You have a really bizarre view of the Constitution.

I'll just take the Louisiana Purchase.  From wikipedia:

"Jefferson’s secretary of state, James Madison (the “Father of the Constitution”) assured Jefferson that the Louisiana Purchase was well within even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution."

Jefferson was well known as a strict constitutionalist.  Madison was the FATHER OF THE CONSTITUTION.  They were the ones pushing for it.  You can have whatever opinion you want on the constitution, but when it is in direct conflict with Jefferson and Madison, well, I'm going to side with them.

The same kind of stuff applies to most of your views. The Supreme Court just doesn't agree with you.

My bizarre view on the constitution came from Jefferson himself.

Having an interest in this period of history I've read a number of biographies including ones on Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton not to mention founding brothers. It was pretty clear that the consensus was that the Louisiana purchase was unconstitutional. But our interests in getting it so strong that we looked the other way.  

Would you knock off the quasi personal attacks? 

The irony is that Jefferson (in his letters) acknowledged that the Louisiana purchase was contrary to everything he believed.  Why he did it still has scholars debating to this day.  You can justify the expense in many ways, but the basic fact is that it grew the central government and assumed power that was not intended.

The problem with the Constitution was that it was written by smart honest men.  Not by sneaky lawyers, so the latter have used the lack of specificity to corrupt it over the last 200+ years.

I don't think I fully understand your dismay here, Frogboy. Aside from the way it is done, doesn't the current constitution already allow for a majority to impose its will on the minority? I think it could even be done with just 60% of the vote.

To be specific, I think it would be possible (perhaps only with very implausible election results, but still), that a political party that gets 60% of the votes manages to control both the House and the Senate with a supermajority, as well as sufficient states to pass/ratify any constitutional amendment they want.

Not to say there isn't a material difference between the current system and Alstein's suggestion of how it could be done. It will probably be easier to get 60% votes in a popular referendum, than to get the required composition of the House, Senate and State legislatures with 60-40 vote split in the current normal electoral process. But in principle I think there is no difference to the extent that also under the current constitution a 60% majority could theoretically at least have the power to do it.

And I would dare to guess that if you set the benchmark at say 80% for a popular vote to change the constitution, that would be much better protection of the minority than the current system. After all, any party who would get 80% (probably even just at 70% I think) of the vote in the current electoral process, would almost certainly also have supermajorities in the House and Senate, and control more than enough State legislatures to pass a constitutional amendment.

Or am I missing something? (full disclosure, I am not a US citizen, though I am quite interested in US politics).

Please read the article that I cited.

While Jefferson initial had concerns about the Consitutionality of the Louisiana Purchase, he listened to others, and was eventually convinced that, as long as Congress (specifically, the Senate) approve the treaty, it would be Constitutional.  It was certainly distasteful to Jefferson, but Madison convinced him that it was technically Constitutional since it was a treaty.  Its very well cited in the Constitutionality section of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase

Modern constitutional analysis also generally concludes that the Purchase was legal.  But I'm guess that you don't believe that either, along with what the Father of the Constitution explicitly said.

When it comes to the Constitution, you disagree with the vast majority of Constitutional scholars, the Supreme Court in general, several of our founding fathers, and "The Father of the Constitution".  Once somebody's opinion reaches that level, it is not a personal or quasi personal attack to call your point of view strange or bizarre.  It's simply pointing out that you have a highly idiosyncratic interpretation of the document that is not backed up by bodies with legal authority.  For example, the federal courts.

Hmm I see "group think" written all over this statement.  Just because enough people in the legal system are holding a title of nobility (esquire and above) doesn't mean that they are beyond question.  Rather, the fact that they hold a title of nobility (and therefore worry about having it stripped from them) they are more easily coerced into following a culture of questionable ethics.

What is obvious is that bodies of legal authority are corrupted to their core.  Lawyers are taught to be effective mercenaries, even to the point of refusing innocent clients because these clients often cause them more problems. Judges were lawyers.  Its another one of those self perpetuating systems that I and many I have talked with find annoying.

Do you know who you need to question in this world?

The people who's actions are considered above question, because they will be the largest offenders.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Brad disagrees with the vast majority of scholars on what, exactly?  The Louisiana Purchase specifically?  Or his original post? 

