The op-ed advocates doing away entirely with the Constitution. Why? The authors don’t quite put it this way, but the reason is that the Constitution fails to establish a pure democracy by plebiscite, and makes it difficult to use a transient majority to effect radical change. [More]
Then those who would rule us and who control all major means of communication wouldn’t need to just ignore it anymore.
It figures The New York Times would publish such a subversive screed. As for the ivory tower Harvard and Yale apparatchiks, when useful idiots are no longer needed, that which they’re helping bring into being generally finds a suitable place for “new people.”
[Via Michael G]
“I am obliged to confess I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” — William F. Buckley Jr.
I remember Mike saying that as much as The Constitution protects us from them, it also protects them from us. Or as little.
Systems of rules tend to be like that.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” — John Adams