Guest Post: On New York Times Op Ed: "Let’s Give Up on the Constitution"

Tyler Durden's picture

Via Michael Krieger of Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

This New York Times Op Ed by Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, is one of the most absurd and dangerous articles I have read in a very long time. This guy’s incredible conclusion is that it is the Constitution of the United States itself that is causing all that ails the nation at this time.  Not once did I read about the Federal Reserve, or the “war on terror,” or the banker bailouts, or the complete destruction of the rule of law in recent years.  Nope, none of that.  Instead, this scholar’s conclusion is that the founding document, which created the fertile breeding ground for freedom and free markets and led to tens of millions of people to flee to from all corners of the globe, is the problem.

I suppose someone failed to remind Mr. Seidman that the oath of office for the military and those that hold political office continues to be:

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

As I have said for years, a key part of the macro agenda of the corrupt elite has been and continues to be the destruction of the U.S. Constitution.  While the Bill of Rights is already being dismantled behind the scenes, Mr. Seidman is part of the effort to “sell this”to the sheeple  as I noted in my article: Here We Go…Slate Magazine Bashes the First Amendment.  I expect more of this type of propaganda going forward.

From the New York Times:

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.

 

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.

The above paragraph is important for two reasons.  First, he picks and chooses what part of the Constitution he agrees with and then says those things are good and should remain.  More disturbingly, he then says we should defend freedom based on “respect not obligation.”  This is insane.  The reason the Bill of Rights exists is to enshrine the protection of civil rights under the law so that an authoritarian government cannot trample them.  Do you really expect government to protect civil rights out of “respect” if they are not obligated to by law?  Not a chance.  Then he concludes with:

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.

Full Op Ed here.

Please pass this on to every freedom loving American you know.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
trulubr2's picture

Yes, God gave us the heart and mind to exercise what is right. The challenge here is that there are always the Hittes, Amorites, Moabites, and oh yes the Obamites who wish to refine these rights. It is interesting that throughout history, everytime a leader develops the heart to lead his people for the collective good, a few million of them DIE! Many choose Obama and Biden for this juncture in collective history, I choose Smith and Wesson... and a few of thier close friends.

tango's picture

It's not sad at all but quite rational. After all, what is in your heart is not the same as what's in mine.   What you consider a sin I may consider fun.  What  you consider right I may consider wrong.   The Constitution provides a framework for governing but more importantly its purpose is to protect the individual from the State through a series of checks and balances. This is why even despotic nations go through the motions of having a document that enshrines rights.

CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

What is really sad is that we have to have a piece of paper to tell us what should be self evident and universal and written in our hearts

 

 

"We live in a very low state of the world, and pay unwilling tribute to governments founded on force. There is not, among the most religious and instructed men of the most religious and civil nations, a reliance on the moral sentiment, and a sufficient belief in the unity of things to persuade them that society can be maintained without artificial restraints, as well as the solar system; or that the private citizen might be reasonable, and a good neighbour, without the hint of a jail or a confiscation." -- Emerson's Politics

beaglebog's picture

It's true that there should really be no need of "a piece of paper".   But, in an imperfect world it does serve as a tangible "Anchor" to which men can refer ... and upon which they can base their moral code.

 

If you consider the situation in England ... where there is no clear written Constitution ... the political class has free rein to "make it up as they go along".  

 

The little guy cannot challenge them and say, "Look, we can show by Reason that your actions are immoral."  because he has no platform. Much easier to be able to point to a "revered" document and say, "These things are forbidden."

 

So, I'm saying that you are much, much better served by having your written Constitution ... than the alternative.

yogibear's picture

The NYT is full of them. It's disgusting.  Krugman and long list of distructive ultra-liberals.

wee-weed up's picture

There goes the ZH neighborhood!

newengland's picture

It's a Republic, not a mob rule democracy, dhimmi. The problem with dumbed down schools is that they produce people who don't understand the difference between a democracy (fail) and a Republic (genuine community).

Twodogs's picture

Er, so where does a constitutional monarchy fit in? You know, the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ?

UGrev's picture

It fits in the treasure chest behind the throne room which is conveniently attached to the bank vault. 

Ghordius's picture

a constitutional monarchy is a de facto republic with an "emergency only" fall-back solution (dormant monarchy and reserve powers)

Twodogs's picture

Excellent answer.  10/10.

