Levin: "On the Constitution"

...following this reasoning One Way streets are only one way if you want them to be. Stop signs can be ignored, speed limits mean nothing, and yielding at school zone cross walks becomes optional.


If there is something in the constitution you don't agree with, or something you would like added we have an ammendment process. That's how it works.

For meaningful political discourse, both conservatives and liberals must agree on some common ground. We must proceed from commonly-held ground rules.
Conservatives have (perhaps falsely) believed that the Constitution served as the basis for these ground rules, and that we were all proceeding within its precepts. For liberals to behave as if the Constitution is optional or to be adhered to only as long as it is convenient is akin to children changing the rules of the game as they are playing. Of course, these changes are invariably inconsistent and applied only when beneficial for the liberal. (Oh, no. YOU have to roll the dice. I get to just choose where I want to land.)
If liberals truly believe that the Constitution is not the explicit delineation of what our government must and must not do, the only reasonable response is to change the Constitution or, when irreconcilably flawed, submit a new one. It is not logical or practical to keep a Constitution that you feel no obligation to adhere to. It's this one or propose a new one...

If you believe you must deconstruct Levins book, than you must also deconstruct everything minus the religious aspect of Ayn Rand, since much of Levins book can be seen in her writings 40+ years ago.
I mean no offence to Mr. Levin by this but the fact is there is no more original thought in the world today (beyond new Tech)

Name one new philosophy that was not gleaned from the foundation of what I believe you would call a generationally old system?

C.G. Jung said “the hardest thing for man to be is simple” this is why to you the constitution doesn’t seem to work, we’ve allowed it to become complicated.

Imagine what our Constitution would have been like if the Founding Fathers had been: The Founding Fathers and Mothers and other minorities and white men without property.

In 1930, I think it was, only 5% of the populace were able to vote in federal elections. Think of what this means. But once the idea of democracy got out of the bottle the people ran with it and the history of the United States during the last 150 years has been the expansion of democracy from that original 5%.

But think again what the Constitution would have looked like if women and minorities and common men had a hand in writing it. The Constitution would have been tremendously different.

So, why should be abide by a Constitution which represented the wishes, ideas and dreams of only a small fraction of Americans?