Champions of the Constitution Grassroots Network
CCGN
CCGN
- Rapid reaction force responding to threats to the Constitution
- see Action Alerts below - Join the network / send information about your grassroots projects and resources to tips@liberato.us
CHAMPIONS NETWORK - NOW IN 10 STATES!
- VA - Constitution Leadership Initiative
- VA - Potomac Tea Party
- VA - Linda, Eric, and 7 more NEW!
- AZ - Gail
- FL - Renée
- IA - Gregg
- MN - Nathan
- OK - Don
- PA - Diana, Steve
- SC - Debbie
- TN - Patriotic Front of Constitutional Loyalists
- TX - William
Champions Network - Action Alerts
- Push Back / Make Some Noise!
NEW!
2/28/18: ‘The Flag is a Rag’ - Shame on Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers!
MORE BELOW
Previously:
2/28/18: ‘The Flag is a Rag’ - Shame on Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers!
MORE BELOW
Previously:
10/14/18: Don Lemon thinks there's an absolute right to protest "whenever and wherever you want". Let's have a little fun with that, shall we?
MORE BELOW
MORE BELOW
8/15/18: Yo, socialists! There are reasons we don’t have a unicameral legislature and the Constitution is not easy to amend. Ever think about that? MORE BELOW
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/constitution-founders-democracy-trump.html
8/8/18: SPLC amps up war on free speech, condemns Constitution and free speech that inspires people, for example, to shoot up the Family Research Council and attempt to kill Congresmen on a baseball field. Oops! #SweepYourOwnDoorstep
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/08/02/weekend-read-when-constitution-just-pretext-and-%E2%80%9Cfree-speech%E2%80%9D-being-defended-threat
Shame! Ruth Bader Ginsburg film says word ‘freedom’ not in the Constitution, but “freedom of speech” right there in the First Amendment.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/17/ruth-bader-ginsburg-movie-claims-freedom-is-never-mentioned-in-the-constitution/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/constitution-founders-democracy-trump.html
8/8/18: SPLC amps up war on free speech, condemns Constitution and free speech that inspires people, for example, to shoot up the Family Research Council and attempt to kill Congresmen on a baseball field. Oops! #SweepYourOwnDoorstep
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/08/02/weekend-read-when-constitution-just-pretext-and-%E2%80%9Cfree-speech%E2%80%9D-being-defended-threat
Shame! Ruth Bader Ginsburg film says word ‘freedom’ not in the Constitution, but “freedom of speech” right there in the First Amendment.
https://thefederalist.com/2018/07/17/ruth-bader-ginsburg-movie-claims-freedom-is-never-mentioned-in-the-constitution/
- "Maybe the body of the Constitution doesn’t have that word, but it’s parsing words to say the word is not in the Constitution." - South Carolina
|
‘The Flag is a Rag’ - Shame on Nebraska State Sen. Ernie Chambers!
February 28, 2019 Nebraska state Senator Ernie Chambers compared the American flag to the Nazi swastika on the floor of the legislature, recently:
Senator Chambers, where are the ovens? The 26 million dead? The totalitarian government? The euthanasia of the disabled? The master plan for world domination? |
|
By comparing the American flag with the Nazi swastika, you accuse America of equal crimes or worse, yet you are quite content to take your salary from Americans. If you had the courage of your convictions, you would not take our ‘blood money’ and you certainly would not serve in a government institution as a tool of the very oppression you complain about. You, sir, are the hypocrite in this picture.
Moreover, you dishonor the memory of the black soldiers who fought and died for this country in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Over 36,000 black Union soldiers died in the Civil War alone, not to mention the countless other black U.S. soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in other conflicts. They saw something in America worth fighting and dying for. Too bad your anger and your bitterness keep you from seeing it.
They saw a bad situation, rolled up their sleeves, and did something to make it better, unlike you. You’re just complaining and running your mouth when you really have very little to complain about. This country has given you a good life. What would you replace America with, exactly? Let’s hear it. It’s not good enough just to tear everything down. In fact, it’s downright irresponsible.
Nebraska state Senator Tom Brewer had this to say about your rant:
Comments from CCGN members around the country:
Moreover, you dishonor the memory of the black soldiers who fought and died for this country in the Revolutionary and Civil Wars. Over 36,000 black Union soldiers died in the Civil War alone, not to mention the countless other black U.S. soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice in other conflicts. They saw something in America worth fighting and dying for. Too bad your anger and your bitterness keep you from seeing it.
They saw a bad situation, rolled up their sleeves, and did something to make it better, unlike you. You’re just complaining and running your mouth when you really have very little to complain about. This country has given you a good life. What would you replace America with, exactly? Let’s hear it. It’s not good enough just to tear everything down. In fact, it’s downright irresponsible.
Nebraska state Senator Tom Brewer had this to say about your rant:
- It rips our heart out to hear someone say that they refer to the flag as a rag because for those of us that have brought home, those that we’ve lost, it’s hard to refer to the flag as a rag because you have to fold it and you have to give it to the parents - that’s awful hard to do.
Comments from CCGN members around the country:
- From a letter one (Major, USAF [Retired]) sent to Sen. Chambers:
- I would like to see that legislator look into the eyes of one our living recipients of the Medal of Honor and say that. I don't believe he could.
- If an elected Senator shows this blatant disrespect to our country’s flag, his constituents should not rest until he is out of office.
- Which flag do you prefer to wave? Why not spend a few years in other countries and wave their flags, and then compare that life to a life under the banner of the United States. [Read The Man Without a Country to get some sense of what it would really be like to disown America]
A Nice Quiet Dinner with the Unhinged Mob
October 14, 2018
CNN host Don Lemon showed his ignorance about the Constitution on national television this last week. He said it loud and he said it proud. The discussion was about the right to protest, specifically about an angry mob running Ted Cruz and his wife out of a D.C. restaurant. Lemon told his guest to “shut up” so he could pontificate about free speech:
Whenever and wherever you want. Don Lemon is flat-out wrong, as a matter of constitutional law. Free speech is not an absolute right. There are a number of well-established exceptions to the First Amendment right to free speech. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater (or in a crowded TV studio, for that matter). You can’t tell the enemy when our troop ships are set to leave. You don’t get to utter fighting words with impunity. You don’t have the right to tell falsehoods and ruin someone’s reputation – that’s called slander. You don’t have the right to lie under oath – that’s perjury and it’s a felony. You don’t have the right to incite violence or imminent lawless action. You don’t get to break windows at GOP offices as part of your right to protest – that’s a crime.
And you certainly don’t have the right to protest “whenever and wherever you want.” There are time, place and manner restraints that limit your right to protest. Every Tea Partier knows you have to obtain a permit to have a big demonstration on the National Mall. Every Tea Partier knows there are local ordinances that limit your right to protest. In my area, groups larger than 25 people have to get a permit to demonstrate. Smaller groups can’t block public sidewalks, you have to keep moving. You can’t protest on private property, like shopping malls or grocery store parking lots. Or in a restaurant, if the owner won’t allow it. The D.C. subway has rules, too. You can’t demonstrate inside stations, it’s too dangerous. You can’t block the entrance; you have to stay 15 feet away from it.
But Don Lemon has announced a principle: the absolute right to protest wherever and whenever you want. Let’s have a little fun with that, shall we?
I get to protest anywhere and whenever I want, right? I guess that means Don Lemon’s living room at 2 o’clock in the morning. Or a Democratic Socialists of America chapter meeting, or a Sunday service at an A.M.E church when people are trying to pray. Not just one Sunday, but every Sunday.
Now let’s talk about his own show. Don Lemon has a history of shutting off his guests’ microphones when he doesn’t like what they have to say. He did it to radio host John Fredericks and he did it to former Trump aide Jason Miller. In Miller’s case, Lemon specifically told him that being on CNN is a privilege, not a right. Apparently, consistency is not a requirement for being a CNN host. And they weren’t the only ones Don Lemon has silenced. He should be checked for Nazi tendencies.
But he announced a principle that I have an absolute right to protest wherever and whenever I please. I have half a mind to march into CNN’s studios, storm on to Don Lemon’s set with a few hundred of my closest friends and protest his history of antipathy towards free expression. Cut people off, how dare you.
Shame on Don Lemon for supporting mobs. Shame on him for invoking the Constitution when he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And shame on him also for thinking people only have a right to speak when it’s something he agrees with.
