Yale students want constitution repealed & say it's a white privilege document

in the USA now , that freedom of speech thing is being strangled by the left, and by big tech censorship, and by cancel culture, and by SJWs, and by the media; controlling what people can say is one of the prime ways govt can control people.

yale students , although in a formerly prestigious university, have lost the ability to think intelligently

I'm about as colored as it gets and even I've got no problem with the constitution. I love it.

The Constitution can be amended but I don't know if we will ever see another amendment in our lifetimes.

I keep seeing stories about making DC a state but know that will never get the necessary votes unless they also agree to split Alabama in half.

We would all like to see term limits on people in Congress but the Constitution says only the people in Congress could amend that.

Not gonna happen.

And? It's a 234 year old piece of paper. It's the oldest active constitution in the world. Its outdated. I've never understood the United States' deification of the constitution and the men who wrote it. It was written in 1787, for 1787. Times change. Needs change. There's no need to cling tooth and nail to it or to treat it like dogma. As long as we do so we will be behind the rest of the world.

orsilochus wrote:

And? It's a 234 year old piece of paper. It's the oldest active constitution in the world. Its outdated. I've never understood the United States' deification of the constitution and the men who wrote it. It was written in 1787, for 1787. Times change. Needs change. There's no need to cling tooth and nail to it or to treat it like dogma. As long as we do so we will be behind the rest of the world.

What specifically needs to be updated? I am not implying I don't think everything is perfect, but we should talk specifics. Personally I would not have a problem with putting some constraints on Article 2.

orsilochus wrote:

And? It's a 234 year old piece of paper. It's the oldest active constitution in the world. Its outdated. I've never understood the United States' deification of the constitution and the men who wrote it. It was written in 1787, for 1787. Times change. Needs change. There's no need to cling tooth and nail to it or to treat it like dogma. As long as we do so we will be behind the rest of the world.

That’s a horrible take. The reason why we are the world leader and have been is the prescient nature of the original document and it’s ability to be amended. Holding aloft the men that founded this nation is merited. To hold every person to be without flaw is foolish.

I had the same question. I want to know what the constitution is prohibiting him from doing.

orsilochus wrote:

And? It's a 234 year old piece of paper. It's the oldest active constitution in the world. Its outdated. I've never understood the United States' deification of the constitution and the men who wrote it. It was written in 1787, for 1787. Times change. Needs change. There's no need to cling tooth and nail to it or to treat it like dogma. As long as we do so we will be behind the rest of the world.

Th e Constitution is probably the most important document ever authored. It ushered in an age of incredible progress in all kinds of areas, including democracy and freedom.

What specific parts of it bother you so much that you'd make such a crazy post?

Staxie wrote:

orsilochus wrote:

And? It's a 234 year old piece of paper. It's the oldest active constitution in the world. Its outdated. I've never understood the United States' deification of the constitution and the men who wrote it. It was written in 1787, for 1787. Times change. Needs change. There's no need to cling tooth and nail to it or to treat it like dogma. As long as we do so we will be behind the rest of the world.

Th e Constitution is probably the most important document ever authored. It ushered in an age of incredible progress in all kinds of areas, including democracy and freedom.

What specific parts of it bother you so much that you'd make such a crazy post?

You're only proving my point. Was it revolutionary and unprecedented then? Yeah absolutely. But that was 234 years ago. Just because it was great then doesn't mean it's still some untouchable or preeminent bastion for civil liberties, or the best way to govern a nation today. America was special when it started but not so much anymore.

"Canada has freedom. Japan has freedom. The UK. France. Italy. Germany. Spain. Australia... Belgium! has freedom... 207 sovereign states in the world, like 180 of 'em have freedom."

The more we cling to American exceptionalism and the idea that a bunch of old white guys and a piece of paper two centuries ago are what make us great, the more we're just getting stuck in the past. Other countries are going to move on and get better while we stagnate.

orsilochus wrote:

And? It's a 234 year old piece of paper. It's the oldest active constitution in the world. Its outdated. I've never understood the United States' deification of the constitution and the men who wrote it. It was written in 1787, for 1787. Times change. Needs change. There's no need to cling tooth and nail to it or to treat it like dogma. As long as we do so we will be behind the rest of the world.

