Down With the Constitution!

Source: PowerLine.

This article has a connection with my post (yesterday) on an American Revolution in Morals.

Whereas yesterday’s author wrote, “It’s hard to contemplate American public life in the 21st century and not arrive at the unhappy conclusion that we are led by idiots,” today’s author describes an NYT op-ed written by two ivy league law professors as “literally one of the stupidest things” he has ever read.

I am not building a list of horribles here. Rather, these two stories are merely connected by the tissue of miseducation.

Today’s story puts forth the concept that America’s Constitution should, but “fails to establish a pure democracy by plebiscite.” Of this proposition, today’s writer states, “Those who had a high school civics class understand that this is more or less the point” of the Constitutional design.

How could two professors at the nation’s most prestigious schools make such an error? Clearly, it is because they forgot (or never learned) how to think straight. Or else they did learn and still remember, but they are devious and malicious (morally corrupt).

In any case, I agree with today’s writer: Democracy is not the purpose of our Constitution. Democracy is just one of the mechanisms that operates within the constitutionally-established order. The idea that we can improve our democracy by replacing the Constitution must be rejected out of hand.

80 thoughts on “Down With the Constitution!

        1. You really are full of it.

          You know it, but do you believe it?

          So far the only ones caught trying to meddle are Republicans. Messing with machines via totally unauthorized access against state laws. So much so that new machines are being considered since the ones they messed with are now compromised.

          Also, mothers and fathers long deceased have been used to vote for Republicans.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. It means Republicans cheat on a bigger scale.

            LA politics is notorious for corruption. Not exactly a paragon of quality for comparison.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. So, how about we fix the laws so no one cheats?

            Ballot harvesting an unsolicited absentee ballots facilitate cheating so start by getting rid of those.


          3. I don’t really have a big problem with more uniform election laws.

            But the problem is not with our election, which was more transparent and analyzed than any in my lifetime. My problem is the never ending repetition of the Big Lie and that supporters still believe the outlandish conspiracies.

            That is the road to autocracy. You may approve, but once autocracy grabs hold, it might not always be your favorite in office.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. It isn’t real.

            For every anecdote going one way there are anecdotes going the other. Never has an election been more closely scrutinized than 2020 and it was beyond fair and clean. But that does not stop you people trying to delegitimize it.

            And sadly, the reason is obvious. You people cannot stand that the votes of “urban” people carry the same weight as the votes of “real Americans” like you. So any election won with the votes of THEY cast is an illegitimate election. Go ahead, deny it. But remember, the beginning of wisdom . . .

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “OK, and that justifies Democrats cheating how?”

            Pretending not to understand? Okay. Let me help…
            It illustrates how full of shit you are with your constant accusations of Democrats cheating.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “I’m not trying to change the 2020 election. I’m talking about eliminating the opportunity to cheat is future elections.”

            Yeah, sure.

            Seriously, who do you think you are kidding. There was no serious cheating in the past election and this supposed need for radical reform is a fiction. You people are still working overtime to de-legitimize elections in general and 2020 in particular. Just like fascists have always done.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “Certainly, if we let Democrats continue to cheat, we can’t win, so restricting voting to the living is necessary.”

          Another one of your jokes that humorless people like me don’t get or are you just the shithead that you seem to be?

          Liked by 1 person

  1. And Democrats are having a breathless conniption fit over Jan 6? These liberal “law professors” are actually advocating for a real coup. Crazy is as crazy does.


    1. “And Democrats are having a breathless conniption fit over Jan 6? ”

      Yeah, aren’t we a silly bunch! Actually upset that armed hooligans acting for a rogue President did their level best to keep our votes from being counted.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Out forefathers who wrote and signed the constitution did not want a federal true democracy. Only the House were direct votes of (some of the) citizens. The Senators were chosen by the state legislatures, and the president by the electoral college.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The Constitution as constructed served the interests of the prosperous, white male slave-owners who wrote it. But over time as the world has evolved and changed it more and more shows its anachronistic nature. I may be wrong, but I believe that some of the Founding Fathers themselves predicted that it would need to be replaced in the not too distant future. Were they wrong?

    It may not have been written to establish democracy – it clearly was not, not as we understand it, but some form of democracy is what modern people expect. It makes no sense, none, if you live in say California that a few hundred thousand people living in Wyoming – a place unknown in 1789 – have the same voice in national affairs as the 40 million citizens of California. This absurdity is compounded by non-Constitutional institutions such as the filibuster rule. And the super powers granted individual Senators over judicial appointments. At the very least we need to abolish the Filibuster Rule and get rid of “Senatorial courtesy.”

    Then there is the Electoral College. It too is absurd. And has proven disastrously wrong in the two recent occasions when it overruled the people. It adds nothing and needs to go. This change will require a Constitutional amendment. It is long overdue.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. RE: “It may not have been written to establish democracy … but some form of democracy is what modern people expect.”

      Yes, that is the miseducated notion the Powerline writer criticizes so harshly.

      I don’t find any of your constitutional grievances compelling, much less accurate. But since you have chosen to have a conversation unrelated to the post, there is no point in me explaining my opinion.


      1. So, valuing the ideals of democracy is to be “miseducated?” Educated people prefer rule by an elite? Right? Kind of like Plato’s Philosopher King or Germany’s Der Fuhrer?

        “. . . there is no point in me explaining my opinion.”
        Thank Heaven for small favors!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. You should not use ‘democracy’ and ‘ideals’ in the same sentence.

          There is always the chance you will get a benign king, you will never get a benign least common denominator.

          A democratic republic can only survive if the lusts of the majority are strictly restrained.


          1. “the lusts of the majority”

            The Constitution and the Rule of Law constrain excesses. Which is why it so odd that people like you offer such unwavering support for the most lawless person to ever prance across the national stage.

            But, full marks for putting your fascism on full display. Rather than having “government of the people, by the people and for the people” we should hope for having a benevolent despot from time to time.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Trump adhered to the Constitution far more closely over his term in office than either Obama or Biden. Especially before he went off the rails when the election didn’t go his way.


          3. “Trump adhered to the Constitution far more closely over his term in office than either Obama or Biden.”

            Nonsense. And he does not get a bye after he showed his true colors.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Well, for one example, Biden’s statement that he would provide abortions on military bases in States that adopted abortion restrictions after the Dobb decision.


          5. Military bases are FEDERAL property. Federal laws then apply over those of the state in which they are located. As an example, if you get a DUI on Naval Station Norfolk, you appear in Federal Court, nit Norfolk district.

            Therefore, Biden’s statement is not going against SCOTUS; it is establishing Federal rules on property HE, as CinC, is in charge of.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “So, valuing the ideals of democracy is to be ‘miseducated?'”

        No. Your agreement with a miseducated notion shows that your commentary isn’t worth taking seriously.


  4. The ideas proposed may be far fetched but they are not violent nor require the hanging of a VP.

    The point is pretty simple: to put democratic principles in the forefront of our republic.

    Gerrymandering from day one is the result of a poorly thought out method of determining districts since the temporary legislative majority will always try to stay in power via such a gift.

    Other methods that reduce the partisanship are available and in use in a few states.

    If enacted it will make the House reflective of the popular vote. The Senate can still protect the small states.

    We should scrap the EC since the president is a leader of the people. But it can be modified to require some proportional allocation rather than winner take all. Our present set up nullifies the votes of tens of millions in favor of letting a handful of swing states determine the winner.

    This twist is the core of the election law changes that will let legislators pick electors if there is the slightest complaint of irregularities, real or not. Without electors the votes count first and foremost. All votes too. Not just a few thousand in key districts. That is a recipe for cheating also.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Absent the EC, there would be no United States, and if we get rid of it the country would not last 20 years. Effectively a half dozen metropolitan areas would chose the President and no one else need bother to vote.

      People who never strayed a mile from concrete in their lives would be telling farmers how to farm and everyone in a small town how to live, as though they didn’t live in a small town because they didn’t share the same values as city people.

      in a very short time, rural people would be fed up with their city masters and the country would be at war with itself.


      1. “. . .their city masters . . .”
        Good grief, what is wrong with you?

        The country cannot survive if it is more democratic? Real Americans will not stand for “urban” people deciding national elections and would promptly tear the country apart if they don’t get their way. Is that about right?

        Maybe you missed it, but we live in the Information Age and people everywhere share the essentially the same culture. And, believe it or not, rural people depend on what cities provide every bit as much as vice versa. What planet are you from?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Are you arguing that the values and interests of rural folk are identical to those of urban people?

          Or that the values of rural people just don’t matter?

          For a start, if you ride the subway to the grocery store, your view of gasoline prices different than if its 30 miles to the nearest store.

          What you do on the weekend is not the same as it is for people who think meat and fish grow on foam trays.


          1. “Are you arguing that the values and interests of rural folk are identical to those of urban people?”

            Identical? My values and interests are not identical with my next door neighbors. Yours are not either. You are trying way to hard to cook up irreconcilable differences. For some reason.

            Gasoline prices? The government has next to nothing to do with gasoline prices.

            I think if you really study the matter you will find that most people, even in cities, know very well that food comes from farms. And people on farms know that trucks, tractors and big screen TVs come from the cities.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Trucks, tractors and big screen TVs come from China”

            Sure, some of them do. And so do some food products. So what? It is a global economy made possible by city people involved in finance, commerce, distribution, warehousing and transportation. As well as manufacturing, engineering, design, construction, communications and entertainment. etc. etc. etc.

            The point is that rural people have no desire to return to subsistence farming as you seem to think they will do quickly should we make the terrible mistake of improving our democracy.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. No one said anything about subsistence farming,

            But life outside big cities is different and it seems that the coastal elite just can’t help themselves when it comes to dictating to rural folk how they should live.

            And Presidents do have an impact on fuel prices. Worse, they try to force people into vehicles that will not meet their needs.

            absent the balance we get from the Senate and the EC, there would be no political need to even consider the needs of rural and even small town folk.


          4. “No one said anything about subsistence farming”

            Except you. Your usual refrain is that the cities need the farms a lot more than the farms need the cities. Farms without the contributions of civilization are subsistence farms.

            Your bullshit is based on a false premise – that there are irreconcilable differences between people who live and work in urban areas versus those who live an work in rural areas. There are not. You are projecting your own grotesque values on to people who do not share them. There are crackpots in cities, in towns and in the country.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. You’d be surprised how little is actually manufactured in big cities. The trend has been decentralization of manufacture for decades.

            The differences between rural and urban life are not currently irreconcilable but absent the EC and Senate bias toward small states, they would become so.

            It can’t be any other way. The Federal government slipped its leash in the 1930s and that made national policy to intrusive.

            Restore the Commerce Clause and 10th Amendment to their original meaning and the problem goes away.


          6. “But life outside big cities is different and it seems that the coastal elite just can’t help themselves when it comes to dictating to rural folk how they should live.”

            BS! Well-off, and even middle class “elites” own second homes or visit regularly the rural areas you are so enamored with as being the only “true” America. Why is that? Because they know that the peace and tranquility in those areas is precious. Precious enough to protect it.

            You gave way too much credence to the idea that coastal elites don’t understand rural folks. Not only do they understand them. They are at times jealous of them, and more often than not, admiring of them.

            Google the following two addresses: Guttenburg, NJ and Accord NY. About 2 hours apart via the Parkway and Thruway. I know of several people that own homes in BOTH of those towns. Because the rural is the “getaway” and they pay the property taxes and other fees to own homes there as well as along the Hudson River across from Manhattan Island.

            You are of the generation who listened to Cousin Brucie on the radio. He still does an old (1950’s and 60’s) rock and roll show on Sirius. He is ne of the people of whom I speak. He still maintains a condo in the Greenwich Village area of NYC. But he and his wife spend all of their time in the Accord area.

            Your contention that urban don’t care about rural is just so much horse manure.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. You have any idea how few rural people could afford to maintain two homes?

            $4 gas isn’t a big deal to people who can afford a getaway home, but it is catastrophic to those who live there.

            And, of course, they have totally different views on recreational shooting and other country hobbies. People with getaway homes show up and then complain to the police about their neighbors target shooting on a Sunday afternoon, or hunting on a Saturday.

            Simply having a getaway home does not make you country.


          8. “You have any idea how few rural people could afford to maintain two homes?”

            Quite a few actually. I spent the last decade of my career in service to agriculture. MANY of our farmer customers had second homes in places like Florida. And seasonally, spent a lot of time enjoying them. More time off than most of us ever see before retirement.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. And everyone in the city lives in a penthouse and has a limo.

            Most rural people are not wealthy enough to own a large farm. They work at jobs like anyone else. There is a lot of manufacturing done in small towns. For example, my Brother -in-law is part owner of Game Equipment, located between Labadieville(pop2000) and Napoleonville(4000)


            Good people work there and make a good living, but they close the plant on opening day of duck season.


          10. “And everyone in the city lives in a penthouse and has a limo.”

            You are the one trying to refer to people with stereotypes. I provided personal evidence that your stereotype of the poor but honest country bumpkin is just that – a stereotype.

            My cousins live in a rural part of the Eastern Shore of Maryland. So what?

            Liked by 1 person

          11. “Do they do the same things on a weekend that you do?”

            Uh, I fish. I spent a lot on $4.00 gas to get to some trout streams this spring.

            You are trying way too hard to make up differences that are not real.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. “You live in Chesapeake, not NYC”

            I have recently fished in some of the iconic trout streams of the Catskills. There are plenty of people from NYC who enjoy the same sport doing the same. Too many!

            Something strange is going on in your head. Really and truly.

