IN-DEPTH: Top Law Schools Promote Ditching the Constitution
The nation’s elite law schools teach future lawyers and judges that America’s Constitution is broken and should be scrapped…
Makes sense that the document should change as the world changes.
“Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… Each generation is as independent of the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness… It is now forty years since the constitution of Virginia was formed. The same tables inform us, that, within that period, two-thirds of the adults then living are now dead. Have then the remaining third, even if they had the wish, the right to hold in obedience to their will, and to laws heretofore made by them, the other two-thirds, who, with themselves, compose the present mass of adults? … That majority, then, has a right to depute representatives to a convention, and to make the constitution what they think will be the best for themselves.” ~ Thomas Jefferson
I don’t think your response addresses the substance of the article. The Constitution makes provisions for amendment. The Marxists want the whole thing to be scrapped because it is an impediment to their plans to institute a totalitarian system.
Yale Harvard and Stanford Law are hotbeds of Marxism. Sure.
He’s moving the goal post. And not addressing the issue. The founders of the country wrote that constitution with all previous known governments in mind. They studied hard ancient Greek and Roman governments. They were almost all multilingual being able to read, write and speak Greek, Latin and English. The were the best, most educated of their generation. They knew the problems with the English government. And with these things in mind they formed a document that to change needed massive consensus. You can’t have one day 51% of the country saying it’s ok to kill the other 49%. That is what constitutions are about.
I never proposed that the Constitution should be easier to change. For the past 30 years, there have been no changes to the constitution. In the 1900’s, there were 11 amendments. That’s an average of 9 years per change. I refuse to believe that in the last 31 years, there was nothing important that 75% of States could agree on. The world has changed a lot in that time because of the internet and other technology. There’s definitely a lot of new things that there could be amendments about.
An example would be an amendment on privacy and data collection. Over 80% of americans feel very little or no control over data that is collected about them. 81% feel the risks of companies collecting data about them outweigh the benefits. Source of data: pew research.
There’s definitely room for an amendment there. It doesn’t matter how smart the founders were, the world changes and the constitution has to change to reflect those changes.
The number of languages one knows doesn’t make them the best, most educated of a generation. I say this as someone who can speak, read, and write 4 languages. I can also speak, but not read or write another language for a total of 5 languages.
For someone who puts so much weight into how educated the founding fathers were, you seem to disregard the educated people of the generations currently alive. A key difference between humans and other animals is that we build upon the knowledge that previous generations discovered by writing down what we learned and teaching it to future generations. Not only do we build upon previous knowledge, but we have also made knowledge more accessible through technology. The most knowledgeable of today’s generations are smarter than those of generations centuries ago.
You say the founding fathers studied ancient greek and roman governments. Modern political scientists study that too. They also study our government and what has and hasn’t worked well for it since it’s founding. They study what other governments are doing in this new world and how it’s going for them.
I never proposed that the Constitution should be easier to change. For the past 30 years, there have been no changes to the constitution. In the 1900’s, there were 11 amendments. That’s an average of 9 years per change. I refuse to believe that in the last 31 years, there was nothing important that 75% of States could agree on. The world has changed a lot in that time because of the internet and other technology. There’s definitely a lot of new things that there could be amendments about.
You say you never said the Constitution should be easier to change then complain it hasn’t changed. Spend the rest of your wall of text saying it should have changed.
An example would be an amendment on privacy and data collection. Over 80% of americans feel very little or no control over data that is collected about them. 81% feel the risks of companies collecting data about them outweigh the benefits. Source of data: pew research.
The government is already supposed to be limited per the constitution. We have in there the right to not be unreasonably searched and seized. We just need a court to intervene one day. As for private companies encryption is helping, people are becoming privacy minded and existing monopoly laws should be breaking up other scenarios where it’s hard. Like app store issues.
That said, I would like amendments that give us the right to refuse medication and not be treated differently in the workplace. The right to refuse vaccines without threat of being fired. As well as more privacy rights but it needs to go through the legal system.
I also wish they could have put something in there to weaken commercial interest in law making but companies were not able to grow as large as they have today because there were no computers to make book keeping easy enough.
There are ways to make constitution changes become more common without changing the 75% rule. I believe that the reason why changes have stopped is because of how deeply entrenched the two political parties have become. They know that they’ll continue being in power if they don’t make any changes. So, they just maintain the status quo with minimal changes.
Ranked choice voting is a way to force them to make the changes that people want or get voted out. Rn they can’t be voted out as there are only two realistic options.
I agree with you that people should be able to decide what happens to their body without fear of retaliation. That’s an amendment I would vote for.
Ranked choice voting seems like a over complicated way to diminish a vote. Because we don’t vote for the candidates in the first place.
One person one vote is still the best way to do it imo.
What if 90% of people hated both parties. But half of them hate part A more than party B and the other half hate B more than A. They’ll have to choose what they consider to be the lesser of two evils. Instead of voting for a candidate who represents their view, as was intended by the democratic system, they instead vote for the candidate who is least against their views out of two options.
With ranked choice voting they can vote for whoever best represents their views. If there aren’t enough people voting for that person, then your vote would go to the next closest person to your views. And so forth and so on. In the end, imo the resulting candidate would have the closest views to the most people.
It would break up the factionalism that George Washington warned against.
Marxism is about having the means of production be in the control of the workers instead of company owners/executived. From my understanding, what this would look like is company decisions being made by the employees voting on the decision or voting for a person who makes that decision.
At no point does the article mention anything about the law schools wanting this.
The only ties to Marxism they specify is that CRT was created by a marxist. CRT, however, does not call for workers to own companies. It also doesn’t help workers to own companies. Therefore, I do not consider it Marxist. Who created it doesn’t matter, what it does matters.
If a marxist created a car, it is not marxist. If a monarchist created a car, it is not monarchist. If a libertarian creates a way for governments to spy on citizens, it’s authoritarian. The creator’s ideology doesn’t matter, what the creation does is what matters to me.
You need to educate yourself on cultural Marxism and the Frankfurt School. Marxism is much broader than you suggest.
I tried to find articles on Cultural Marxism which backed their claims with evidence, but could only find evidence backed articles for critiques of cultural marxism theory like this one.
Can you send me articles about cultural marxism that link evidence for the claims they make?
Here is Marcuse, a famous cultural Marxist himself, talking about his generation reifying Marxism and bringing it into a modern context.
Decent Gottfried article on the topic.
Also check out this fun 21st century take on Bioleninism.
