62 votes

NY Times Calls For Scrapping Constitution

We must be close, they're openly publishing subversive propaganda now. Good to see them showing their true colors.

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Wouldn't expect anything less

Wouldn't expect anything less from NYTimes.

Southern Agrarian

It's Time To Reconsider the Constitution

We need to devolve the United States of America. 300+ million people under one all-powerful central government is a recipe for exactly the authoritarian nightmare we're living. The Declaration of Independence points the way. We need lots of secession and nullification. To the degree that the constitution gets in the way of that it's got to go.

Yes but

Couldn't agree more, but do you really think that is what this twit is thinking too? Yeah, right... he's ready to embrace the UN's Declaration of Universal Deceit.

No, I'm sure the author wants

I imagine the author wants something like the UN Charter.

Back in the '90s there were rumblings about a constitutional convention. The Patriot Movement and the constitutionalists were terrified, fearing a runaway convention (like the one in 1787). A runaway convention today that would give us a Euro-style framework would be the 'shot heard around the world" and it would light a big fire under the self-government movement.

Myself, I'm for the right of every last person to choose his government no matter where she might reside. I'd like to see government services provided by profit seeking and charitable organizations. Like insurance or roadside assistance. And always the option to choose to do without.


Just go back to obeying the Constitution.


MMM- thought it over but NO THANKS.
I say we scrap the NYT first.
but thanks anyway.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

George Soros has ties to 30

George Soros has ties to 30 major news media organizations and yes, the New York Times is one of them.Most people won't bother to look but they can be found in whistleblowers publications December 2010 and July 2011. The first is titled GEORGE SOROS AND HIS EVIL EMPIRE and the second is THE ANTI-JOURNALIST/Not only do they refuse to report the truth-they attack you if you do.I sometimes wonder if it would make any difference if more people knew who they were and the people behind them? Sadly,Judge Andrew P.Napolitano's book A NATION of SHEEP describes most American citizens today. George Soros and his Open Society Institute fund 152 organization today. Adolf Hitler once said his greatest weapon was propaganda.next time an individual listens to or watches the news they are most likely listening a news media site funded by Soros.

Bob Marshall


Watch Commercials and features today. They are destroying American culture at every turn. Big News too. We need action.

So what is the alternative to the Constitution

Of course; dictatorship and presidential executive orders.

Seidman? Sounds like

Seidman? Sounds like Bolshevik...

He is a scholar of Communism.

He's Living Under a Rock

"What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine."

The US has been operating this way for decades, especially this past decade. Why does he think there would be change if this is how the government worked? Is he not aware of what happened in Libya just recently? It is this lack of observance of the Constitution in regards to military action and spending that has the US at this "Fiscal Cliff". Yet he argues that disobeying the Constitution will somehow lead the US to successfully overcome this fiscal challenge. How does this so called expert come up with such ridiculous ideas?

This whole comment about letting Obama attack Iran on "merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief" is a scary argument. Any president should follow the Constitution and get the Congress to declare war before there are any attacks on a foreign country. Who is the judge of these "merits"?

The irony is that he starts his opinion piece with this.

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions."

Yet he is arguing for the most evil provision of all.

I hope no one buys this man's book.

Under the power-that-be. Living under a windmill.

Grinding away... Grinding. Grinding...

The history of the valorous and witty knight-errant don Quixote... By Miguel de Cervantes, 1733. Page 172.

    "O dear Brother, I would I might know where thou art, that I my self might go and search thee out, and free thee from thy Pains, although it were with the hazard of my own. On, who is he that could carry News to our old Father, that thou wert alive, although hidden in the most -abstruse Dungeons of Barbary -, for his Riches, my Brother's, and mine, would fetch thee from thence."

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

The article brings up some

The article brings up some good points. Quote: "Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper". As of today that statement is true however it has brought us to where we are today -- on the slippery slope of totalitarianism and war mongering around the world.

I agree our nation should have the conversation but I cannot see anything good coming out of it. Our founding fathers were one of a kind where honesty and goodness meant something,whereas our leaders today, with the exception of a few, are self-serving individuals seeking power and wealth.

as I guessed...no place to

as I guessed...no place to leave comments under the article.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

This man is not to be believed or trusted

What are the evil provisions? Maybe; No state shall... make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts... This "Law professor reminds me of another law professor in the white house. These men are in open violation of our laws and guilty of sedition a criminal act. What juvenile BS!!!!!!!!!

george III

I am not ignorant to the limitations of an social contract

Including the Constitution. I appreciate where Lysander Spooner comes from. All governments can and do become corrupted. But therein lies the problem--it is impossible to live without a government or a community or a tribe ANYWHERE. There are no Walden Ponds to find resort to, unless you desire to live like Jeremiah Johnson in the mountains, or somewhere in Antarctica.

We live in a broken world. There will always be organized bad guys, gangsters, or government versions of the same who will roam the earth unchecked as a proverbial press gang to devour or assimilate everyone.

The Constitution power and purpose to restrict the government and protect our personal liberties does not lie in the paper itself. Instead, it serves as a primer for us to study, and a point of reference to address the wrongs of a overweening government that strives to gain control of our lives. If we fail to do so, then its the fault of human nature, not the ideals espoused by the document.

