The U.S. Constitution actually doesn't give Christopher the right to say anything "as loudly as I may choose" and no Supreme Court decision has ever said so. In fact, the Constitution doesn't say who gets to decide what it says, the Supreme Court simply usurped that authority.

It may be true that its "the framers and founding fathers meant what they said, said what they meant, and risked no waste of words" but that hardly constitutes a point of persuasion. They said black folks were fractions of people, gave no guarantee women could vote, and authorized poll taxes to keep out the common folk. They didn't authorize direct election of U.S. Senators, and many of them owned slaves. The document they drafted has been significantly altered over the course of time, so attempting to stand on one of its provisions per se is rather silly.

Above all, the Constitution created the political system that allows a classic commoner like Huckabee to rise to the presidency, something unique in world history and untouched by the polity over the course of two centuries. It's called "democracy" and when the people speak, they sometimes make big mistakes. What those who criticize the system don't seem to realize, but the founding fathers did, is that dictators are people too. Our system has never produced a Stalin or a Hitler or Mau, though it has produced a number who would have liked to become so (FDR and LBJ, for instance). If we must endure an occasional Huckabee, it's a small price to pay.

I think Mr. Hitchens' accent prevents him from seeing clearly.

"Our system has never produced a Stalin or a Hitler or Mau, though it has produced a number who would have liked to become so (FDR and LBJ, for instance)."

Right there, buddy, with that quote right there you lost all credibility with me. I was going along with you but it's now clear to me you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

So Hitchens doesn't have the First Amendment right to speak freely as he wishes?

Sounds like the top poster is the one who needs a lesson in civics.

TheLightofDwight:

It may be true that its "the framers and founding fathers meant what they said, said what they meant, and risked no waste of words" but that hardly constitutes a point of persuasion. They said black folks were fractions of people, gave no guarantee women could vote, and authorized poll taxes to keep out the common folk.

I get your point here, but I'm so tired of seeing these hackneyed expressions that I must refute them.

• The Constitution did not authorize poll taxes; it simply did not prevent them. There's a difference.
• It's true, the Constitution gave "no guarantee women could vote," but neither did it guarantee that men could vote. It said "the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." That's it. If your state said women couldn't vote for the state legislature, they couldn't vote for Congress, either. If your state said that the only eligible voters were three rich white brothers-in-law of the governor, then that's who could vote for Congress. The Constitution had no standard on voting rights (at least not back then, it would later) other than that which was already in place in the states.
• Finally, that old lie - "They said black folks were fractions of people." Wrong. The three-fifths clause to which you refer said that the number of Representatives in the House was determined by population, but that only three-fifths of slaves were counted (free blacks in the north were counted 100%), and Indians living outside of white society were not taken into account at all. What people always get wrong about this is the motivation. Slaves couldn't vote; northern states didn't want to count them at all in apportioning Representatives, because this would just give the slave states more votes. Southerners wanted to counts slaves 100% (while not allowing them a vote) because that would allow more Congressmen from slave-holding states. If, as you seem to think was proper, this three-fifths clause had been removed, the result would have been to increase the power of southern slave-holders. The problem was not the three-fifths clause; the problem was slavery.

You boldly claim, “Above all, the Constitution created the political system that allows a classic commoner like Huckabee to rise to the presidency, something unique in world history”

I take is politics and history are not your forte’

Andrew Jackson

Golda Meir

32 of 51 British Prime Ministers have been commoners

The Licinius family of Ancient Rome helped efforts to allow plebeians to become Consul

"The document they drafted has been significantly altered over the course of time, so attempting to stand on one of its provisions per se is rather silly."

You had me up to this point......

To maintain that support for one provision of the constitution is "silly" because others have been found wanting, and in time altered, is an exercise in specious logic. The founders acknowledged the potential for shortcomings in the constitution and where sufficient critical mass has developed, modifications have been applied. I fail to see how imperfections in one or more provision cast aspersion on any other. There are numerous provisions of the original constitution that are held sacrosanct by large enough swaths of the citizenry and power elite to maintain their unadulterated status. That many of these provisions routinely come under attack says much for their staying power and belies their purported "silliness".

I'm not starting a conversation, just adding this little bit to the conversation.

I think it should be widely recognized that the American constitution is one of the oldest constitutions on earth, and shows it. A constitution is nice because it gives a state without historical precedent a solid starting point. However, all constitutions grow stale, outdated, and ultimately irrelevant. Were the writers of constitution really so brilliant, they would write stale-dates into them (actually, this was once part of an initial draft of the American constitution, but was quickly discarded). Sadly, there is no expiry date on the American constitution. You might want to consider changing that.

You didn't read what I wrote. Hitchens didn't claim simply the right to speak freely, but the right to speak AS LOUDLY as he likes. Nobody has ever concluded the Constitution guarantees a right to scream. You can be arrested for disturbing the peace for screaming, the Constitution doesn't protect volume at any level.

Moreover, if you actually read the Constitution, then you find out that for most of American history the First Amendment did NOT apply to the states, who could restrict speech any way they liked. By its own terms the Amendment applies only to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. That's more the Founding Father's handiwork.

The Constitution authorized poll taxes by not banning them. It didn't protect the right of the poor to vote, just as it didn't protect the right of women, and it recognized the institution of slavery, that is why it had to be abolished by amendment (much, much) later on.

The states were free to be more liberal. Most of them weren't. That's why the Constitution had to be amended to force them to be, against their will, (much, much) later on.

Britain doesn't have a Constitution.

There are some who have tried to follow the American precedent, but that is not the point. The point is that WHEN AMERICAN ADOPTED THIS PRINCIPLE it was unique. Think a little before you race to attack, you'll do better.

You are just another poster who cannot clearly articulate your position, so attack those who see the clear and illegal gaps in your points.

Lets get this straight, you said (and I quote), “the Constitution created the political system that allows a classic commoner like Huckabee to rise to the presidency, something unique in world history”

The sentence clearly states the Constitution (US is inferred) created a political system that allows a classic commoner to rise to presidency. Then it claims such a political system is unique in world history.

Now you want to go back and claim that quote was somehow qualifed by chronology? What a bunch of gibberish.! After suffering from Cranial Rectosis, you now try to change what you wrote. Stop, you only add to your embarrassment. We can read what you wrote. Stop digging!

Then, even if we assumed you meant, “WHEN AMERICAN ADOPTED THIS PRINCIPLE it was unique,” (which you clearly did not include in your post) how do you account for the Ancient Roman laws? Lex Licinia Sextia (the law which reserved one of the two consular positions for a plebeian), was passed in 367BCE. A mere 2,154 years before the US Constitution was ratified. So even there you bless the world with your ignorance.

Then to make maters worse you go a step further and show you incredible lack of world history and politics by claiming that the British do not have a Constitution.

The British DO HAVE A CONSTITUTION, hence the term Constitutional Monarchy.

(Hint: a Constitution need not be a single codified document, but in fact can consist of multiple documents and is best defined as system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed.)

So who needs to stop think before attacking???