Because if you mean his original post you're flat wrong.  Brad is basically a strict constructionist.  Not only does the vast majority of Constitutional Scholars not disagree with him, there are at least two strict constructionists on the bench today and it is one of the two major competing schools of constitutional thought around (the other being loose constructionists, or Living Document folks).  Depending on the issue or the part of the constitution in question that number balloons to four or five.  

If you are specifically referencing the Louisiana Purchase, you may be right.  I honestly don't know anything about current thoughts on the issue.  But I will say that current thought on the power of the executive, even among strict constructionists, generally grants far more authority to the executive than was true at the time of the Purchase.  Worth keeping that in mind.

Actually, this would make for an interesting side discussion.  Most democratic governments, even those modeled explicitly on the US Constitution, are significantly more fluid than ours.  I think that is to our benefit, but I could see the argument for both sides. 

What I mean is that changing the structure of government is harder here than most other places.  Our amendment process is harder.  Similarly there is no federal mechanism for removing elected officials because the people are unhappy with them.  There is no such thing as votes of no confidence, for example.  The only way an elected official is removed early against there will is through impeachment process, which usually means there was some sort of criminal activity or some severe breach of the public trust.  Removing someone because they are no longer popular isn't possible.  

All checks built into the system against the whims of the majority.  

Making a decision on a management plan for a patient is an opinion. Doctor A thinks the best way to treat atrial fibrillation is with chemical cardioversion. Doctor B thinks the best way is with electrocardiversion. The both have opinions about which is the best way to do things; their opinions are based on data, experience, the patient profile, etc, but it is an opinion.

He mentions both group think (deferring to SCOTUS, etc) and then mentions that lawyers are corrupt. I laid out arguments as to why neither of these ideas are shown in krazikarl's post. I never said that group think equates to corruption.

I never said that we shouldn't be concerned with those in positions of authority. I said that if there is evidence of corruption, then show it.

I don't think that word means what you think it means. 

Please, point out the extreme statements in his OP list.  

Reply to Flagyl

Why do this?

Politics can abandon reason and still remain a tolerable field, while cardiologists cannot.  So, yes, my response would differ if the statement above was actually being said.  But that statement was not, and therefore irrelevant. 

To answer your question as you worded it, yes.  Also, peer review in some situations can be group think as it is not a flawless system. Check out other medicinal cultures, they are not unified throughout the world.  Ayurveda is an interesting one with an ancient, rich history. Western medicine has its place, other medicinal traditions have theirs, they different views of the same thing.  We have a lot to gain from understanding them all!

To me the leap is not fantastic in the slightest because I've worked for the Department of Defense.  Kill people for $$, that is the reality of that business, and look how big of a business it is.  I also noticed that corruption is pervasive in our government as I had an insider's view.

A great example would be the LIBOR scandal(and all the following incredibly glaring financial scandals), just 20 people had the influence and reigns to the entire world financial system.  Look at what they did with it.  Research the LIBOR scandal, it goes to prove that the biggest banks in the world are practicing criminals.  Corruption at the top always trickles down, I call it my "trickle down theory".

Another example would be what happened to Ron Paul in the last election.  If you followed it, you would have seen that the young vote was taken from Obama and that the GOP convention had to change a lot of rules just to ensure that Ron Paul didn't get a chance to even get on the ballot.  He was absolutely terrifying the ruling class and they did everything they could to marginalize him.  I call corruption because they don't follow their own rules.

If you follow your own path to understanding you will see it in time.  Prove it to yourself, as I am just a guy with a few bits of time here and there, and to respond to you fully would take too much of my time.  Do yourself a favor and research with the idea that "what he said was true, lets see where it leads me".  You lose nothing by pretending that it is a true statement and can inform yourself on another perspective.  After all, you only cease to have a relevant opinion when you refuse to seek for new information and new ways of thinking.

Oh also, my neighbor growing up was a retired congressman that served for 20 years in the house of representatives, he verified to me that the world is run by a few extremely powerful people.  I learned a lot more than that from him.  If you are clever you can figure out who he is from my previous posts, with some research.  

Stupid double post.

Actually no it is not.  It is one of the 2 mainstream positions that are debated.  It happened.  That we know.  But as Kantok pointed out, Constitution study is not Cardiology.  So there are many valid opinions on both sides.  Neither of which makes either extreme, merely different.