The United States constitution is on the way out, thanks to George Anheuser Bush, the Supreme Court, the Republican and Democratic parties, the MSM and the stupidity and apathy of much of the so-called "American people". The individuals and institutions that can keep it alive and maintain its viability are simply ignoring it. One day we will all wake up and it will be totally irrelevant.

Our constitution has been routinely ignored and violated by Presidents and Congress since it was written.

It's a fairy tale, like believing in the Easter Bunny or Jesus.

Our so called leaders take an oath of office: to uphold the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and it is the law of the land.Any political leader that calls it just a piece of paper or does not abide by it, is guilty of the highest treason and is a traitor to the country most Americans love!

Constitutions and other legalisms are ink-laden chimeras. Ruling classes do
precisely what they want whether or not that contradicts what has been promised in legalistic form (ask anyone from a first nation). Two bodies of
American administrative laws were written without reference to the constitution: Labor Law and "Indian" Law. In other areas, the constitution has been routinely ignored...except to amend it to recognize corporations as
individuals(you know, the individuals who don't need passports or visas).
Law and order, in practice, means order only.

Airspeed,

Thank you for sharing your insightful criticism and making us aware of what fools we are.

For us child-like, naive idiots (that think highly of the Constitution): Upon what do you you propose we base our system of government? Seriously.

Laws were made for breaking by the crooks, crooks running and protecting the country and its people. There can't be a free society that doesn't fallow the Laws of the Land. Its that simple. People love the sight of distruction, why do you think all the politions go and visit Iraq? To see distruction. If that was polled I'm sure that the majority of politions thats been to Iraq are the ones funding this law breaking fiasco (so called war). Thanks CD for letting me vent. I'm better now.

The document is an incredible piece of writing and an incredible concept...what men do with it, is another thing...what citizens (not consumers) do with do to make sure it is followed, is entirely different.
Too many have been apathetic too long. By the way the French just voted in local elections. Turnout was estimated at 60%

GREAT IDEA for an ad!!!

Sean Gonsalves___ Good article about being more concerned with following the Constitution. However, it seems strange to be so worried about the new candidates and what they might do, and completely omit the fact that most of the erosion has occurred under this Bush administration.

It is highly improbable that we will have the same trampling on the Constitution by another administration and you do a disservice to suggest that theory, as we absolutely need to put someone in that is not a continuation of the present disastrous situation.

The constitution is the law of the land. To break its rules is a crime. Criminals are supposed to go to prison, even if they are the president.

However, the document does need revision and modernization. A good constitutional discussion is in order. Proportional representation would change things considerably, and could come from a constitutional convention.

Of course, being so busy with war, and running out of money, I'm just dreaming.

There remain many great things about the constitution. But it has been taken over by the "players", the professional politicians. They like to theorize about the placement of commas, and the meaning of "is".

I've argued for nearly 25 years that it needs revision, and there are a couple of excellent websites now dedicated to such. However, the websites never seem to provide a means for effecting their proposals. So, the "players" will continue to anoint the 1789 document as holy and untouchable. They have a system that keeps them in office, so they have no motivation to change.

The most immediate change would be to "cut and paste" the original Bill of Rights to the front end of the constitution. Doing such clarifies who "we, the people" are, and almost immediately sends Yoo's Unitary Executive theory up in smoke. Try it mentally: read the Preamble, read the Bill of Rights, and then start with Article I. It should become clear that the founders saw the Executive merely as a first among peers, not an independent authority.

"Why did she declare that a president's primary duty is to "defend the nation" in the context of her "experience?" (And they say Obama doesn't get specific enough. Is anyone going to ask her: what experience, exactly? Or, more importantly, how does that experience square with the Constitution?)"

good question sean.

hillary and bill via hillary's campaign are flagrantly violating the intent of the constitution, (specifically the 22nd amendment which bars presidents from serving 3 terms).

why is this relevant ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/22nd_amendment

"The rationale was a concern that without limits, the presidential position could become too similar to that of a benevolent dictator lasting not just four years but a lifetime, that the position could become too powerful and upset the separation of powers, and that he could become so powerful that elections would become dispensable. Hence, the Twenty-second Amendment was adopted."

the clintons obviously believe the rest of us 300 million people aren't up to the job.
what other US president had disdain for this amendment ? why of course ronald reagan.

(same source)

"Ronald Reagan publicly supported repealing the amendment. Bill Clinton stated his opposition to repealing the amendment, but supported modifying it to prohibit former presidents from serving more than two consecutive terms, but permitting them to seek election after an intervening term.[6]"

hillary didn't have legislative experience (zero,nada) prior to becoming the senator from new york. she took the senate job only to provide her w/ a platform to run for the white house (relevant to wiki quote above, after one term out all's fair game - also watch the film primary colors to get a sense of who these two really are). i believe her ego maniacal behavior recently illustrates her true intentions (help hill/bill forget about the rest of us).

why are the clintons not allowing the public the oppurtunity to review documents from the clinton white house ??

why won't the clintons release their tax returns?

why would the clintons suggest that their republican opponent is more suited to be president than their democratic opponent?

the american public (especially poor white folks) are enamored of mrs clinton because they believe the clinton dynasty can be restored. they are a sick twosome (watch primary colors), we never need to restore dynasties in this country, in fact our country was founded on the notion of rejecting monarchies.

OK, fine.

There are plenty of reasons to bitch about the Constitution and/or to point out flaws in our system. Right there with you on that.

My opinion is that it is part of the human condition (group psyche, societal behavior, whatever you wish to call it) that power will tend to accumulate in the hands of the few. Whether those elite are the wealthy (US), the political rulers (USSR), dictators (Hitler, etc) - hell, the royalty and priests of yore - I think the cycles of rise and fall of the powerful few will always continue. Sometimes their fall requires revolution and blood being spilled, or drastic societal collapse. Other times its a milder "course correction."

How, exactly, did the ruling elite WANT Teddy Roosevelt to break up trusts or impose labor laws? How did the top 1% of the 1920s - who earned 24% of all income in 1928, an imbalance we're almost equaling - WANT to see their share of income deline to 8% within 20 years? Think that the Constitution and our form of government had nothing to do with those changes?

Is our current government unbalanced/unfair/undemocratic/etc? Yes. However, my difference of opinion (apparently) is that I think the Constitution still CAN (and should) be a guideline to self-governance. Maybe we won't get that Roosevelt-like President to do a course correction. Maybe the Repubs take over and we become a corporate-theocracy-fascist state.

There is a lot that needs to be done in this country, and it may or may not happen. I'd die happy if we made it to public financing of elections and restoring the Fairness doctrine.

Did Obama vote for the Military Commissions Act and the Patriot Act? Unless he voted no, he's not a Constitutionalist at all, just an opportunist. And he's hedged that 2002 anti-war statement every which way possible.

TY TY Sean for this article. I just don't understand why people can't or won't see this...

As a matter of domestic law Congress can override a treaty with new legislation or a declaration of war, which is sort of what it did in 2002 with the Iraq War resolution--but we have still breached our duties under international law. Result? Bush is in the clear if dragged in front of the U.S. Supreme Court but possibly in trouble if in front of the World Court in the Hague. Do you understand now why Republicans fight so hard against compulsory World Court or International War Crimes Tribunal jurisdiction?

Habitat Vic: The constitution is admirable in that is a statement of good intentions. Without those, we are not on the road to hell, we are already there, but, in practice, ruling classes routinely ignore good intentions in favor of class-interest.

Here's my 2 cents' worth.

I've always taken a strict constructionist stand regarding the Bill of Rights. Without citing the NRA's sacred 2nd, let me point out my other favorites, the 9th and 10th.

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

I hereby assert my Constitutional right to privacy, especially to electronic and biological privacy except in cases explicitly spelled out in the Fourth Amendment.

Get it? No electronic spying or DNA capture/evidence.

Those who cast ballots for a candidate running for the job of "Commander in Chief" and/or "Unitary Executive" will get all the protection they deserve.

Sean, Great article! I love your ad idea, but I fear most Americans are now so uninformed about our Constitution it would go right over their heads. We need to start teaching it again in schools.

sjc, Obama and clinton both voted against the Military Commissions Act and both for the Patriot Act.

I've said before, Obama isn't perfect, but I see possibilities in him that don't exist in Clinton.

thanks iowablackbird, that was a good post, as usual.

kathyodat

One cannot defend the Constitution without, in the process defending the nation: the people and the land.

The semantics are minor, in the context Hilary meant.