---
Comments from the Champions of the Constitution Grassroots Network:
October 14, 2018
CNN host Don Lemon showed his ignorance about the Constitution on national television this last week. He said it loud and he said it proud. The discussion was about the right to protest, specifically about an angry mob running Ted Cruz and his wife out of a D.C. restaurant. Lemon told his guest to “shut up” so he could pontificate about free speech:
- In the Constitution, you can protest whenever and wherever you want. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it in a restaurant, that you can’t do it on a football field. It doesn’t tell you that you can’t do it on a cable news — you can do it wherever you want. (emphasis added)
Whenever and wherever you want. Don Lemon is flat-out wrong, as a matter of constitutional law. Free speech is not an absolute right. There are a number of well-established exceptions to the First Amendment right to free speech. You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater (or in a crowded TV studio, for that matter). You can’t tell the enemy when our troop ships are set to leave. You don’t get to utter fighting words with impunity. You don’t have the right to tell falsehoods and ruin someone’s reputation – that’s called slander. You don’t have the right to lie under oath – that’s perjury and it’s a felony. You don’t have the right to incite violence or imminent lawless action. You don’t get to break windows at GOP offices as part of your right to protest – that’s a crime.
And you certainly don’t have the right to protest “whenever and wherever you want.” There are time, place and manner restraints that limit your right to protest. Every Tea Partier knows you have to obtain a permit to have a big demonstration on the National Mall. Every Tea Partier knows there are local ordinances that limit your right to protest. In my area, groups larger than 25 people have to get a permit to demonstrate. Smaller groups can’t block public sidewalks, you have to keep moving. You can’t protest on private property, like shopping malls or grocery store parking lots. Or in a restaurant, if the owner won’t allow it. The D.C. subway has rules, too. You can’t demonstrate inside stations, it’s too dangerous. You can’t block the entrance; you have to stay 15 feet away from it.
But Don Lemon has announced a principle: the absolute right to protest wherever and whenever you want. Let’s have a little fun with that, shall we?
I get to protest anywhere and whenever I want, right? I guess that means Don Lemon’s living room at 2 o’clock in the morning. Or a Democratic Socialists of America chapter meeting, or a Sunday service at an A.M.E church when people are trying to pray. Not just one Sunday, but every Sunday.
Now let’s talk about his own show. Don Lemon has a history of shutting off his guests’ microphones when he doesn’t like what they have to say. He did it to radio host John Fredericks and he did it to former Trump aide Jason Miller. In Miller’s case, Lemon specifically told him that being on CNN is a privilege, not a right. Apparently, consistency is not a requirement for being a CNN host. And they weren’t the only ones Don Lemon has silenced. He should be checked for Nazi tendencies.
But he announced a principle that I have an absolute right to protest wherever and whenever I please. I have half a mind to march into CNN’s studios, storm on to Don Lemon’s set with a few hundred of my closest friends and protest his history of antipathy towards free expression. Cut people off, how dare you.
Shame on Don Lemon for supporting mobs. Shame on him for invoking the Constitution when he clearly doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And shame on him also for thinking people only have a right to speak when it’s something he agrees with.
---
Comments from the Champions of the Constitution Grassroots Network:
- Like most Americans, Don Lemon has an infantile view of the Constitution; apparently the document is his to interpret any way he wishes. "In the Constitution, you can protest whenever and wherever you want." Of course, the Constitution says no such thing. The word protest does not appear in the Constitution, "petition" does. And there is certainly a right to petition one's government for a redress of grievances, but "protest" is not mentioned. Perhaps protest is included in in the Freedom of Speech clause, perhaps it is not, that also is open to interpretation. Of course, America has a rich history of public protest, protest against government actions, not the mere appearance of a fellow human being at a public restaurant. That is simply a mob, and an uncouth one at that.
- Mobs, intimidation, and violence are redefined by the Left when it suits THEIR purposes. Remember when they had a conniption when one of Sarah Palin’s campaign ads had an opponent in the crosshairs?
- There is an obvious void in understanding the social contract. He ought to read some history, instead of putting out false histrionics. As citizens we have a right to be responsible for honoring others rights but that does not include volunteering to give up rights just to satisfy a "mob" which was the correct term for these paid political agitators.
Off with Their Heads! (Democracy in Action)
August 19, 2018
Week before last, two socialist authors were granted space in the august New York Times, no less, to push their poison that the U.S. Constitution is an “outdated relic” expressly intended to subvert democracy.
The authors are an editor and writer at Jacobin magazine, a socialist publication which doesn’t mind engaging in the quintessentially capitalistic practice of selling advertising.
The authors make a number of blithe assertions which I will demolish shortly. But, overall, to hear the authors tell it, you’d think the Constitution had unleashed a bloody Reign of Terror. Oh, wait a minute, that was the Jacobins in France in the socialist French Revolution of 1789. Thanks to the authors’ namesakes, France didn’t have a stable government again for 75 years.
The authors assert that the Constitution is “the foundation for a system of government that rules over people,” rather than a means of popular self-government. This shows a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution begins with “We the People” because we have popular sovereignty. We the People rule ourselves; we don’t have a King George ruling over us.
But the authors are right in one respect. The Constitution did not set up a pure democracy, and good thing it didn’t. The Founders were concerned with preventing mob rule and the tyranny of the majority, both of which develop under pure democracy. Even with all our system’s checks and balances, we’ve had instances in this country where one side has gotten too powerful and rammed stuff down our throats, like Obamacare and the New Deal. Do we really want modern-day Jacobins ramming single payer down our throats with real death panels this time - guillotine squads? That’s why the Founders gave us a Republic, as Ben Franklin famously said - to temper the passion of factions with ways for cooler heads to prevail. Warring factions gave England a dictator-for-life, Oliver Cromwell. The Founders knew this history and worked around it accordingly. Property rights, which the socialist authors criticize, actually reinforce self-government, because property gives people freedom and independence, power they wouldn’t have if the government owned everything as in a socialist system. Property rights are best understood as a pillar of popular sovereignty.
The authors say the Constitution prevents redistribution of wealth and the creation of new social guarantees. This is just crazy talk. The authors act as if as if the New Deal, the Great Society and other redistributionist programs never happened, and that we never racked up a $21 trillion national debt as a result.
The authors criticize “the Bill of Rights’s incomplete safeguards of individual freedoms.” There’s something bone-chilling about Jacobin socialists talking about safeguarding individual freedom. They are the self-proclaimed descendants of the French Jacobins who chopped people’s heads off after so-called ‘trials’ that didn’t have any due process whatsoever, or even pretend to dispense justice. When the masters of mob rule start talking about protecting individual rights, run for the hills.
Newt Gingrich just wrote about the horrors of the French Revolution for Fox News. He referred to a book in which the author recounts a story about the French Revolution that tells you everything you need to know about Jacobin socialists: “a woman was charged with the heinous crime of having wept at the execution of her husband. She was condemned to sit several hours under the suspended blade which shed upon her, drop by drop, the blood of the deceased whose corpse was above her on the scaffold before she was released by death from her agony.” This is the intellectual pedigree of the Jacobin authors, whether they want to admit it or not.
The authors don’t want to throw out the entire Constitution like their more revolutionary comrades farther Left, just amend it. Specifically, they recommend a unicameral one-house legislature, and making it easier to amend the Constitution through national referendum. There are good reasons why the Framers didn’t give us either one.
They had the example of the unicameral Pennsylvania legislature which ping-ponged between partisan extremes after each election. This experience and others convinced the Framers that an upper house representing economically successful people was necessary to tame the passions of the bulk of the population who were seen as represented by the lower house. The Framers had the wisdom of the ages on their side on this one. Read the history of political theory from antiquity on down and you will find something called the “mixed constitution” – a government that mixes democracy with meritocracy, that is, the elements of popular representation with some kind of contribution by people who are more versed in governance than the average Jane or Joe. The history of political theory shows that you can’t have political stability without allowing both these elements to participate in government. Leave either element out and you will have nothing but fractiousness and trouble. Our two-house Congress was the Framers’ version of a mixed constitution which succeeded, unlike the French Jacobins, in ensuring political stability.
As for amending the Constitution more easily through national referendums, that would be more problematic than democratic. The Founders deliberately made it hard to amend the Constitution, so people don’t get carried away. But it’s not THAT hard. As I mentioned in a previous webinar [March 19, 2017], it only took one college student 10 years to get the 27th Amendment passed and ratified.
Let me end with three cheers for our Republic and our mixed constitution. It is because of them we have limited government, not the stronger federal government the authors want. No guillotines here.
As for the authors - Off with their heads! Figuratively speaking, of course. Unless I can gather a big enough mob.... Just kidding!
August 19, 2018
Week before last, two socialist authors were granted space in the august New York Times, no less, to push their poison that the U.S. Constitution is an “outdated relic” expressly intended to subvert democracy.
The authors are an editor and writer at Jacobin magazine, a socialist publication which doesn’t mind engaging in the quintessentially capitalistic practice of selling advertising.
The authors make a number of blithe assertions which I will demolish shortly. But, overall, to hear the authors tell it, you’d think the Constitution had unleashed a bloody Reign of Terror. Oh, wait a minute, that was the Jacobins in France in the socialist French Revolution of 1789. Thanks to the authors’ namesakes, France didn’t have a stable government again for 75 years.
