LATEST LETTERS

Paul Campos

Tuesday, November 13 at 2:00 PM

Bruce Vanderbrook of Lakewood writes:

Paul Campos’ article “An Outdated Constitution” reads like the normal liberal line we’ve come to expect. He takes Sandy Levinson’s book “Our Undemocratic Constitution” and appears to agree with large parts of it. He complains about the senator from Wyoming haveing the same power as the senator from California has while the California senator represents 70 times as many people. But he neglects to mention that California has the representatives in the House to even out this disparity. This was done on purpose for the very reason that otherwise, the populous states would wield all the power and states like Wyoming wouldn’t count.
The fact that both houses of Congress have to agree in order for a bill to become law again removes the possibility that three or four very large population states could rule the country - a wisely chosen safeguard.
He complains that Constitution gives one person, the president, the power to veto legislation for any reason he likes, but neglects to mention that congress can overide that veto with a 66% vote, another safeguard our founding fathers were wise enough to include.
He says we have no way to get rid of an incompetent president - did he forget the procedure to impeach a president? Its not that long ago that it was tried.
I believe most thinking people will treat this type of political garbage for what it is and let it end up in the proper container.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

Campos is another example on the left of claiming to know everything about the US Constitution yet he hasn't taken the time to read or understand the document.

Congress and the Senate devise the appropriations "formulas" for determining a state's piece of the budget. Talk about the rooster in the hen house, if you could pick your own salary, wouldn't you get as much as you could.

Thankfully our fore fathers had the foresight to make modifications to the Constitution so difficult.

Perhaps we focus on fixing the real problem, those we elect to office, rather than the Constitution...

Posted by on November 13, 2007 02:21 PM

Our founding fathers provided that our senators would be chosen by the state legislatures rather than elected by a vote of the people. Good idea today?

If he doesn't commit any crimes, our country can be run for years by a president who only a small percentage of the people want to run the country. He can do a lot of damage during those years and no one can do anything about it.

About one-sixth of the people could prevent the other five-sixths from enacting any legislation.

Our founding fathers provided for two senators from each state, not because in their wisdom they thought that was the best way, but because the only way to get some states to go along was to do it that way. Madison, who is sometimes called the Father of the Constitution, proposed proportional representation in the Senate as well as the House. Since then, not only the world, but the United States has become smaller as a result of which there has been a realization that having many different programs rather than one was unwieldy and uneconomical.

Posted by Truth on November 14, 2007 07:27 AM

I agree with Windon that Campos is a good read and reject anyone who says "Campos is another example on the left of claiming to know everything about the US Constitution yet he hasn't taken the time to read or understand the document."

It is so silly to say Campos hasn't taken time to read or understand the document. Only the final arbiter understands the document even if he hasn't read it. For example: One Supreme blessed Bush's assault on the Wall of Separation of Church and State: Half of it, like both twin towers in NYC is gone: The Executive Branch can give $billions to his choice of snake oil (god) but Congress cannot. President Mitt Romney can give $billions to his god from Kolob thanks to five Catholic cabal on the Supreme Court.

Deicide Corner: “Petronius was surely right in saying Fear made the gods. In primitive times fear of the unknown was normal; gratitude to an unknown was impossible.” -- J.M. Robertson

Posted by Richard Grimes: Deicide and Misanthrope not to Christians but their dogma like Mitt's Mormonism on November 14, 2007 09:43 AM

OK, let say for a second that Mr. Campos has read and does understand the constitution. If that is the case, then, Mr. Campos is deliberately misleading his readers by omitting reference to the checks and balances designed into our system of government by the founders. Either way, his argument is found lacking. I find it interesting at a time in our history when the executive branch is doing everything it can to enhance and consolidate a level of power usually pursued by tyrants and huntas that Mr. Campos would denigrate the foundational basis of our Constitutional Republic. At this perilous time, we need to seek out people for government office that understand, respect and believe in our Constitution, the rule of law and our individual and inalienable rights as citizens of this great country.

www.ronpaul2008.com

Posted by Todd on November 14, 2007 11:21 AM

To claim that by suggesting changes in the constitution Campos is seeking to "denigrate the foundational basis of our Constitutional Republic" is utter nonsense. Those who try to suppress free speech with a spurious argument such as this are the ones guilty of that kind of denigration.

"If that is the case, then, Mr. Campos is deliberately misleading his readers by omitting reference to the checks and balances designed into our system of government by the founders."

The idea that a person who suggests a change in the constitution needs to preview all of its provisions is the product of a bigoted mind.

The depth to which posters will go in search of an argument is pathetic.

Posted by Truth on November 14, 2007 12:53 PM

Truth says:
"If he doesn't commit any crimes, our country can be run for years by a president who only a small percentage of the people want to run the country. He can do a lot of damage during those years and no one can do anything about it. "

No, Truth, that's not how it works. The reality is one person runs the executive branch, and congress can do something about the vast majority of that person's initiatives, if congress has the unity to do it. "Our country" is "run" by 3 different branches of government.

