Article

2024-09-02 -Great Cultural Revolution

You Heard it Here First: Constitution said threat to democracy

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mercutio 2024-09-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top

#1 Such socialism wrapped in lies. We are a republic, not a democracy. The left have controlled this nation for 12 of the last 16 years. Now they want to do away with the only thing keeping them from a fascist communist overthrow. Good luck.

Posted by 49 Pan 2024-09-02 03:52|| 2024-09-02 03:52|| Front Page Top

#2 The original was formed by 13 sovereign states. If you dissolve it, it reverts to 50 sovereign states. Most of whom, I doubt, are interested in being ruled by a dozen or so metro areas.

Posted by Procopius2k 2024-09-02 06:58|| 2024-09-02 06:58|| Front Page Top

#3 NYT non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed the Constitution was "frozen in amber"

Perhaps someone can explain to this ~~libtwat~~ sub-genius what an amendment is. There have been quite a few

Posted by Frank G 2024-09-02 08:07|| 2024-09-02 08:07|| Front Page Top

#4 The left have controlled this nation for 12 of the last 16 years.

Add in the 8 Bush years, 20:24.
No wonder they're lost.
A full generation.

Posted by Skidmark 2024-09-02 09:44|| 2024-09-02 09:44|| Front Page Top

#5 Szalai and Chemerinsky have chosen to ignore the fact that the Constitution can be amended. The amendment process is extremely difficult and time consuming but that is by design so that demagogues can't pass amendments on a whim. The vast majority of the people must be in general agreement on the necessity of an amendment and, with so many people brainwashed by corporate media, such agreements are rare these days.

I know one thing: If I had to choose between the Constitution and the New York Times, I'd choose the Constitution.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2024-09-02 11:32|| 2024-09-02 11:32|| Front Page Top

#6 Add in the 8 Bush years, 20:24.

Yeah, if you include Bush Sr., and I certainly do, it's 12 Bush years. Seems to me the late 1980s and early 1990's is when things started going south.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2024-09-02 11:35|| 2024-09-02 11:35|| Front Page Top

#7 ^^^How about, start with FDR era?

Posted by Grom the Reflective 2024-09-02 11:42|| 2024-09-02 11:42|| Front Page Top

#8 ^^^Wilson & the administrative state

Posted by Procopius2k 2024-09-02 12:11|| 2024-09-02 12:11|| Front Page Top

#9 ^Touche

Posted by Grom the Reflective 2024-09-02 12:12|| 2024-09-02 12:12|| Front Page Top

#10 FDR was definitely a commie but then we got Eisenhower. There seems to be a lack of clarity among voters because we keep swinging back and forth between leaders who are basically communist, whether the care to admit it or not, and leaders like Ronald Reagan who believe in American democracy. It is not healthy.

Posted by Abu Uluque 2024-09-02 12:12|| 2024-09-02 12:12|| Front Page Top

#11 Articles like this and the multiple child like ideas held by many folks today, especially by those under 35 of age come about because of a fatal flaw in inculcating today's role of what a Government's true (valid) purpose actually is for each of us trying to "live each of our lives in quiet desperation." The fault can be discovered in most folks inability to understand the the actual, and verifiable answer to the following question: "What is a Right". My guess is that at best just one person even here on Rantburg most likely will not be able to correctly answer this question. The answer to this question is NOT a matter of opinion or personal interpretation. Please mind.... the question is NOT "Please be able to list all the "things" that are Rights". The question is very simple "What IS a Right?" The answer is to state what is the acid test to determine if a person claims something is a Right, to actually determine with certainty if it is a Right? Think back to the issue at hand about our Civil War in 1865. I challenge each of us here on Rantburg to post their attempt to describe what is this acid test to unequivocally demonstrate if something is a Right or pretending to be a Right, meaning its actually just a privilege? I do have the answer and will gladly post it here, but only if others on Rantburg attempt to answer it. My bet is at the very best... just one of us here might be able to answer this correctly. Go ahead and use Google to locate the answer. I bet you won't get it right even using the internet. Victor Hanson and Thomas Sowell know the answer. Anybody willing to give it a good try?

Posted by Jumbo Grease7837 2024-09-02 12:50|| 2024-09-02 12:50|| Front Page Top

#12 To define a right, one must first establish the fundamental nature of the individual. In classical terms, the individual alone in nature is sovereign, he has no limits on behavior and thought beyond the existential consequences of actions, both immediate and prolonged. One can impute a theological component into this description regarding creation of the individual and an implied divine intent. Regardless of that consideration, the political concept of "rights" at this stage of individuality is universal. The individual has the "right" to do anything that his physical being can accomplish since he is untimately sovereign.

The traditional concept of "rights" as permissions or limits on behavior, thoughts, or possessions is based on agreements of limitations and permissions agreed upon by external connections to others. They take the form of laws, religions, cultures, belief systems, but in each case an "agreement" on the limitations of some aspect the sovereignty of the individual is in return for protections and acceptance in a societal setting. It is a contractual relationship, willing or otherwise, between citizens and the state they create or inherit.

The contextual basis for our own Constitution sees this "natural" sovereign state as being those "rights" as given by God, hence a religious context, and has the concept of the contract between man and state that is our Constitution as an articulation of the limits place on government concerning rights, not the idea that government gives us rights!