The authors assert that the Constitution is “the foundation for a system of government that rules over people,” rather than a means of popular self-government. This shows a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution begins with “We the People” because we have popular sovereignty. We the People rule ourselves; we don’t have a King George ruling over us.
But the authors are right in one respect. The Constitution did not set up a pure democracy, and good thing it didn’t. The Founders were concerned with preventing mob rule and the tyranny of the majority, both of which develop under pure democracy. Even with all our system’s checks and balances, we’ve had instances in this country where one side has gotten too powerful and rammed stuff down our throats, like Obamacare and the New Deal. Do we really want modern-day Jacobins ramming single payer down our throats with real death panels this time - guillotine squads? That’s why the Founders gave us a Republic, as Ben Franklin famously said - to temper the passion of factions with ways for cooler heads to prevail. Warring factions gave England a dictator-for-life, Oliver Cromwell. The Founders knew this history and worked around it accordingly. Property rights, which the socialist authors criticize, actually reinforce self-government, because property gives people freedom and independence, power they wouldn’t have if the government owned everything as in a socialist system. Property rights are best understood as a pillar of popular sovereignty.
The authors say the Constitution prevents redistribution of wealth and the creation of new social guarantees. This is just crazy talk. The authors act as if as if the New Deal, the Great Society and other redistributionist programs never happened, and that we never racked up a $21 trillion national debt as a result.
The authors criticize “the Bill of Rights’s incomplete safeguards of individual freedoms.” There’s something bone-chilling about Jacobin socialists talking about safeguarding individual freedom. They are the self-proclaimed descendants of the French Jacobins who chopped people’s heads off after so-called ‘trials’ that didn’t have any due process whatsoever, or even pretend to dispense justice. When the masters of mob rule start talking about protecting individual rights, run for the hills.
Newt Gingrich just wrote about the horrors of the French Revolution for Fox News. He referred to a book in which the author recounts a story about the French Revolution that tells you everything you need to know about Jacobin socialists: “a woman was charged with the heinous crime of having wept at the execution of her husband. She was condemned to sit several hours under the suspended blade which shed upon her, drop by drop, the blood of the deceased whose corpse was above her on the scaffold before she was released by death from her agony.” This is the intellectual pedigree of the Jacobin authors, whether they want to admit it or not.
The authors don’t want to throw out the entire Constitution like their more revolutionary comrades farther Left, just amend it. Specifically, they recommend a unicameral one-house legislature, and making it easier to amend the Constitution through national referendum. There are good reasons why the Framers didn’t give us either one.
They had the example of the unicameral Pennsylvania legislature which ping-ponged between partisan extremes after each election. This experience and others convinced the Framers that an upper house representing economically successful people was necessary to tame the passions of the bulk of the population who were seen as represented by the lower house. The Framers had the wisdom of the ages on their side on this one. Read the history of political theory from antiquity on down and you will find something called the “mixed constitution” – a government that mixes democracy with meritocracy, that is, the elements of popular representation with some kind of contribution by people who are more versed in governance than the average Jane or Joe. The history of political theory shows that you can’t have political stability without allowing both these elements to participate in government. Leave either element out and you will have nothing but fractiousness and trouble. Our two-house Congress was the Framers’ version of a mixed constitution which succeeded, unlike the French Jacobins, in ensuring political stability.
As for amending the Constitution more easily through national referendums, that would be more problematic than democratic. The Founders deliberately made it hard to amend the Constitution, so people don’t get carried away. But it’s not THAT hard. As I mentioned in a previous webinar [March 19, 2017], it only took one college student 10 years to get the 27th Amendment passed and ratified.
Let me end with three cheers for our Republic and our mixed constitution. It is because of them we have limited government, not the stronger federal government the authors want. No guillotines here.
As for the authors - Off with their heads! Figuratively speaking, of course. Unless I can gather a big enough mob.... Just kidding!
Pushback on Ed Asner's Claim ‘The One-Percenters Wrote the Constitution’
Actor Ed Asner of Mary Tyler Moore fame gave another interview about his recent book The Grouchy Historian: An Angry Old-Time Lefty Defends Our Constitution Against Right-Wing Hypocrites and Nutjobs. Despite the title, Asner is NOT defending the Constitution. Defaming it, is more like it. Angry Ed asserts that the ‘Forbes 100’ of the day wrote the Constitution just to protect their own wealth. His comments are full of rants (Trump is “nothing but a mob boss”) and riddled with inaccuracies (“Democrats have been more successful at balancing the budgets” - conveniently forgetting Obama’s trillion-dollar deficits). Moreover:
Actor Ed Asner of Mary Tyler Moore fame gave another interview about his recent book The Grouchy Historian: An Angry Old-Time Lefty Defends Our Constitution Against Right-Wing Hypocrites and Nutjobs. Despite the title, Asner is NOT defending the Constitution. Defaming it, is more like it. Angry Ed asserts that the ‘Forbes 100’ of the day wrote the Constitution just to protect their own wealth. His comments are full of rants (Trump is “nothing but a mob boss”) and riddled with inaccuracies (“Democrats have been more successful at balancing the budgets” - conveniently forgetting Obama’s trillion-dollar deficits). Moreover:
- Angry Ed dishonors the memory of everyone from all walks of life who fought and died for this country and its magnificent ideals expressed in the Constitution. They fought and died so the likes of Ed Asner could sneer at those ideals and make money doing it.
- Angry Ed is factually incorrect in asserting that the Framers were “the one-percenters of the time.” Not all the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were rich. Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and others were not rich.
- But let’s play along: So what if the country was founded by rich people? WE DON’T CARE. What’s that got to do with your rights under the Constitution today? NOTHING!
- If the Framers had just wanted to keep their own property, why did they rebel? They had a better chance of keeping their property by staying on King George’s good side than by going up against the greatest military power of the day. One signer of the Declaration of Independence, Francis Lewis, had his home and estate plundered by the Redcoats. His wife was captured, her health was ruined in captivity, and she died shortly after her release.
- If the one-percenters were just out for themselves, why did they bother with limited government, individual rights, etc. and not just cut to the chase, i.e. set up a plutocracy (government by the rich)? Instead, they gave us a Constitutional Republic, not a plutocracy, and ordinary people have been participating in their design ever since.
- If the Constitution were solely for the benefit of a few rich people, it could not possibly have lasted more than two hundred years. The Constitution has been meeting the needs of ordinary people all that time. There is obviously more going on in the Constitution than Angry Ed is willing to give it credit for. It is a ‘mixed Constitution’ with democratic and meritocratic elements that has stood the test of time.
- Why is it disqualifying to be rich? Who would you rather have writing your constitution – rich people who have studied every constitution in human history or ignorant poor people who don’t know the first thing about governance? Angry Ed hasn’t thought about this enough, obviously.
- If Angry Ed succeeds in tearing down the Constitution, what will he replace it with, exactly? He offers no constructive alternative; he’s just stirring up bad feeling to score political points and sell books.
- Which is why you shouldn’t take anything the Left says seriously. Whatever they say is just a club they use to beat people up with. If they think they’re getting somewhere, they’ll keep banging away with it – in this case, ‘the country was founded by rich people.’ If the club stops working, they’ll pick up another club. The politics of resentment is all they do.
- “These Founders were each chosen as a representative to go to the Constitutional Convention. They didn't pick themselves to go.”
- “John Adams had to rely on friends and neighbors to have a decent suit to wear to Congressional meetings.”
- “The Founders who survived the Revolutionary War, died with great personal debts. I can’t speak for all of them but I am aware that both Jefferson and Washington had to divest a lot of their property to keep their heirs out of debt.”
Shame! Former Justice Stevens calls for repeal of the Second Amendment, completely misunderstanding how it has helped preserve our liberty to the present day.
- Stevens claims that the “(c)oncern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states” is a “relic of the 18th century.”
- The Soviets disarmed the Ukrainians in the 1930s before deliberately starving 7-10 million of them to death. The Nazis disarmed the Austrians before taking away their freedoms. The Mexicans decided not to invade the U.S. in World War I because the U.S. population is armed.
- These all occurred in the 20th Century. Other examples abound. With all due respect, Mr. Justice Stevens, you are just plain wrong. You can enjoy your right to opine in the New York Times under the First Amendment precisely because the Second Amendment has prevented the U.S. government from taking that right away from you.
- Comments from Champions of the Constitution:
- “The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, and was necessary to get all states to ratify the Constitution”
- “Just thinking we had a Supreme that is THAT far away from our Constitution is simply amazing.”
Throw the Entire Constitution in the Garbage
A couple weeks ago, a writer by the name of Ryan Cooper published an article calling on Americans to “[t]row the entire Constitution in the garbage.” “The American Constitution is an outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk — and it's only getting worse,” Cooper writes. If we don’t change our entire system of government, we are headed for a constitutional collapse, he maintains.
One way of pushing back on this is immediately apparent. Throw out the ENTIRE Constitution, he says, so I guess that means we can start with his own freedom of the press by which he makes his living. Also, a lot of people fought and died for his Constitutional right to sneer at the Constitution and be well paid for it, but he doesn’t thank them in his article.
His main beef is gridlock. We don’t have a way to break legislative deadlocks, like calling snap elections the way they do in some other countries. Bipartisan compromise used to keep the U.S. government functioning, but now such compromise is nearly impossible, he says. Nearly impossible? He’s way overstating the case. Just this week, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 that the President signed into law. It was obtained fairly easily. No one had to move mountains to get it done.
Cooper recommends that America more closely resemble a parliamentary democracy like they have in the U.K. He says we should get rid of the Senate filibuster because it leads to legislative stand-offs and not much gets done. But the filibuster is not in the Constitution. It’s a Senate rule that can be changed or modified at any time. How is that an argument for throwing out the Constitution? It’s not.
We should also change the way House members are elected, Cooper says, not one to a district, but three in much larger districts to give third parties a better chance at getting seats. Again, the Constitution doesn’t say a word about political parties. So, again, he’s not shooting straight. We could do more to encourage the rise of third parties - and even evolve into a European-style system where lots of small parties form governing coalitions. We could do all this without changing a word of the Constitution. States and locales could change their threshold requirements, for example, to make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot. It wouldn’t take a Constitutional amendment to do that.
Cooper also wants us to change elections for the House from every two years to every four years. But he doesn’t say a word about why the Framers chose every two years – to keep the People’s House closer to the people. Important values would be lost if House elections were held every four years, but Cooper doesn’t even mention them.
Next, he argues the Senate is undemocratic because senators from small states can use various means to block the wishes of the majority of the U.S. population. Cooper wants to change the Senate into a House of Lords-style assembly with no power to vote on anything. Again, he is showing he is profoundly ignorant of important values. We don’t have a democracy in this country, and for good reason. We have a Republic to help keep a mob from controlling public policy. That’s the way the Founders set it up, but the word ‘republic’ is not even mentioned, much less discussed, in his article.
His biggest recommendation is to elect the President from among the members of the House – institute a parliamentary system of government, in other words. In a parliamentary system, the dominant party in a legislative chamber chooses the executive from among its members. In this, Cooper contradicts himself. Earlier, he was all hep on democracy when it came to the Senate, but he doesn’t mind denying ordinary people a say in choosing who will lead the country. He wants to take away their right to vote. That doesn’t sound democratic to me.
Separation of powers would be lessened under a parliamentary system, but that would be a good thing, in Cooper’s view. Separation of powers actually increases tyranny, he argues, because it sets up a strong executive and leads to runaway imperial Presidents. Maybe in some cases, but a parliamentary system increases the chances that a single political party can march us off a cliff. A House dominated by a single party electing a President from among its own members has no counterweight in the executive to prevent bad law from being made.
Cooper’s argument about separation of powers shows his profound ignorance once again. Read the Federalist Papers and you will understand that the main aim of the Founders was to prevent the concentration of too much power in too few hands. Clearly separating the executive from the legislative branch helps accomplish this because there are two competing centers of power instead of just one. A parliamentary system mingles the two branches, weakening separation of powers and leading to scenarios the Founders would have wanted to avoid, like a President and a House of the same party ganging up on the Senate to ram things into law. Heck, in Cooper’s ideal system, the Senate wouldn’t even have a vote. There would be no way for the Senate to stop anything.
We have enough problems with legislation being rammed down our throats, like Obamacare. We don’t need more problems along those lines. With Obamacare, one party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency – a unified government, just like Cooper wants. The Democrats got their way and we’ve been fighting about it ever since. That’s better? I don’t see how. We don’t need more situations like that. A parliamentary system would make the President MORE powerful in many cases, not less.
We may not like gridlock, but it has its virtues. As the Founders knew, divided government is far preferable to the undue concentration of power or the tyranny of the majority. So embrace gridlock; gridlock can be good.
One final point: If you let assaults on the Constitution like this go unanswered, you will wake up one morning and the Constitution will be gone and all your rights with it – including freedom of the press. Please activate your networks when you see the Constitution being attacked like this, and push back.
A couple weeks ago, a writer by the name of Ryan Cooper published an article calling on Americans to “[t]row the entire Constitution in the garbage.” “The American Constitution is an outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk — and it's only getting worse,” Cooper writes. If we don’t change our entire system of government, we are headed for a constitutional collapse, he maintains.
One way of pushing back on this is immediately apparent. Throw out the ENTIRE Constitution, he says, so I guess that means we can start with his own freedom of the press by which he makes his living. Also, a lot of people fought and died for his Constitutional right to sneer at the Constitution and be well paid for it, but he doesn’t thank them in his article.
His main beef is gridlock. We don’t have a way to break legislative deadlocks, like calling snap elections the way they do in some other countries. Bipartisan compromise used to keep the U.S. government functioning, but now such compromise is nearly impossible, he says. Nearly impossible? He’s way overstating the case. Just this week, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 that the President signed into law. It was obtained fairly easily. No one had to move mountains to get it done.
Cooper recommends that America more closely resemble a parliamentary democracy like they have in the U.K. He says we should get rid of the Senate filibuster because it leads to legislative stand-offs and not much gets done. But the filibuster is not in the Constitution. It’s a Senate rule that can be changed or modified at any time. How is that an argument for throwing out the Constitution? It’s not.
We should also change the way House members are elected, Cooper says, not one to a district, but three in much larger districts to give third parties a better chance at getting seats. Again, the Constitution doesn’t say a word about political parties. So, again, he’s not shooting straight. We could do more to encourage the rise of third parties - and even evolve into a European-style system where lots of small parties form governing coalitions. We could do all this without changing a word of the Constitution. States and locales could change their threshold requirements, for example, to make it easier for third parties to get on the ballot. It wouldn’t take a Constitutional amendment to do that.
Cooper also wants us to change elections for the House from every two years to every four years. But he doesn’t say a word about why the Framers chose every two years – to keep the People’s House closer to the people. Important values would be lost if House elections were held every four years, but Cooper doesn’t even mention them.
Next, he argues the Senate is undemocratic because senators from small states can use various means to block the wishes of the majority of the U.S. population. Cooper wants to change the Senate into a House of Lords-style assembly with no power to vote on anything. Again, he is showing he is profoundly ignorant of important values. We don’t have a democracy in this country, and for good reason. We have a Republic to help keep a mob from controlling public policy. That’s the way the Founders set it up, but the word ‘republic’ is not even mentioned, much less discussed, in his article.
His biggest recommendation is to elect the President from among the members of the House – institute a parliamentary system of government, in other words. In a parliamentary system, the dominant party in a legislative chamber chooses the executive from among its members. In this, Cooper contradicts himself. Earlier, he was all hep on democracy when it came to the Senate, but he doesn’t mind denying ordinary people a say in choosing who will lead the country. He wants to take away their right to vote. That doesn’t sound democratic to me.
Separation of powers would be lessened under a parliamentary system, but that would be a good thing, in Cooper’s view. Separation of powers actually increases tyranny, he argues, because it sets up a strong executive and leads to runaway imperial Presidents. Maybe in some cases, but a parliamentary system increases the chances that a single political party can march us off a cliff. A House dominated by a single party electing a President from among its own members has no counterweight in the executive to prevent bad law from being made.
Cooper’s argument about separation of powers shows his profound ignorance once again. Read the Federalist Papers and you will understand that the main aim of the Founders was to prevent the concentration of too much power in too few hands. Clearly separating the executive from the legislative branch helps accomplish this because there are two competing centers of power instead of just one. A parliamentary system mingles the two branches, weakening separation of powers and leading to scenarios the Founders would have wanted to avoid, like a President and a House of the same party ganging up on the Senate to ram things into law. Heck, in Cooper’s ideal system, the Senate wouldn’t even have a vote. There would be no way for the Senate to stop anything.
We have enough problems with legislation being rammed down our throats, like Obamacare. We don’t need more problems along those lines. With Obamacare, one party controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency – a unified government, just like Cooper wants. The Democrats got their way and we’ve been fighting about it ever since. That’s better? I don’t see how. We don’t need more situations like that. A parliamentary system would make the President MORE powerful in many cases, not less.
We may not like gridlock, but it has its virtues. As the Founders knew, divided government is far preferable to the undue concentration of power or the tyranny of the majority. So embrace gridlock; gridlock can be good.
One final point: If you let assaults on the Constitution like this go unanswered, you will wake up one morning and the Constitution will be gone and all your rights with it – including freedom of the press. Please activate your networks when you see the Constitution being attacked like this, and push back.