            Liked by 1 person

          13. You think going fishing a couple of times is the same thing as living where the fishing is and having to drive as much as 100 miles a day for your work?

            You think there is something wrong in my head?

            I don’t care what the people in NYC or SF do for their leisure time or how they get to work, but they can’t seem to stop trying to dictate what I can do.

            A special congressional election in NY just turned apparently on the abortion issue. NY has very liberal abortion laws, the election was turned on the issue of the Federal government dictating to the people of MS and KS what their abortion laws must be.

            That’s where the problem comes from. The Coastal Elites seem unable to live and let live, They feel a need to dictate everything to everyone, regardless of how the people in other places see the issue.

            That’s why we need to limit their power over others.


          14. “You think there is something wrong in my head?”
            Yes, I think the amount of hatred you exhibit on just about every topic is pathological.

            It was you who brought up hunting and fishing as something alien to non-rural people. So when I provide evidence that it is not, it is now irrelevant? Yeah, sure.

            You keep citing people who have long drives to work. Have you never experienced commuter traffic around ANY city?

            With respect to abortion, Kansas is a poor example. The people of Kansas recently voted overwhelmingly to protect the right of choice in their state Constitution. Maybe those “coastal elites” you have dancing in your head are not so different than the people of Kansas?

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Missing the point.

            Why should people in NY dictate what the law on abortion, or framing, or firearms, or cars be in MS, or KS or anywhere other than NY?

            Why can’t they leave other people to make their own choices?


          16. “Why can’t they leave other people to make their own choices?”
            You have just summarized the basic question around abortion.

            What you really want is to leave certain people free to make personal choices for other people. Whether you like it or not, allowing basic rights to be usurped by the government IS a national issue.

            I notice you ignore the vote in Kansas which more or less demolishes your silly claims that this is a city vs country issue.

            Liked by 1 person

          17. You are confused about Kansas. It actually has fairly restrictive abortion laws.

            “Abortion is prohibited after 22 weeks gestation except when pregnancy threatens the life of the woman or would cause substantial and irreversible physical impairment.
            Patients must receive state-directed counseling and information designed to discourage them from receiving an abortion (dubbed “informed consent”), followed by a 24-hour waiting period.
            Patients must receive an ultrasound and be offered the chance to view the image.
            Minors must receive parental consent or petition for judicial bypass.
            Telemedicine abortion care is prohibited — patients must go in-person to one of the state’s four abortion clinics, located in Wichita and Overland Park. They cannot be prescribed an abortion pill over a video consultation.
            Abortion for the purpose of sex selection is prohibited.
            Public funding for abortion is limited to cases of rape, incest or where the woman’s life is in danger.
            Private insurance plans may only cover abortion to protect the woman’s life.
            Health insurance plans offered in the state health exchange may only cover abortion to protect the woman’s life.”


          18. Your paranoia is on full display.

            The PEOPLE voted for the candidate that best represented their interests.; Protecting women’s rights became very important to a lot of people all of a sudden because GOP legislatures are threatening those rights.

            And just remember that Kansas, one of the reddest of the red, rejected the ideas of changing or limiting access to reproductive care. I seriously doubt hat nay NY or Ca elitist had anything to do wiht that.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. “… having to drive as much as 100 miles a day for your work?”

            Are you serious? Urban commuters can exceed that easily. Middle and lower income folks commute because they can ill afford housing in the core cities. It may mean buses, trains, car pooling or driving oneself.

            Similarly, guns strapped to the hip or slung over the shoulder may be fine in Montana’s range country, but ridiculous in NYC. Yet you want Montana’s laws to define what people living in urban environments have to do.

            Low income families in most deep red states have little access to affordable healthcare. And health statistics such as lifespan reflect that. Is that a choice? Crime, particularly gun violence, divorce rates, education levels are low too. Another choice?

            And yet, they are Americans like you and me. Maybe better, too.

            Your grievances are noted as whiney and unrealistic.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. Have you watched the news lately?

            I need a handgun in NYC far more than in Montana.

            But no, I don’t think Montana should control NYC, or vice versa.

            The Constitution controls both.


          21. “I need a handgun in NYC far more than in Montana.”

            Uh, just about ass backwards.

            New York has a gun death rate of 3.7 per 100K versus Montana’s 22.5. And New York City has one of the lowest rates of any area in the state.


            The much higher gun death rate in Montana is easily explained. It has a much higher gun ownership rate – the highest in the nation. An armed society, it turns out, is not a civil society.


          22. “suicide”

            Sure, that is part of the reason that Montana has a gun death rate much higher than New York – about 6x. Having more guns means having more suicides. Guns are very good at ending lives – very much better than just about any alternative that people try.

            But unlike what you are trying to suggest, it does not tell the whole story. New York’s suicide rate is 8.3 while Montana’s is 26.2 or about 3x. Something else is going on – gun accidents and murders. The homicide rate in Montana is about 40% higher than New York.

            Bottom line, your attempt to slime New York is a complete bust. A good example of believing what you want to believe (such as “an armed society is a civil society”) without reference to easily available evidence.


          23. Montana has a lot of Amerindians who have a very high suicide rate. I don’t know if that fully explains the difference, no idea how to research it.


          24. “Montana has a lot of Amerindians who have a very high suicide rate”

            Amerindians? What, no “urban” people to blame for this sorry statistic?

            Native Americans comprise 6.5% of Montana’s population. They are too few to explain why Montana is such a gun death leader. The explanation is OBVIOUS. Montana has one of the highest percentage of adults owning guns of any state. New York has one of the lowest. To paraphrase James Carville . . . It’s the guns, stupid.


          25. When you miss the point, you miss it BIGLY.

            You talked about the elites wanting to “rule” the rural. I explained how your theory is a big crock of poo.

            My father, who has property in Ulster County, NY, allows hunting WITH PERMISSION on his property. He understands the lifestyle of those who live in the area and respects those who respect those rules. HE could have just said no hunting on his 5 acres. But he didn’t.


          26. “And Presidents do have an impact on fuel prices”

            Right. If they go up and the President is a Democrat, he has messed up the market. If he is a Republican and they go up, he has let the market decide.

            And if they go down, like they are now, who gets credit for it. As I recall, Joe Biden is still POTUS and prices are dropping like (small) stones. Are you going to credit him for that?

            You want it both ways, but it just doesn’t work that way. And I know you are smart enough to know that, but are so blinded by your political hatred, you just ignore it.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. Gas prices are still $1.50 higher than when Biden showed up, and it will take five years to fox the mess he has made.

            And it is on purpose. Granholm has flat out said that making gas expensive is a goal to force EVs


          28. “Granholm has flat out said that making gas expensive is a goal to force EVs”

            The other day she pointed out the obvious economic fact – high gasoline prices are a reason for car buyers to consider alternatives such as electric. That is very different than your dishonest accusation.

            Liked by 1 person

          29. And you put lll of the blame on him, when it was during the Trump era, the prices started to rise.

            Also, the cost per barrel is similar to what it was in 2008, but we are still paying higher prices than that time and it is because the oil companies are making insanely higher profits than before. No blame on them for stealing form all of us; it is all Biden’s fault.

            Your beloved market is the real thief. But because it is the “market” you have to find another scapegoat.

            Liked by 1 person

          30. “You are confused about Kansas. It actually has fairly restrictive abortion laws.”

            I am not in the least confused. You seem to be. That 22 weeks threshold is very close to what is allowed under the Roe v. Wade.

            Of course, the real test was the RECENT vote in Kansas over its Constitution. The extremists whom you say represent rural America tried to amend the KS Constitution to outlaw abortion. It did not go the way they intended…



          31. “Correlation is not causation”

            Correlation is EVIDENCE of causation.

            But, actually, I agree that the CAUSE of a gun death is a person pulling the trigger. But the presence of a gun is a NECESSARY condition for a gun death. The more guns around the more opportunities for a gun death. It is not surprising that states with the highest gun ownership rates also have the highest gun death rates and vice versa. Just from applied probability.

            The positive correlation between gun ownership and gun violence rates IS evidence that one of your favorite theories is baloney. Namely, that “an armed society is a civil society.” If that were true, there would be an inverse relationship with places like Montana having low gun violence rates. They don’t.


          32. Correlation does not imply causation. That is a classical logical error


            Shark Attacks have a strong correlation with Ice Cream consumption, so does Ice cream cause shark attacks?

            A high correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths might as easily result from a dangerous social environment. People could buy guns because their neighborhood is dangerous,

            Simplistic correlations lead as often to error as truth.


          33. “Correlation does not imply causation. That is a classical logical error”

            Which I am not making. I have already said that guns don’t cause gun deaths. People do.

            Correlation is frequently useful evidence for testing theories. It is also frequently an indicator where to direct research.

            For example, I have a theory about gun violence. My theory is that guns being a necessary condition for gun violence that gun violence will increase along with an increase in guns. The data conforms to my theory.

            You have a theory about gun violence, Your theory is that guns make for a less violent and more civil society. The data does NOT conform to you theory.

            You started this with bullshit about needing a gun in New York. Maybe admit that it was bullshit? It won’t hurt much.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s