If we were to be honest about Libertarianism, as a wonderful ideal as it is, it cannot bound ANY of us to live by the golden rule of ZAP anymore than the Constitution can bind the excesses of government. So your argument cuts both ways.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

The power of Law

If the constitution is the law and our elected officials are sworn to protect it but ignore it, who is responsible? Any criticism of the constitution and our elected officials is protected by the first amendment. What is it about the first or any amendment that needs to be changed if we are to have freedom in our future?

and then you die


The proof that the Constitution is ineffective is in the fact that this man has not been arrested for treason. And if you wish to double down on the irony, note the author:
"Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”"

Truth is, I somewhat agree. If you dig in to the history, the Magna Carta was not a valid contract, and neither is the Constitution. Unless both parties sign of their own free will, a contract is not valid. But to pretend we got here by adherence to the Constitution is absurd. The Constitution is "the law" as it stands, and if we are to "scrap it" we need to do it through the provisions within it or find a MORE pertinent law to rule by that has the CONSENT of the governed. (10 commandments, for instance.)

I would love to see something like the Constitution applied to all humans. The basic human rights that people agree to respect. But allowing the people who desecrated the existing law to make the new law is NOT going to work.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Um... WOW!

I kept looking at the URL expecting to read "The Onion" but nope, *head shake* NY Times!

Yeah, that's it - everything's broken because of our unwavering steadfast adherence to the Constitution. That's what we keep saying... If only we weren't such a stickler for following the rule of law everything would be great.

BTW - Yes, that's my sarcastic voice.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

How can you amend the Constitution

if the vote is rigged and the money is counterfeited?

I found absolutely nothing

I found absolutely nothing controversial in this article.

In fact, I agree with almost all of what this man wrote.

The constitution is antiquated, this is true.

Note, he said nothing about introducing socialism or any totalitarianism, he is just stating the facts.

But, I expect to be attacked for my views on this subject, especially since the Daily Paul is filled with very narrow-minded ancestor worshipers who act like the framers were some sort of Gods.

Whatever, I think I'm done with the Daily Paul.

I am with you.

I am no fan of the Constitution. In a little over two hundred years this place went from no central government to the biggest, most tyrannical (the world over) government the world has ever seen. The Constitution was a consolidation of power. Next up? A World Constitution: when 8 billion very different people are forced to come to a consensus. Yikes!

But to say that this guy is not introducing socialism or communism is overlooking his tactic. He is stealthily going about it.

He has gained notoriety from his adherence to the critical theory.

So his strategy is to criticize everything so to bring on social change. The goal of critical theory is socialism and then communism.

Thanks for the gift of Rothbard! I just really got into him in the last 6 months and I am astounded. He is my favorite dude ever now.

Maybe the founders should've

Maybe the founders should've included a REQUIREMENT that the citizenry rise up and oust their government if too many changes away from the central themes of the Constitution came to pass.

Whether or not the

Whether or not the c,onstitution is antiquated is really not particularly relevant. It is, or at least was, some sort of check on absolutely untrammeled power by whichever scumbag happened to have sharp elbowed his way into Washington at any given time.

Progressives don't particularly like that, since it prevents them from pretending literally gassing people to death so that they can sell their organs for the benefit of themselves and their donors at Goldman Sachs.

In reality any document written by dead people, that cannot be altered, that proscribes whomever is in charge from doing certain things,are good. The constitution is just one such document. Sharia and Torah law are other examples that have stood the test of time. He progtards hate all, and for the exact same reason. It makes it incrementally harder for them to blatantly stomp all over others while claiming some sort if right to do so.

To get rid of the progressive scourge, what we need is much stricter adherence to the constitution. Or sharia or whatever. And we'll get it, either by going about reforming our polity internally, or by bending over for the progtards until peoples not so delusional simply render us irrelevant. Us meaning current day Americans and our (meager number of generally progressively indoctrinated) descendants.

Oh, I should have been more

Oh, I should have been more specific.

All social contracts are garbage.

Even the constitution.

The constitution is evil and the Bill of Rights were only a window-dressing to make it appear palatable.

If we threw away the constitution today, nothing would change since the government has been doing whatever it wants since the days of Washington.

To believe that the constitution can do anything good for this geographical chunk of land is a daydream.

You are all dreaming.

Did I mention that I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist?

So please don't waste your time trying to convince me the morality of the constitution.

It won't work.

Social contracts are immoral and evil.

ALL of them...

...even the one you would like to foist upon me.

Somehow while you may be

Somehow while you may be channeling Spooner I don't think the nytimes writer is.

then how is it that

You find yourself a supporter of Ron Paul? Paul wants to adhere to the Constitution. You think it is outdated?

God forbid we disagree with

God forbid we disagree with Ron Paul or anything he says.

Steve, stick around.

You are being too critical. Trust me, ideas such as yours have been around for eons. Many have tried, even with variation. It is not to say that it can't be done, for it it takes only one person to create the spark.

This is the Daily Paul, of course many of us adhere to his principles. But we also share, exchange ideas, which is essential for any Liberty-loving individual.

And if you do happen to create that spark, keep in mind that it will not happen overnight. This movement, r3VOLution, has been fighting for years, and still has a long way to go. One thing is for sure, very few of us give up so easily.

Furthermore, who cares if you are attacked? We all have a voice, as do you. Let it be heard.

"An idea whose time has come can not be stopped by any army or any government."

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

It's not being attacked that

It's not being attacked that gets to me, it is now finally seeing how SUPER biased this site is towards ideas that contradict anything Ron Paul has said.

It is just frustrating how many people have enshrined this man in the same way they deify the framers of the early republic.

But please, don't respond to this, I've got a resume to write.

I'm getting a sales job so I can practice my persuasion skills so that I may go on and convince a whole generation of youth that voluntary interaction is the only moral way for humans to behave.

I cannot spend anymore time on this site, I've got myself to work on.

This is my life's work and time is of the essence.

Godspeed, and please, please, please, read Rothbard.

Here, this is my gift to you: