New York Times columnist: “Let’s give up on the constitution”

Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Rob Port is the editor of In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • Matthew Hawkins

    Interesting article written by a very smart person.

  • $8194357

    Dems gave up on Constitutional America for the ‘soviet system’ long ago…..

  • matthew_bosch

    Dangerous words. At least this Central Planner is open with his beliefs and cruel intentions.

  • $8194357

    Bill Whittle explains the “false narritive” taken as the “political correct truth”.

    Based on lies, half truths and “false moral high ground”…

    Well worth the effort to watch…The Truth will get out eventially…
    How much damage can the left continue to
    do with the lies taken as truth for the last 100 years?

  • $8194357

    The New York Times just ran an editorial, “Let’s Give Up On The Constitution.” I don’t think this effort can be considered some kind of anomaly. Virtually all of the media campaign for gun restrictions is based on precisely the idea that the Constitution has no relevance for public policy. So I see this article written by the professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, Louis Michael Seidman, as simply cover for what is already going on.

    Read more: