Support the Constitution
In a recent article in The Atlantic, Andrew Sullivan seems to be supporting Professor Michael Klarman, of Harvard.
1) The framers of our constitution HATED slavery but recognized they could do nothing about it at the time that would not utterly destroy the fragile new republic. Slaves would have voted the way their masters would have dictated, but in an effort to recognize slaves as humans, they were still given recognition under the Constitution. This was a framework for the future abolition of slavery full voting rights. Prof. Klarman is either ignorant of history or is ignoring it.
2) Restricting the highest office in the land to natural born citizens makes perfect sense as only those born and raised in American culture are most likely to understand it. Also, it keeps people like Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, and Hugo Chavez from ever become president,
3) It is irrelevant since the courts are being stacked by Liberal Socialist Progressives that won't put to a halt the unconstitutional power grabs by the government, the patently unconstitutional behavior of our government largely goes unchecked and that is rendering the constitution moot,
4) Because of item three, it is apparent that the court system is in dire need of overhaul. The Supreme Court is NOT uphold the Constitution as it should be - it is legislating. With people like Klarman educating those that make up our legal system, is it any wonder that we are deviating so far away from our constitutional framework?
What we need is not a dissolution of the Constitution, but a RETURN TO IT. The Constitution is NOT the problem; the problem is a near total lack of upholding it. I know Mr. Sullivan wants to be saying that the Constitution is not a holy book full of prayers, but he chose a completely different tact that exposes his dislike of our country's base framework. His blog says "... of no party or clique", but I assure you, based on his consistent Liberal viewpoints, his is a solid Socialist Progressive Democrat.
1) The framers of our constitution HATED slavery but recognized they could do nothing about it at the time that would not utterly destroy the fragile new republic. Slaves would have voted the way their masters would have dictated, but in an effort to recognize slaves as humans, they were still given recognition under the Constitution. This was a framework for the future abolition of slavery full voting rights. Prof. Klarman is either ignorant of history or is ignoring it.
2) Restricting the highest office in the land to natural born citizens makes perfect sense as only those born and raised in American culture are most likely to understand it. Also, it keeps people like Osama Bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, and Hugo Chavez from ever become president,
3) It is irrelevant since the courts are being stacked by Liberal Socialist Progressives that won't put to a halt the unconstitutional power grabs by the government, the patently unconstitutional behavior of our government largely goes unchecked and that is rendering the constitution moot,
4) Because of item three, it is apparent that the court system is in dire need of overhaul. The Supreme Court is NOT uphold the Constitution as it should be - it is legislating. With people like Klarman educating those that make up our legal system, is it any wonder that we are deviating so far away from our constitutional framework?
What we need is not a dissolution of the Constitution, but a RETURN TO IT. The Constitution is NOT the problem; the problem is a near total lack of upholding it. I know Mr. Sullivan wants to be saying that the Constitution is not a holy book full of prayers, but he chose a completely different tact that exposes his dislike of our country's base framework. His blog says "... of no party or clique", but I assure you, based on his consistent Liberal viewpoints, his is a solid Socialist Progressive Democrat.