Is it OK for progressives/liberals to advocate trashing the Constitution?

[cali]

What if extra-constistutional action serves the greater good? Is it OK then?

[varkam]

1. Only if it's used against people we really don't like.

Then we only need to follow the *really* important amendments. We can disregard the namby-pamby ones like the 8th and the 4th.

Seriously, though, I would argue that following the Constitution is for the greater good and that it is far too easy for those in power to think otherwise - esp. those like Bush.

[mmonk]

2. Define greater good. Do only those that have power determine

what is the greater good? Of course the answer is no.

[cali]

3. well, for example, seizing all the assets of those in the top 1%

Such a seizure would be patently unconsitutional, but it might well serve the greater good- depending on the dispostion of the assets seized. Or at least so some argue.

[mmonk]

4. I would say no, not unless its crime related.

[Greyhound]

23. "Behind every great fortune lies a crime" - Balzac

[mmonk]

27. That aside, due process should be ascribed.

No illegal search and "seizures". I know, they can just pass a law nullifying the constitution as they have been doing since 2001.

[Greyhound]

31. Not even necessary, See # 29 n/t

[mmonk]

32. Inevitably, the conflict will exist since the targets of seizure

will not be afforded the Constitutional provisions to Americans prescribed.

[Greyhound]

33. How so? n/t

[mmonk]

35. You don't see the conflict?

[Greyhound]

38. I see many conflicts, just no Constitutional prohibition that cannot be easily

overcome in light of existing precedent.

[Kelvin Mace]

5. No

Never. Once you step outside the Constitution, once you make the exception, you have become the enemy.

[H2O Man]

9. Which part of the Constitution

does that fall under?

[cali]

12. Off the top of my head, the 4th and 14th amendments.

[H2O Man]

14. How so?

[cali]

18. read them.

[H2O Man]

42. I have.

However, I remain curious how you thinking they apply to the government's ability to take private property. The Constitution, for better or for worse, means "exactly" what the US Supreme Court says it does, at any given time. There are, of course, numerous cases that involve the government taking property from both individuals and groups of citizens. I assumed that you had something specific in mind. Perhaps I was wrong.

[Greyhound]

29. Purely as an intellectual exercise, neither would prevent such a seizure.

4th - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I suppose the crux would be "unreasonable", OTOH is it indeed reasonable to allow a nation to die so that an individual can retain "unreasonable" wealth? Retroactive taxation already has ample precedent and let's not forget the principle of imminent domain.

14th - 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Again, Congress has the power to establish a set limit above which could be put into jeopardy, as long as it is applied equally, there is no conflict.

[Deep13]

10. If it were a form of taxation, it would not be unconstitutional. nt

[cali]

13. Sure, but that's not seizure. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

15. No. Not acceptable

Once it's OK to seize some people's assets, then the government have a right to seize anybody's; e.g. people whom they just don't approve of, or people who are rivals of whatever they deem as their worthwhile cause at the moment. A bridge too far in a Stalinist direction.

I do think that the very rich should pay a lot more in taxes than they currently do in the UK or certainly the USA; but that is a different matter from just going in and seizing all their assets!

[mmonk]

17. I believe the bush administration under the patriot act

can freeze anyone's assets and those of their children on suspicion concerning donations to organizations considered attached to terrorism as they define it.

[LeftishBrit]

36. The patriot act is very anti-civil-liberties..

(and yes, Britain has the same problem with erosion of civil liberties due to fear of terrorism).

But in any case, there's a difference between *freezing* assets and *confiscating* them.

[mmonk]

40. Think you can pay your bills if they are frozen?

[LeftishBrit]

49. The difference is that it is assumed to be a temporary measure; though this is often abused

At any rate, can we all agree that Bush's policies are tyrannical and not to be emulated?

[KansDem]

25. What ever happened to the Lichtenstein and Swiss bank accounts?

As I recall, a story circulated this year about 100s (1,000s?) of Americans who had hidden away their wealth in these countries to avoid paying taxes. Then there was no coverage of this "breaking story."

So Bush gave these malcontents a huge tax break only so they could hide it away to avoid paying taxes.

It seems to me the US could seize their assets for tax evasion. It might be worth billions and would benefit the greater good.

[leftofthedial]

46. that would not be extra-constitutional

if it were the result of a legal action.

Find them guilty of treason, for example, and sentence them to forfeiture of assets.

[Hannah Bell]

47. no problem seizing assets of the bottom 99%, though.

[EstimatedProphet]

6. IOKIYAD

[Deep13]

7. Can you give an example?

I have a hard time imagining any example of either liberals or progressives advocating the abolition of the Constitution or unconstitutional action.

[mmonk]

11. Some who profess progressivism have already done so.

[bridgit]

8. "progressives/liberals" are hesitant to utilize even that flatest passages of the Constitution...

Or are they the flatest footed; sanctioning the rising up of Americans to take back their own country and such, naw...If we were willing to fritter away all along what is/was already a radical, vibrant piece of hemp paper "extra-constitutional action" may likely be no longer required by default; our access to cheap-as-possible Levi's, BBQ grills and broadband being far more important. And the real players on the national & world stage already know that :(

[earth mom]

16. Congress & * Co have already trashed the Constitution. nt

[mmonk]

19. Yes, this is currently behind the split in the US between people.

The split is also in the Democratic party and why I tend to shun away from the ideas of politicians professing centrism because I feel it is a false creation or term. Some leaders currently dismiss that split and take it for granted that those who dissent will always be there for them on election day.

[Kelvin Mace]

20. And here is a point as to why it is NEVER ok

The 20th century built up quite a list of casualties around "principles" in Barth's sense. Various philosophies solemnly assured us that the human cost is really worth it, because history will vindicate the sufferings and sacrifices of the present. Keep your nerve, don't be distracted by the human face of suffering, because it will be all right in the end; we know it will because the principles are clear.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3885188/Put-aside-your-principles-and-remember-all-you-need-is-love.html

Once you hold a "principle" above a human life, you have stepped into the realm of evil. Once you say "OK, I can take things from one group of people in the name of "The Greater Good™", then you set yourself up as the final arbiter of who belongs and who doesn't.

Who decides what members of the "1%" deserve their wealth and what members don't? Is there no difference between the chairman of Exxon who walks away with $400 million, yet did really nothing to earn such a reward, and Bill Gates who sits atop $40 billion, who actually BUILT and entire industry employing millions, and who now has bestowed a significant portion of that wealth for the betterment of mankind? (Though he is still in the 1%, even with the contributions).

This may be a black and white choice, but at some point you will be in a very grey area, and the distinction will be arbitrary to those affected.

When you justify stripping someone of their wealth, you start down the road of further justifications/rationalizations for "The Greater Good™", until you reach the final decision: Who lives and who dies.

[Greyhound]

24. Very poor choice for your example, if M$ were a person, it would be in prison

for life under a various serial crime laws.

Maybe Buffet?

[Kelvin Mace]

44. We are discussing taking money away from people

not corporations.

We treat corporations as people only when it benefits them. I would love to see corporations executed (have their charter revoked), but I don't think it has ever been done.

[ixion]

21. it's not okay for anyone, progressive or otherwise, IMO.

[Pithlet]

22. People are scared about the economy.

Times are scary right now. Yeah, it's pretty dumb to really actually think it's a good idea to just seize the assets rich people. We might have a few extremists who really think that. But I think most people are just expressing their frustrations right now. I wouldn't take it so personally. If you're still rich, just thank your lucky stars, and ignore the scared people. Getting defensive will only start flame wars.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

26. Who's George Read?

Read presided over Delaware's constitutional convention (1776), where he exercised more influence than any other member. He chaired the drafting committee, serving as a voice for moderation by balancing the revolutionary impulses of the people with the rights of property owners.

[GTurck]

28. Without...

the Constitution there is no reason for this country to exist; it is the only bond we have that makes us Americans. As liberals/progressives we must fight for this vital document even when what we must do is accept those who we have respect for. Do we want to become the left-wing equivalent of the neo-cons and radicals who have done so much to destroy everything that has been good about this country? Our task has to be better than that. That is the message Obama is trying so hard to convey.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

30. It is never ok.

[peacetalksforall]

34. Way too vague a question. Waste of time. The Constitution - a most precious possession.

[mmonk]

37. If it's so precious, why aren't we fighting harder for it?

[anaxarchos]

39. It is only "OK" for some...

It is just fine for some "progressives" to ignore the Constitution by refusing to honor their oaths to uphold it (criminal prosecutions for the present regime as an example)... it would be impolitic, after all.

It is always OK in foreign policy, no matter "Conservatives" or "Liberals".

And, it is always "OK" for Conservatives... somebody ALWAYS says they were sorry, 40 or 50 years later.

[mondo joe]

41. Is this a reference to some other thread?

My answer is NO.

[taught_me_patience]

43. I'm dismayed at some of the extremists on DU

advocating such a move (seizure of 1% assets in another thread). I'm hoping that the majority of DUers don't believe in this extreme, anti-constitutional belief. Many of the replies on this thread are encouraging.

[Mike 03]

45. Great, ingenious question.

But why would it not be a matter of interpretation (or perhaps re-interpretation) versus extra-Constitutional?

You could be right. I'm unclear on the definition of "extra-Constitutional," or why that precludes simple interpretation?

[Odin2005]

48. Marxists care about constitutions about as much as Neocons do.

That is, not at all. To them the US constitution is just a "too of Oppression by the Bourgeoisie" or whatever. :eyes:

[Duer 157099]

50. That's easy. "NO" n/t