WOW, this is unbelievable to me.

[th3w01f]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/op...=opinion&_r=1&

I'd love to see this guy give up the 1st and 4th for a while before he gets to continue bitching about the Constitution.

[newracer]

Some of it makes sense to me, most of it does not. I wonder if he believes that the 2nd Amendment should be left alone. This statement makes me think he does.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

[Inconel710]

Some of it makes sense to me, most of it does not. I wonder if he believes that the 2nd Amendment should be left alone. This statement makes me think he does.

I don't think so. I doubt he has any "respect" for the 2nd. Just another liberal looking for "permission" to do whatever they want, to heck with any rules.

[Teufelhund]

It didn't seem to me the author was bitching about our insistence on the Bill of Rights, but about the Articles of the Constitution and the specific system of government it outlines. What he seemingly fails to realize is the system we currently have, and the far-reaching authority which Congress has granted itself, is not the intended system which is outlined by that document; more often that usurped authority is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. It may or may not contain flaws, but we also maintain. . . "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I find it increasingly common how few people understand the Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, does not grant us our rights. Our rights are inherent; we are born with them. If by some horrible fate the Constitution itself were burned to ash, or if some tyrannical government were to throw it out completely, our rights would yet remain intact. The founding fathers simply wrote them down in this document for us all to understand the specifics of those inalienable rights, and the ways in which our government is prohibited from restricting them. This does not mean we will never again have to fight to keep them.

[Pancho Villa]

It didn't seem to me the author was bitching about our insistence on the Bill of Rights, but about the Articles of the Constitution and the specific system of government it outlines. What he seemingly fails to realize is the system we currently have, and the far-reaching authority which Congress has granted itself, is not the intended system which is outlined by that document; more often that usurped authority is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. It may or may not contain flaws, but we also maintain. . . "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

I find it increasingly common how few people understand the Constitution, more specifically the Bill of Rights, does not grant us our rights. Our rights are inherent; we are born with them. If by some horrible fate the Constitution itself were burned to ash, or if some tyrannical government were to throw it out completely, our rights would yet remain intact. The founding fathers simply wrote them down in this document for us all to understand the specifics of those inalienable rights, and the ways in which our government is prohibited from restricting them. This does not mean we will never again have to fight to keep them.

That's a specific philosophic belief that many people no longer adhere to.

So it makes sense that a lot of people don't "understand" that. They just don't believe in the philosophic principles that give rise to that sort of thing.

[Kraven251]

That's a specific philosophic belief that many people no longer adhere to.

So it makes sense that a lot of people don't "understand" that. They just don't believe in the philosophic principles that give rise to that sort of thing.

They are far more worried about their iPad, xbox, or whatever new and shiny piece of fluff that really doesn't serve much purpose other than entertainment. We are an information society, that doesn't want to look or listen, just spew.

[Pancho Villa]

They are far more worried about their iPad, xbox, or whatever new and shiny piece of fluff that really doesn't serve much purpose other than entertainment. We are an information society, that doesn't want to look or listen, just spew.

I think blaming it on fancy new stuff risks grouchy old man syndrome.

I'm sure your parents thought the same thing about wheeled carts and the written word when it came out in your youth. The fall of society and all that.

[Byte Stryke]

Those covered wagons are the Devils tools!
Always going west causing people to die.
No one NEEDS to carry that much stuff!

Ban covered wagons NOW!

[Sharpienads]

I only read the first paragraph and then stopped. The author's ignorance was just too much for me.

[bogie]

It's disturbing to read things like this, but there are many of these characters out there. Consider the source. He is in a position of influence over many future cronies that are bread in the Washington system.

Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”