OFFLINE

In the most blatant display of anti-Americanism to date for a news magazine, the erudite and the eloquent of the intelligentsia of Time Magazine have relegated the U.S. Constitution to the dust bin of history, suggesting that it is no longer relevant.

The disgusting display was featured as a cover story, 'Does the Constitution Still Matter?'

To the geniuses at Time the Constitution is to be questioned because the Founders 'could not have envisioned the Great Depression, two World Wars, space exploration, or Lady Ga Ga.' Yes, Lady Ga Ga.

Richard Stengel is the author of the piece and his opening paragraph presents the thesis that he carries on throughout the rest of the story: "Here are a few things the framers did not know about: World War II. DNA. Sexting. Airplanes. The atom. Television. Medicare. Collateralized debt obligations. The germ theory of disease. Miniskirts. The internal combustion engine. Computers. Antibiotics. Lady Gaga."

The point, one made incessantly by those interested in unfastening the republic from its constitutional moorings, is that while the Constitution is an admirable document, it is dated and has served its purpose. Advocates of this position do not see how a document written over 200 years ago can adequately govern a modern country. Or, as Stengel restates his point in the third sentence of the very next paragraph: "Since George Washington didn't even dream that man could fly, much less use a global-positioning satellite to aim a missile, it's hard to say what he would think.”

The fact that the Constitution is a scholarly document containing the views of the best minds of the day on timeless truths, rather than a newspaper, seemed to sail right over the pointed heads of Time's bearded, pipe-smoking elitists.

One does not have to know all about the details of life in the future to know timeless truths that pertain to all mankind in all of the vast expanse of history, from start to finish. The concepts of human freedom and inalienable rights given by God are not dependent on the mundane issues of the day. They are relevant for all time because human beings at their core forever remain the same. No matter how far civilization progresses there remains within the human heart temptations to dominate others against their will, to force others to live under restrictions that are indefensible, or to deprive others of rights simply because we may think they do not deserve it or that they are somehow inferior. Humans tend to engage in mob rule unless there is a check on such unbridled power.

The Constitution prevents government from committing these atrocities simply because all governments, in all time-periods, tend to do all of these things. The tendency of power is to gain more power. And power corrupts. This is a lesson from history that the clueless, self-appointed pedagogues at Time have clearly forgotten, if they ever knew it at all.

Barack Obama is famous for saying that the Constitution is flawed because it merely limits government from encroaching on the rights of individuals but fails to positively delineate the rights of government. The concept inherent in such a statement is that we need a rewritten Constitution or a new one that contains these rights of government.

We already have such a document. It is called 'The Communist Manifesto.'

And without the Constitution to prevent government from systematically laying siege to all of the rights of individuals, a vacuum is created that most assuredly will be filled with concepts similar to those contained in The Communist Manifesto. At that point liberty is gone forever. And Time has now thrown its weight behind that movement.

OFFLINE

Did the half-witted twat that wrote this review actually read the article in question?  The only indication given is the reference to the first paragraph of a five page document!  The article in question, "One Document, Under Siege" (the slogan on the cover is just an attention grabber, not the actual title), does not at any point argue that the US Constitution be "relegated to the dust bin of history."  The thesis of the Times article is that the US Constitution is a living document who's meaning has been debated from the day it was penned, and that the principles of the Constitution are and should continue to be the guiding principles of our Nation.  No where does he begin to suggest the US Constitution be thrown out, not does he ever mutter a singe phrase in regard to rewriting a single sentence of the document.  Quite to the alternative, most of the article relies on how the Constitution has been interpreted in relation to events that the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned.

I don't know what more to say about the author of the critic of the Times article.  He lied.  That's all there is to it, he repeatedly accused Mr. Stengel of articulating arguments that were at no point conveyed in the article at hand.  There is absolutely no intellectual integrity present in the post above.  I found the authors attack on the more intelligent sectors of society rather entertaining ("bearded, pipe-smoking elitists", "intelligentsia" ), as if by attacking intellects some how justifies his/her own terrible lack of interpretive abilities.  To conclude, I find the above pack of lies nauseating, only mildly lucid, and deeply offensive to anyone who has ever suffered an intelligent thought.

I also liked the part about Lady Ga Ga.  I think its quite fortunate that the Founders didn't know about her.  If they realized that what they created would spawn her, they'd most likely have surrendered to the British!

For those of you who are interested in reading what Mr. Stengel actually wrote (in stark contrast to what the above article accused), please refer to the following link:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2079445-1,00.html

OFFLINE

I went and googles the opening line of Dods post.  Should have figured it was Anthony Martin from the Examiner.

Dod, as a personal favor, would you mind please citing the author in future posts?  It makes it easier to find background on the article as well as to give me piece of mind on who I'm criticizing (lest I risk calling our esteemed head barbarian a "half-witted twat," something we all know not to be the case).  Thanks!

OFFLINE

of course the article is about (as the first post suggests) is that the constitution is not set in stone, but rather that should loosely be used as a sort of guideline. that because times change, the constitution should be more flexible and interpreted any which way.

"The new Republican Congress organized a reading of all 7,200 words of an amended version of the Constitution on the House floor to open its first session. As a counterpoint to the rise of constitutional originalists (those who believe the document should be interpreted only as the drafters understood it), liberal legal scholars analyze the text just as closely to find the elasticity they believe the framers intended."

and i particularly like this part:

"If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn't say so."


this entire article about justifying bigger and more powerful government. i personally despise such liberal arguments. liberals do not like the constitution, and seek to get whatever kind of wiggle room they can with it.

"another reason we shouldn't be so delicate about changing the Constitution or reinterpreting it."

see, changing the constitution is one thing. it was established with a clear avenue to amend it. in this sense, it is a "living, breathing document." the problem is that this generally isn't what these revisionists believe in. they believe in finding ways to circumvent the constitution. in essence, to change the way the government operates, without all the messiness of having to come up with 2/3 of the states agreeing. the reason i find this disgusting is because once you start "reinterpreting" it, you can virtually change it to mean anything you want, while bypassing all the safeguards that were built into it, to prevent just such a thing. THIS is the reason that the constitution (admittedly both by liberals and so called conservatives) is basically ignored today. the executive can pretty much do whatever it wants now. so many times has the constitution been ignored, that really we're at a point where it seems like too big of a deal to hold anyone TO the constitution. it's become acceptable to kind of just raise a little heck over, but in the end, nobody does anything about it.

OFFLINE

and then real conservatives are ridiculed for being originalists. like freaking fundamentalists muslims or something.

OFFLINE

I dont read Time anymore.