Interesting read.

John Cusack Interviews Law Professor Jonathan Turley About Obama Administration’s War On the Constitution

_________________
Member formally known as AC59

Terrible piece. I stopped reading five paragraphs into the interview.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

Go back and read the interview portion of it.

_________________
Member formally known as AC59

Not gonna bother. If people want me to read their crap, they should start out with persuasive case-building instead of accusatory declarations as if we're idiots not to be participating in the obvious groupthink. It just comes out flinging mud. It's the exact same deal that Bush was handed and I object to it on principle.

Besides, Obama was already tap-dancing with the Constitution when he signed executive orders on gun control. Anyone who doesn't already know that...well, this article is probably wasted on them.

_________________
GO HAWKS!!!

Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!

Follow me on Twitter at @17power

I found the article very interesting. The notion of viewing the constitution/laws as a means to an end as opposed to the end is something I had not considered before. I see a major problem with moral relativism from my side. How can we not be furious about the drone strikes / assassinations? Though I am as guilty as many of going about my daily life and voting for the "lesser of two evils."

Very interesting read, but as Montana said its a bunch of things I already know. Shit will hit the fan and the majority of people will be surprised when it does. Thanks for posting it Jiggy.

The constitution is not the word of God. It's a living document that should be updated as applicable.

Not suggesting that altering it is something that should be taken lightly, but to think that words written a few hundred years ago by very imperfect humans is some sort of untouchable document is ridiculous.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

It has been updated, they are called amendments. If you can get enough support, feel free to add another. Good luck to you

I would agree that it is a living document - open to different interpretations. It should not be ignored or only used as a reference. It is the guiding law of the land.

The 1st amendment can be interpreted in different ways - but it is up to the prevailing courts to decide on how it is interpreted at that time. Interpretations has changed over time. That makes it a living document.

While it is a living document, it is not meant to be cast aside when inconvenient. We should not be finding ways to make it fit our agenda, but making sure our agenda conforms to tenets of the constitution.

What has been happening over the past 50+ years is a continuous erosion of the constitution. People get distracted by the 24 hour media not reporting anything of substance - just the sound bytes that the general population can consume. We have had a failure of real journalism for several decades.