"About one-sixth of the people could prevent the other five-sixths from enacting any legislation."

And your point is...? The founders intentionally made it difficult for legislation to pass and become law, for the very purpose of limiting the scope of a reactionary government. That's how it is SUPPOSED to work.

"Our founding fathers provided for two senators from each state, not because in their wisdom they thought that was the best way, but because the only way to get some states to go along was to do it that way."

The liberal bias towards Federalism apparently knows no bounds. Obviously populous states like population-based representation, and less populous states don't. Where's the surprise in that? The founders, "in their wisdom," knew you have to give some consideration to everyone if you want to get them on board.

Campos and Truth both think that the Bush presidency is a big calamity. Don't look for either of them to make similar cases when the next Democratic president is in office. Many of us don't think the Bush presidency is a disaster. We also don't think the Constitution is a disaster, and certainly don't think the US of A does more harm than good. Some of us even thing that we Americans have the best system going, and it would be hard to improve it and foolish to experiment around trying to. Oh, the arrogance, saying America works pretty well as is...

Posted by Noggindog on November 14, 2007 01:18 PM

"Our founding fathers provided that our senators would be chosen by the state legislatures rather than elected by a vote of the people. Good idea today?"

No it's not a good idea today. In an effort to bring government closer to the people, Amendment 17 Section 1 ratified in 1913 created "election by popular vote" for Senators. Those in charge then recognized this and changed it according to the protocol in place to do so.

These safeguards were put in place to make changing it on a whim extremely difficult. Where there's common ground for change, change does happen.

Truth I'll spell it out for you, we're a Republic, not a Democracy. The framers of the Constitution were very deliberate in making this distinction, including Madison. A Constitutional Republic, limits the power of the government. But it also grants the President powers outside of Congresses control.

As for your suppressing free speech mantra, debating your argument isn't suppression of speech. The same right that gives you the "right" to free speech also gives the "right" of others to disagree and voice opposition to your stance.

Posted by on November 14, 2007 02:11 PM

Truth

You sure write a whole lot just to say nothing. You must be one of Paul Campos indortrinated students. Campos is a quota college graduate and scholar. A leftist legal hack teaching his socialist legal views which you often are in lockstep with. What do people like Campos and yourself pretend to know what the founding fathers of this country meant or intended. The majority were Christian Conservatives. You obfuscate their words with your extraneous arguments that the majority of real Americans find preposterous. Left wingers are the last people we should be listening to on these topics. Campos and yourself are intent on re-writing the Constitution ever chance you get so it fits your left wing agenda
Do yourself and us a favor. Keep it short and sweet and truthful, Mr "Truth".

Posted by on November 14, 2007 02:22 PM

Just knowing that a column is written by Paul Campos is plenty to tell you that it's not worth paying any attention to.

Posted by on November 14, 2007 02:59 PM

02:22 PM

Truth and others like him think they can read the minds of people. They think they know the mindset of our founding fathers and they think they know exactly what Rush Limbaugh was thinking when he made a comment about some phony soldiers.

Save yourself a lot of time and frustration trying to discuss this with Truth. He/she/it is good at arguing but is not very good at debating.

Posted by on November 14, 2007 03:10 PM

It is with some regret I violate the subject matter; however, a significant event is on the horizon:

W. Bush must notice the chaos resulting from a President declaring an event of significant nature leading to emergency rule:

So we call on all "Peace Pledge" Democrats to honor their pledges by voting NO.
A new study by Democrats themselves puts the economic cost of the Iraq occupation at $1.6 TRILLION, or $21,000 per family. Every single penny has been wasted - not to mention the human cost to Americans and Iraqis and global hatred of the USA.
Why would Democrats want to give Bush one penny more?
All Congress has to do is Just Say No and refuse to provide any new funds, and tell Bush to use existing funds to bring all our troops safely home. Bush has plenty of money - besides all previous Iraq funds, Bush just signed a Pentagon bill with a $40 billion increase.
Tell your Representatives: No More Funds for Iraq
http://www.democrats.com/peoplesemailnetwork/124
Deliver the same message on the phone: 202-224-3121
And send a message Democrats cannot ignore by joining the Democratic Donor Strike against the DCCC and DSCC.
http://democrats.com/donor-strike-2007

Posted by Richard Grimes: r22037yahoo Deicide/Misanthrope not to Christians but their dogma like Mitt's Mormon on November 14, 2007 03:34 PM

Thanks for all the good publicity, fellows. It's good to have you in my fan club. If I get the time I'll correct your papers. All I can do right this minute is to grade them. I won't tell your mommas, but all of you get an F minus.

Posted by Truth on November 14, 2007 04:58 PM

Truth,

Do you need a tissue? How does that thumb taste?

Posted by on November 15, 2007 02:18 PM