Isn't that what constitutional amendments are for? Like we already have and had made updates and changes. But not because a bunch of over educated Ivy League kids with some time to kill and looking to make some a noise say so.

You elected a lot of liberals so if they propose amendments.

Also one of the first documents to recognize that rights do not flow from the government to the people, but rather from the people to the government, and that the power of government must be restrained.

The welfare state has taught people that government is their provider, thus weakening the premise of the U.S. Constitution as a limitation on government control.

I didn't prove your point at all. You don't really seem to have a point other than the Constitution was written 234 years ago and is therefore old. Several people have asked you what you specifically object to in the Constitution and/or what needs to be changed, and all we got from you was the "a bunch of old white guys" sentiment that is popular with liberals.

[quote]L L wrote:

"I keep seeing stories about making DC a state but know that will never get the necessary votes unless they also agree to split Alabama in half."

Before DC becomes a state, which is clearly contrary to the purpose of its creation, its land area should be returned to Maryland from whence it came. Virginia has already received its portion of DC back, so to be fair, Maryland should be given back its portion.

There is nothing that forces people to live in DC. If they want representation, they can move to Maryland or Virginia, or any other state.

orsilochus wrote:

You're only proving my point. Was it revolutionary and unprecedented then? Yeah absolutely. But that was 234 years ago. Just because it was great then doesn't mean it's still some untouchable or preeminent bastion for civil liberties, or the best way to govern a nation today. America was special when it started but not so much anymore.

"Canada has freedom. Japan has freedom. The UK. France. Italy. Germany. Spain. Australia... Belgium! has freedom... 207 sovereign states in the world, like 180 of 'em have freedom."

The more we cling to American exceptionalism and the idea that a bunch of old white guys and a piece of paper two centuries ago are what make us great, the more we're just getting stuck in the past. Other countries are going to move on and get better while we stagnate.

I second this.

The US is falling behind day by day and yet they are clinging on to a 234 year old piece of paper written by white slave owners.

Wrong way around, man. The "welfare state" is people asking their tax money go to something more productive than bombing foreign civilians for oil or teargassing peaceful protesters. It's saying we're willing to lift up the people who need it, not just give handouts to greedy corporations.

Well then let me clarify that my issue is not with the constitution itself but rather with the notion that replacing it with something more robust and up-to-date is scandalous or "crazy." Again, people treat the constitution and the founding fathers as dogmatic and blindly worship them simply because they've been led to believe they are special and my point is that they aren't anymore. Calling my post "crazy" makes it pretty clear you fall into this camp of exceptionalism which is why I say you are proving my point.

Everyone is missing the point. The college kids were asked to sign the document. They didn't want to look racist so they signed it.

Nah bro, you can still say all the stupid racist stuff you want but there happen to be consequences for saying it in public.

CrispyChicken wrote:

[quote]L L wrote:

"I keep seeing stories about making DC a state but know that will never get the necessary votes unless they also agree to split Alabama in half."

Before DC becomes a state, which is clearly contrary to the purpose of its creation, its land area should be returned to Maryland from whence it came. Virginia has already received its portion of DC back, so to be fair, Maryland should be given back its portion.

There is nothing that forces people to live in DC. If they want representation, they can move to Maryland or Virginia, or any other state.

You shouldn't get a vote whether you live somewhere or not. DC's lack of representation in Congress is infuriating. Every other democracy with a federal capital manages to pull of representation, but America cannot because of "freedom". That is the dumbest reasoning ever.

Maryland does not want DC and neither does DC want Maryland. The Virginia portion was retroceded because not many people lived there and Virginia asked for it back.

SAY IT. THE ONLY REASON YOU DON'T WANT ME TO VOTE IS BECAUSE I VOTE DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU. But I guess you can go on about how we are the best and freest country in the world.