Posted by NoMoreBS 2024-09-02 14:00|| 2024-09-02 14:00|| Front Page Top

#13 The author, a Canadian, looks like you'd expect

Posted by Mercutio 2024-09-02 14:04|| 2024-09-02 14:04|| Front Page Top

#14 This Rantburg right? So.....Excellent try and well written NoMoreBS, but not quite correct. Your answer is not an acid test. You have attempted to define a Right by stating what it isn't. A process of elimination. Much like one might say that a car is not a boat or a train. You state that Rights are not permissions granted by others. I see that nobody else has tried to answer this key question just yet. Any community of people(a sovereign state) has to know what Rights are in order to not create tyranny down the road. Tryanny will abuse Rights, by conflating Privileges to ALSO BE Rights. They aren't. For example, in the early years of the USA (pre 1865) for a long time, folks claimed they had the Right to own other humans. The tyranny that was inflicted was sad. Also the pain to correct this was harsh. Battel of Gettysburg, Antetium etc. Sheridan's march etc. The so called right to own the value created from another human's labor wasn't actually a Right at all. It was simply a false belief. The answer to "What is a Right?" is simply.... A Right does NOT require the existence of another human to exist for you, as to exercise that specific Right. The key phrase to focus on is the term "existence of another human to exist. Let's test this answer. Freedom of speech: Does this require another human to exist for you to express your idea/thought? No it doesn't. How about freedom of religion? It too doesn't require another human to exist for you to believe that that rock over yonder is God or whatever. How about Right to privacy? That too doesn't require other humans to exist. How about self defense from harm, form an attack by a lion? That too doesn't require another human. Now then.... how about there Right to a job? Ahhhh! It does require another human to create a need to hire you. If a job is considered a Right, then somehow other must be forced to give you a job. That is a form of slavery. Forcing other humans to take time out of their life (not by choice but by force or threat of force to give you some of their productivity (value/wealth). How about medical care?, ...or an education? ....or housing? ....or food?, being Rights? These are NOT Rights because in each case other humans have to be forced to give you time or productive value in the from of their labor. Are you required to give a portion of your limited life here on earth to others? Ahhh but you might say these things (like a job or an education/ or shelter/f or ood etc) are all paid for by our taxes. But if others don't willingly chose to pay for these things then what happens. If you DON"T pay your tax... You go to jail. Thus when Privileges are considered Rights, it creates tyranny. That's what we are seeing today. WEF/ Marxism / Socialism / Modern Monetary theory / Illegal immigration / Banned speech on X etc, all these "crises" have the underlying theme of people demanding Rights when they aren't there at all. They are Privileges under the pretense of being Right. Privileges can only be negotiated by mutually benefitial contracts. Social contracts that allow for compensation in return for something of value. It can't be one sided benefit. One's medical care must be bought by the receiver of that care giving up something to get that care. You can't demand care from others for free (without compensation). Today people want things for free. Getting things for free is a form of slavery. You demand that I give you a portion of my labor's product (value) and you don't have to compensate me, since its your "right" to have it for free. Codswallop. That's slavery redefined and coated in make-up. It may not appear to be slavery. But it is.... I've ranted on too long here. But its Rantburg...Correct?

Posted by Jumbo Grease7837 2024-09-02 15:25|| 2024-09-02 15:25|| Front Page Top

#15 It's also a Labor Day Weekend, and I'm not your dancing monkey

Posted by Frank G 2024-09-02 16:38|| 2024-09-02 16:38|| Front Page Top

#16 Actually, in the generic and simple form of a definition what I wrote was correct. Absent the other, rights are universal, that is to say all behaviors and beliefs can be called a "right". What you assert, that another is not necessary for something to be a right, is precisely what I said. You asserted, (correctly I might add):

"A Right does NOT require the existence of another human to exist for you, as to exercise that specific Right".

I said:"The individual has the "right" to do anything that his physical being can accomplish since he is ultimately sovereign"..."the individual alone in nature is sovereign, he has no limits on behavior and thought (hence rights such as those you describe) "

What the balance of your epistle was about is contextualized into a current, and definitively American context, with which I am in general agreement.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2024-09-02 16:40|| 2024-09-02 16:40|| Front Page Top

#17 Mostly because some find it too hard to read and understand?

Posted by Anomalous Sources 2024-09-02 18:28|| 2024-09-02 18:28|| Front Page Top

#18 I do have the answer

Thanks, God.

Posted by Skidmark 2024-09-02 23:33|| 2024-09-02 23:33|| Front Page Top

23:57 Pancho Poodle8452
23:56 Pancho Poodle8452
23:45 Skidmark
23:33 Skidmark
23:28 Skidmark
22:38 Glavinter Peacock7962
22:34 SteveS
21:24 Ululating Platypus
20:15 Lord Garth
19:31 3dc
19:27 trailing wife
19:22 Procopius2k
18:52 Frank G
18:51 Abu Uluque
18:38 Silentbrick
18:37 Dale
18:29 49 Pan
18:28 Anomalous Sources
18:27 49 Pan
18:25 Anomalous Sources
18:14 SteveS
17:52 Anomalous Sources
17:41 Anomalous Sources
17:38 alanc