I don’t know about your opinion, but it is no surprise to me that the New York Times
ran a story putting down the Constitution of the United States. Go figure: a newspaper that has been around since the 19th
century, whose motto has been “News worth printing” – and has, on more than one occasion, referenced the First Amendment
to justify their methods of reporting (that record is not good) – and now they are disqualifying the Constitution and its amendments because it is terse and old and it guarantees relatively few rights. Huh? Their newspaper is nonobjective and “old” – yet, there still in operation.
In the Timesarticle, dated February 6th, 2012:
The Constitution has seen better days. Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.
It’s “influence is waning” because we have politicians, special interest advocates, and media entities like the New York Times trying to replace our republic with a statist-socialist state.
…Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. Version.”
I wonder if those countries believe that their “charters” modeled after our Constitution is outdated or irrelevant?
The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere.
The “abstract” reads:
The fact that the U.S. Constitution is not widely emulated raises the question of whether there is an alternative paradigm that constitutional drafters in other countries now employ as a model instead. One possibility is that their attention has shifted to some other prominent national constitution. To evaluate this possibility, we analyze the content of the world’s constitutions for telltale patterns of similarity to the constitutions of Canada, Germany, South Africa, and India, which have often been identified as especially influential. … Another possibility is that international and regional human rights instruments have become especially influential upon the manner in which national constitutions are written. We find little evidence to indicate that any of the leading human rights treaties now serves as a dominant model for constitutional drafters. Some noteworthy patterns of similarity between national constitutions and international legal instruments do exist: For example, the constitutions of undemocratic countries tend to exhibit greater similarity to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while those of common law countries manifest the opposite tendency. It is difficult to infer from these patterns, however, that countries have actually emulated international or regional human rights instruments when writing their constitutions.
Obviously, those that wish to change or undermine the Constitution of the United States has ulterior motives – they wish to provide the opportunity to mold and shape it for their personal goals and to cement government’s power over the People. Trust me, you socialist-sociopaths who call yourselves American, are doing nothing new in human history that tyrants have tried and/or succeeded in acts of aggression toward any rights or liberties that contradicts the policies of a given government. Stalin said, in so many words, if he had taken freedom of speech away from the people, why in the Hell would he allow them to be armed?
The “modern” Constitution that Obama, New York Times, Justice Ginsberg, and others is a document that grants “rights” as entitlements, such as national health care, housing and employment – all the areas/issues that have been protected by the founders who wrote the Constitution for very good reasons, not for the benefit of the People, but for more control over them through social engineering programs and entitlements that makes the People dependent upon the government; much like America has been over-dependent upon crude oil from elsewhere. The articles and amendments that have worked so well since the beginning of the United States are deficiencies to them. It guarantees fundamental rights and protects citizens from a restrictive and controlling government – which has taken place slowly and unnoticed by too many, for over 50 years.
The Constitution was designed to be amended, if necessary, when changes in society or the needs of the People require it. Who could argue that the amendment that provides the freedom of anyone to vote, regardless of gender, race, or age – as long as they are citizens? Who could argue that one of the landmark amendments added after the first ten were in place, is the abolition of slavery; something that should have happened when the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were written.
One would think, with this president’s ethnic background, that he would cherish and protect the Constitution. After all, if it were not for the Constitution and the abolition of slavery amendment – he would never have held office, much less be a president.
Just exactly, I frustratingly wonder, just what part of the Constitution wouldJustice Ginsberg, Barack H. Obama, and others in his mindset would be changed.
Mr. Obama, I am sure that the people that voted for you for hope for change, certainly didn’t have in mind to change the Constitution and show so much disrespect for the rule of law – applied only when it conforms to your agenda and those that agree with your sociopolitical ideology and agenda.
Professor Law and Versteeg declared:
Among the world’s democracies, constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s. … The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18thcentury may send the signal that it of little current use, to say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.
Just like the political left and RINOs – blaming and pointing fingers anywhere to anyone, rather than the true root of the matter; most cases them self and those they endorse or pay special interest to.
The Constitution doesn’t need to “expire” – those that wish it to must. They lied to all American voters when they swore allegiance to and to protect the US Constitution when taking office. The document was meant to be amended, but that is not good enough for some politicians. So, instead, they go through the back door by nominating and appointing justices and judges like Ruth Ginsberg. She, like this administration, will go down in history in infamy; that is if history will be allowed to be written truthfully and objectively.
Save America – let’s diminish the power of these individuals and return the power to the People, not the sociocrat elite or the greed for power and money of special interest groups.
What should be said in response to the New York Timesagreement with Justice Ginsberg is that without support, without adherence, and without respect to the fine way our Constitution was created – to last – it is nothing more than a piece of paper.
Oddly, these people have the right, under First Amendment, to say or write such things by the very document they want to “change”. Just as the rules of law are only good enough if they are enforced – like our illegal immigration situation. Always an ulterior motive with these sociocrats and RINOs. Politicians want illegal immigrants to instantly have the right to vote, whether they deserve such privileges or not, so they can increase their voting base. And, as the number of those who believe their lies and accept their tokens of entitlements, so then does their power.
And – by the time these people figure it out, it will be too late. Once freedom is allowed to be shredded or dissolved, it is extremely difficult to get it back.
Some are in favor of another American Revolution, but they are barking up the wrong tree – it was a moment in time, a moment in human history, that could never be repeated in the same way; especially the good that turned out when our nation was created.
And these misguided and devious tyrants want to take it all away, or at least the parts that is important to the People. Government is their god, politics is their tool; deception and dishonor is their moral values, and hypocrisy is the norm.
If a change, an upgrade, is required of the US Constitution, then let the legislative body and the executive office draft an amendment that must be scrutinized by the Supreme Court. The founders didn’t create the rule that a two-thirds majority of Congress and ratification of the states be applied for nothing.
The reason why some claim the Constitution’s relevance is that it takes too long for due process, and they are in a hurry to complete their goal of tyranny.
Enuff said, for now.