Two points are far more important. The first is that she has always primarily not been in favor of defending the nation from foreign enemies. She has supported offending other nations, for the benefit of (often foreign) corporations, at the expense of reducing US security at least 2 ways: inciting retaliation, and putting our "defense" forces where they cannot defend. The second is that defending the Constitution is far more than military, it is the entire Bill of Rights as well as the rest of the text.

I do agree 100% in citizens being well acquainted with the Constitution, especially the parts which are not details of the organization. This is especially important for jurors. Many judges do not respect the principles of the Constitution as a protector of people, and it is not reasonable to expect the appeals courts to step in and fix a verdict.

http://www.usavsus.info/

It all started back when Rove stole our WH and promised to make his cult leader a "war" president.

"My job as President is to pertect da people, see." Spoken hundreds and hundreds of times since Inauguration Day. Do a search and you will find not one single instance where he said: "My job as President is to protect and defend the Constitution."

And by "people" he means those identified as such by the Supreme Court - you know, Corporations.

It wasn't until after 9/11 that I became aware of how many Americans really hate the Constitution. It's a "suicide pact".

For many US citizens, supporting the Constitution is like supporting al Qaida.
If you believe in habeas corpus, then you hate America because you support giving terrorists special rights. I wish it was hyperbole to say many Americans think that way.

> One cannot defend the Constitution without, in the process defending
> the nation: the people and the land.
> The semantics are minor, in the context Hilary meant.

It's a nice defense for why Clinton said her primary job was to defend the Constitution. But that isn't what she said. The argument for torture is that it will save cities from being nuked and sleeping little girls from bad awful things. One can defend people while pissing on the Constitution.

Semantics are not minor. I think in her case, they're carefully calculated to be vague.

unkanny: I think Hilary's words are not carefully calculated to be vague. She is lying outright.

The Constitution, as amazing as it is, should have been completely revised and updated on numerous occasions. It is woefully outdated and not in keeping withe today's realities. Rather than debate why calling a constitutional convention is imperative, and soon, I will refer you to A MORE PERFECT CONSTITUTION by Larry Sabato for details. Suffice it to say, the writers of the Costitution would be flabbergasted with us, shocked, even embarassed, then angered by what has happened to their magnificent document, or not happened (i.e. ignored). At this point a constutional convention is our only choice. It's either that or revolution (hey, it's been done before when tyrannical forces ruled over us).

The constitution acts to provide pressure on individual actors and groups, including the elites, to limit abusive laws and abusive actions that deviate significantly from what has been allowed in the past. Elites, with the exception of the totally reckless and clueless, have a stake in the stability of the legal system and of the society, and so they have a stake in maintaining the value of and respect for the constitution. So it is rare that a court will completely ignore the actual words or disregard the evolved meaning, as developed through many past Supreme Court decisions, of any constitutional provision (though it does happen, as in Bush v. Gore).

However, over a period of time powerful forces that develop in the society and in the legal system, particularly through some faction of elites, can shape interpretations of the constitution so that it barely resembles the document of many years past. Bush and Cheney have been applying such pressure, as have conservative ideologues over the past few decades, so that it is losing its ability to serve as a tool, in the hands of non-conservatives, to protect the interests of the common people or the general population.

And so even though the constitution still has the power to limit abuses against the common people, it seems that interpretations are straying from traditional meanings to an ever greater extent to serve the interests of the few and the powerful.

True American Patriots must Never Forget to Stand United for the purpose of Protecting the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.

1.Restore habeas corpus.
"the name of a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from unlawful detention of himself or another person. The writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action."

2.Restore court ordered surveillance.
"No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause"

3.Restore our system of checks and balances to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

4.Stop organized warrantless surveillance; it is a form of psychological torture.

5.No Immunity from prosecution for those organizations, Corporations, and groups who practice warrantless surveillance.
"To petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

Break off the shackles of fear, read the Declaration of Independence.
First they steal the fourth amendment, and then they steal the first amendment,
Who will here your cries for help when they come to take your guns?
The time is now at hand for America's legal eagles to soar into action and restore the Constitution to its true form.

God, give Americans the strength to save the Constitution, because to do so preserves Eternal Honor to those who have sacrificed so much to protect us, and our Civil Liberties.

This message is presented to you by an American whose fourth amendment right has been violated every day since Dec 1 2006.

Folks-

If you agree with the logic that superdelegates should not overrule the will of the voters, you should think about taking a few minutes to send a letter like the sample one below. It has the potential to be a very powerful act of mass nonviolent resistance.

***

You may contact you Democratic senators and representatives at:

http://www.senate.gov
http://www.house.gov

Dear Senator XXX,

I am a registered Democrat and I've voted in every election since 1988. Should Senator Obama lead in pledged delegates and popular vote at the time of the convention and the superdelegates do not follow, I will stay home in November. No Democrat in any race will get my vote, and I will strongly urge other Democrats to stay home as well.

Please share this with your fellow superdelegates.

Thank you,
XXX

Habitat Vic -

good points. it's hard to keep the meta-view in focus, but it's crucial and you do it well.

Excellent article Sean. Your idea for Obama's campaign strategy has merit also.

It has finally been painfully pummelled into me, over the course of the Bush Administration, that government is the ultimate human achievement. No, seriously, think about it.

Habitat Vic and Kivals I'm with you on this. Is it perfect? Nothing is perfect, but those old boys made a good run at it. Is it still effective and enforceable? Only if we demand that it is so, and that is the point of Sean's essay.

Before Bush launched our illegal invasion I became more politically active than ever before in my life. Marched in Washington, wrote dozens of elected representatives repeatedly (and even visited a few,) and generally made a pain in the ass of myself everywhere I went and to everybody I know pointing out the fallacy of what was happening.

When I saw that the herd was not listening but was stampeding toward the cliff I became despondent and dwindled to bitching and moaning here with the other outcasts. But the herd is made of people, not cattle or sheep, and you really cannot fool all of the people all of the time. And people resent being fooled and will demand retribution from the perpetrators.

It is not just a figment of nationalist pride that the U.S. Constitution has been widely admired throughout the civilized world. It is erroneously believed by many though that the emergence of that document was something that happenned in America or to America and that it is the sole property of America. It is the property of all humanity because all of human history that predated its construction was recognized, pondered, and harnessed in those scant paragraphs.

It is human nature to value and desire justice and fairness and it is the outraged sense of injustice and unfairness that animates the most cynical naysayers on this site and in this world and not their pragmatism, realism, or nihilism. I'm committing myself at this moment to pull myself out of my helplessnes, my despondency, my fear, and to get up and fight. I may go down, but at least I'll go down fighting.

As the sage said: these are the times that try men's souls.

While I respect Mr. Gonsalves, I wonder why/how it took him this long to realize and write about the fact that the President's job is to "defend the Constitution". How many times over the past few years has our dear leader said that his number one job is to protect the American people, yet he waits until Mrs. Clinton mouths the same inaccuracies to prove his point, in which he is extremely late in reaching?

What if your choice this fall were to vote for one of two senators who both supported the Iraq war resolution? If enough people voted for a third party candidate that might swing the election to one of these senators. This mattered in 2000. Does it matter now?

I think that too many people view the Constitution as some arcane legal code that shouldn't be used to get criminals and terrorists off the hook.( They watch too much Law & Order.) I did hear Hillary mention it a few times during this campaign, but then she dropped it( apparently, focus groups thought it made her sound as unattractive as Dennis Kucininch looks). The "dumbing-down" of America has been the greatest opportunity aspiring tyrants have ever had here. It's actually a good argument for some form of elitism and meritocracy. After all, 50% of the population have below average IQs( a fact that astounded Harry S. Truman), but it only takes 50 + a small increment to rule in a democracy ( assuming everyone voted and one person= one vote applied). Presumably, the dumber half and a small cabal of managers can trump the better half. This is what has happened to our democracy. It's over. Maybe some other country will figure out our flaws and come up with the safeguards to protect the better aspects of our constitutional democracy, which we've pissed away by being indolent, addicted, and greedy. The bedtime story I like to tell myself is that Barack Obama will put the brakes on the rapid shift towards fascism under Bush.

The Constitutional disconnect has been written about and discussed extensively form both sides of the political aisle by John Dean, Bruce Fein, John Nichols, Glen Greenwald, Al Gore, Howard Zinn, Nat Hentoff,....., but it hasn't gathered traction. Thanks to Mr. Gonsalves for bringing it to our attention again.

