are stuck with a set of rules which not only makes addressing political problems harder but is itself responsible for many of the political problems we need to address. The Constitutionās āvery existence as a largely unchanged document has become a sledgehammer wielded by a minority to prop up a system that engenders polarization and festering national discord,ā he says. Chemerinsky doesnāt just want to amend the Constitution, either. He wants us to throw it out and come up with a new one.
Is It Time to Torch the Constitution?
Some scholars say that itās to blame for our political dysfunctionāand that we need to start over.www.newyorker.com
Try to get the story right next time, cuck.
How'd that work out for you, Laffy Taffy?
Replace it with whatever Democrats want.
As opposed to school boards elsewhere that teach that white people are evil?
I agree.
