"Private ownership of guns is illegal." - (Proposed) New US Constitution.

It looks as though she is little appreciated by her peers.

Click to expand...

One can only hope...

This academic idiot is a perfect example of the selfish-liberal mindset. Everything she personally wants or favors should be a right or required by law and everything she dislikes should be illegal.

This is just a "what if"

What if this laundry list of entitlements (as geek cleverly stated) turned out to be the new US Constitution one day? ... with the help of R.B. Ginsburg and her henchmen overriding congress and sneering at the senate all the way? Would you peacefully turn in your guns if told to?

Ironbar - I'd only do that if I'd already gotten some kind of decent response first. I'd hate to turn her off to giving any response at all. As you said, not up front.

I couldn't finish it.

The problem is that her "Constitution" would not only do a lot of stuff we wouldn't want, it would also not get her what she wants. She leaves a lot of wiggle room based upon the exceptions for "public safety" or "where provided by law". It is somewhat naive to believe that if you leave holes like that all through your constitution, legislators won't try to drive their pet causes through them. It reminds me how liberals (and some conservatives) are surprised when they pass legislation (for example, the AWB) people have the gall to change their behavior to exploit the loopholes (for example, AWB compliant AK's). In most of our current cases, the problemns come because parts of the constitution (Commerce Clause, 2nd ammendment, etc) are abused or misinterpreted or else things are added (right to privacy, separation of church and state) that are not really there. In her case, she puts the potential for abuse right up front so activist judges don't even have to be creative. If I agreed with her social agenda, I would cringe at her document as it would create a horde of negative externatlities that would overrun whatever rights she defined like Visigoths over a Roman Maiden. she needs to tighten that thing up and then it would just be a bad idea instead of a suicide pact.

Kj

lol i really dont think this is gonna go anwere. the NRA probably thinks its a joke.

Do any of you honestly think she would be capable of even holding a menial day job in the private sector?

Click to expand...

She might be able to talk her way into a job at McDonald's, but she wouldn't show up on time, wouldn't get along with her co-workers, wouldn't get the orders straight, and would probably be fired for "accidentally" pocketing money from the cash register. She'd file for unemployment, welfare, free food stamps, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

That little statement is the first evidence that these kids are in way over their heads. None of them are smart enough or experienced enough to write a Constitution for a nation of free men. They don't seem to understand that a Constitution (among other things) defines the powers we are delegating to the government, not the freedoms the goverment is allowing us to have.

It reflects badly on their education.

First off, I almost like the 'all citizens are required to vote' part. If it required them to be informed of the issues as well, it might work.. "No private citizen or private contractor can carry out activities granted by law to the military" is not a bad idea. I've never been too happy about the idea of corporate mercenaries being available to Halliburton.

What is a bad idea is disarming the army and giving it a mandate to save the world. What is worse is the lassiez-faire treatment of the lives of the citizens.

In a word? Naive. She should stick to web design, she's actually pretty good at that.

EDIT: Please, enough liberal-bashing for one thread.

Commie-bashing I can put up with, but I would like to reiterate that there is a difference.

read the whole thing

I'm just speachless,

this is from a professor?

of soc sci?

lamp out the media section.

ministry of information anyone?

I'll keep the current one (1788/1791 constution)thanks,

r

"No private citizen or private contractor can carry out activities granted by law to the military" is not a bad idea. I've never been too happy about the idea of corporate mercenaries being available to Halliburton.

Click to expand...

That is a terrible idea. Exactly what activities are granted to the military? The military is granted the authority to own guns, run shooting ranges and all sorts of things. Individuals would not be allowed to do anything, much less defend themselves.

I don't understand why any of you are taking the time to even read this thing? What weight could it possibly have? As has been said, it looks like something a sixth grader wrote, demonstrating about as much knowledge of human nature and the proper role of governments.

I would like to reiterate that there is a difference.

Click to expand...

It seems like the same thing to me.

Did you notice it refered to the OAS. First step to the One world government.
The problem is that Communism started off as such a scatter brained idea.

somebody, anybody, read Hayek (Road to Serfdom)?

All citizens have the duty . . .to work

Click to expand...

From her home page...

Judith Blaus

Our Aims

Professionals in medicine and journalism, among others, have volunteered to take on the responsibilities of working with people in many countries to help them solve, in the most disinterested way possible, the many problems they face. These problems were created by colonialism and capitalism, and aggravated by globalization. Sociologists without borders was founded as part of this new secular global volunteer system, dedicated to working in solidarity with oppressed peoples. Sociologists without borders supports the right to peaceful meddling, and opposes States' practices and programs that advance their own sovereignty but diminish peoples' human rights.

[read more]

Someone, I think, on Sanizdata, proposed that when impoverished 3rd world countries come round, hat in hand, we give them a 3-ring binder, containing a constitution, biased toward free-market capitalism, and a reading list. Suggested reading ran to "The Wealth of Nations" and such similar stuff. I believe that it would be a good project for a constitutional law class, or even a sociology class, to produce such a document. I would propose our existing constitution, with the standing amendments incorporated into the body, the language and contexts cleaned up for clarity, and incorporation term limits and TABOR. Call it the "3-ring binder project". Any takers?

I love all of the examples of "without restriction except those by law."

I also love all of our "duties," we would literally all be slaves. "Duty to work" Especially with the government mandating jobs.

I have taught at colleges, both part time and full time, for 12 years now.

There are lots of folks, and I do mean lots of folks, in academe who are literally "academic hothouse flowers."

By "academic hothouse flowers" I mean they have spent literally their entire "adult" lives inside the ivory tower.

They came to college when they were about 18, and they just never left.....they got degree after degree after degree, and just sort of stayed.

They've never, literally, been in the "real world" because, quite frankly, they aren't suited for the "real world." The "real world" would eat them like an owl eating a blind, lame, mentally-retarded lemming.

Inside academia, there are heirarchies. There are some degrees and disciplines that get respect, and then there are those that don't get respect.

The LEAST respected are the folks with the advanced degrees from Colleges of Education. Only slightly less respected are......drum roll please..........Sociologists!

hillbilly

How did she end up on my payroll?

Sam

I would like to reiterate that there is a difference.

Click to expand...

It seems like the same thing to me.

Click to expand...

Bleh. Some days I wonder why I bother. :banghead:

I'd ask if you were calling me a commie, but I probably don't need an answer.

That is the most pathetic excuse for a Constitution I have ever glanced at (judging by the comments, I don't want to read it). It is too technical, too specific, has too much bull????, and only God knows how many exploits it has due to either phrase wording or otherwise. That person does not know anything about the nature of the U.S. Constitution, rights, common law, or the republican form of government.

The "real world" would eat them like an owl eating a blind, lame, mentally-retarded lemming.

Click to expand...

good one


chairman mao would be pleased with this aspiring wannabe.forget france or the un..shes going for the gold.What a mess.