This issue is at the center of this is the issue of impeachment, which the Dem's Ms. Pelosi took off the table. Could it have possibly been that by bringing impeachment proceedings, it would have highlighted their (Dems) complicity and failure to honor their oaths and responsibilities. The Constitution references "Impeachment" six times and in Art.I, Sect.2, Cl.5 states, "The House of Representatives shall have.....the sole power of impeachment." Art.II, Sect.4 states "The President, Vice President, and "all civil Officers of the United States", shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Convivtion of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Art.I, Sect.3, Cl.6 states, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments........"

The failure to bring Impeachment proceedings, even if the GOP members would have voted against it, is itself a high crime and misdemeanor on the part of the House. Such proceedings would have enlightened the public to the antics and complicity of all involved, as self-incriminating evidence. This most likely would have resulted in the public's "impeachment" of the Congress in the next election. Hiding the crimes against the Constitution and not initiating impeachment proceedings is a higher crime in itself.

JohnR: I'm assuming that you are making the humorous observation that some people find it dismaying that 50% of the population is below the statistical mean or "average" IQ. In the context of the rest of your comments that does seem to be the case. This only has relevance depending on how wide you cast your cirlce: the average intelligence of the American population or the average intelligence of the entire human population; the average intelligence of the extant human population or the average intelligence of humanity over the entire course of human history.

There are other aspects of human nature in play besides the quantitative determination of IQ. Justice, fairness, altruism, reciprocity, reciprocal altruism. Consider the conceptual farce of cultural relativism that is the rage in academic circles today.

THANK YOU NOLIESPLEASE !

CD seems to consist of Democrat shills.
Impeachment is the only way to protect our constitution at this point Oboma has never supported this he couldn't even support the proposed centure of Bush by Fiengold,there is no need to mention the rest of the DP with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who was trampled out of the way by all of the DP and especially the leadership all of whom can be considered traitors to the country and should be brought to the international criminal court on charges of crimes against humanity.
At a public meeting in Litchfield county ct I confronted my Democratic representitive Chris MURPHY AND ASKED HIM TO REPEAT THE OATH HE SWORE WHEN HE TOOK HIS OATH OF OFFICE IN THE CONGRESS, HE WOULD NOT DO IT IT SEEMED AS IF HE REPEATED IT HE WOULD CHOKE,I THEN ASKED HIM UNDER WHAT CIRCOMSTANCES WOULD HE EVER CONSIDER REQUESTING FORMAL HEARINGS OF IMPEACHMENT OF BUSH AND CHANEY,AND ONCE AGAIN HE FROZE UP AND REFUSED TO ANSWER ME.
SO FOLKS WHAT DO WE HAVE LEFT,ONLY THIRD PARTIES OR RON PAUL.

Yes, my previous post was intended to be a provocative ramble about cynicism(both internal and external) and a lament over the failings of democracy. And it is humanity in all of its dimensions that constitutional democracy advances. However, we are at the threshhold of the death of the great American experiment.

JohnR March 12th, 2008 11:37 am

good points... i tell myself the same bedtime story. and the ability of americans to understand the scope of what's happening is nil.

"failings of democracy"

which failings? we have a smorgasbord of violations of the principles enshrined in our constitution (torture, habeas corpus, privacy, and even the concept of term limits).

recently, presidents have held disdain for the other branches of government and start the machiavellian mechanisms in motion (presidential directives, illegal renditions). now our courts are stacked and our legislature, grant it bought and sold, has neglected the checks and balances accorded to it (filibuster, $$$, impeachment, special prosecutors, etc..).

the constitution is a living document, one that requires fertalizer and constant zen like attention (although modeled on the first corporate charters !!). our corporate presidents have neglected the shareholders of the entire enterprise the common citizens, currying favors to the rich and wealthy. hence our reality.

wasn't washington the largest landowner in virginia ?

our houseplant has yielded poisonous fruit. hopefully it's just a bi-annual that's overextended it's own inherent instinct to wither...

thanks for the article Sean Gonsalves..

...peace.......

Mr. Gonsalves, What is your view of the Second Amendment? Are you of the socialist "collective" belief or is it an individual right? Do you know the definition of the word Arms? The 1768 Military Dictionary defines "Arms: All sorts of weapons used in offence or defense to include sword, hanger, espontoon, bayonet, firelock, carbine and pistol." The 1994 "military style assault weapons ban" actually violated the Second Amendment, but if you are ignorant of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it is easier to blow smoke up your buttocks! Veritos vos Liberabit!