That is the non ironic title of an opinion piece in the New York Times. The author of the recommendation starts with this.
AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
The author then goes on, plays the role of Supreme Law Giver, and tell us what parts are wheat and what parts are chaff in the United States Constitution. After all, if we are going to “give up on the Constitution” someone has to decide what will be the law of the land. The author is more than willing to take on that role in the Brave New Order.
This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.
Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor.
He concludes by acknowledging that it will be difficult to realize his dream of a nation unfettered by a rule book in which majorities can do anything they want to minority groups.
If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.
This isn’t some basement dwelling leftist hammering a screed on the Daily Kos. This is in the New York Times. If you don’t think the republic is at risk, you should contemplate that this sort of thing is considered reasonable by the editors of one of Americas largest and oldest newspapers.Share