F. Bastiat's picture

In the Soviet Union's "direct democracy", everyone voted and Joseph Stalin routinely won 99% of the vote.  An everyone had a job, and everyone had housing, and everyone had everything. It was the perfect utopia for lads like you!

Ghordius's picture

ehmm... you forgot to mention that the only ticket was Stalin - you could not vote for anybody else

you also forgot to mention that in the Soviet Union you did not have referenda, only indirect democracy by voting representatives (only those chosen by the Communist Party, of course

look up what direct democracy really is, will ya?

SamAdams's picture

"It doesn't matter who you vote for.  You always vote for us."  ;-)

SilverDOG's picture

Stalin killed more people while in power than all of WW2 times 2.

No wonder everyone voted for their GOD.

in4mayshun's picture

The Government is screwed because they STOPPED following the Constitution, not BECAUSE of it.

UGrev's picture

The constitution and this country are being held hostage by greed and those who would perpetuate fraud upon the American people by taxing us illegally and opressing us with tyrannical laws and laws by executive order. 

I'm done with little fucking shit sticks like you. The next ass-hat that tells me in person that the constitution should be abandoned is going to receive a wake up call courtesy of the wolverine boot company and the local ER. 

Jesus Christ's picture

I looked up the plot for Omen 4 - its a TV movie about the twin sibling of the antichrist. Look who's calling the kettle black.

SheepleLOVEcheddarbaybiscuits's picture

You stupid little fuckwit. It doesn't appear to be working because it is being trampled upon and ignored by the TOTUS.

Boeing Boy's picture

Came upon this unrecommend for USA on a UK property website.  Sums it all up nicely.

 

I would not touch the USA at this stage unless you are buying to rent in the Bakken or Marcellus areas. They will make you money. I cant advise anyone to go to the USA at the moment as it appears to be turning into a police state, and it has 40 million folks on food stamps. That doesn't sound like the kind of place I want to be. But we are straying into politics again. The trouble is, the USA is a political madhouse at the moment.

I cant understand the wave of euphoria that greets Obama's dream to turn the US into another Europe. Hasn't he looked across the pond to see what a shambles this place is? And he wants America to go that route as well? Yikes!

Let The Wurlitzer Play's picture

Yeah lets give up free speach for journalist.

 

Terminus C's picture

I sent this asshole an email suggesting that he was a fascist shill.

Fuck him and the government he rode in on.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

I normally don't notice, but in this case I am genuinely curious as to who would junk your comment. WTF?

lakecity55's picture

I'm telling you guys, it's the Mad Arrow.

Anything + gets a down arrow from the MA.

I think it's Barry and Larry playing around on Reggie's computer.

newengland's picture

Funny, lakecity.

I saw you write that on another comment story, and laughed then. You are right: the Mad Arrow strikes again!

Rejoice. ZH has its very own comic strip character :-D

UGrev's picture

I'm convinced there is a bot here that just hit's all the posts and DV's them. 

Skateboarder's picture

The downvote is there to remind you that nothing's perfect and there'll always be haters. Haters gonna hate bro.

sun tzu's picture

Remember the names and faces. Their time will come

Calmyourself's picture

Print all information for later reference.

t0mmyBerg's picture

No no.  He will be the next czar for the administration.  The Committee to piss on the constitution.  He will be so good at convincing Maobama that he has no de facto constitutional limits that he will then be appointed to the Supreme Court where he and Ginsberg will canvas places like South Africa for the rudiments of our successor constitution.  And then they will consult the Egyptians and then we will have Sharia here in the good ol' USA.  Yes I can see it all now....

F. Bastiat's picture

Harry Reid's anonymous source told me that he likes gay porn in his inbox.

zorba THE GREEK's picture

We should put Seidman in a burlap bag along with "Netenyahoo"

weight it down with some bricks and drop it over the Baltimore Canyon

off the Atlantic coast.

ItchyBeard's picture

And throw in a dog, snake and monkey in the bag...

Insideher Trading's picture

You're gona' go crazy if you read these backward thinking, drug addeled, liberal professors.

It only leads to early stage male pattern baldness so just stay away from articles like that.

If they dislike the constitution they should move to North Korea, Syria, or Egypt.

Jena's picture

Male pattern baldness: Not a good look for me but I took a chance on it anyhow.  Asshole.  NK would be a good choice.

Doomer's picture

I read the article, and here is brilliant rhetoric this buffoon uses to make his argument:

1.  The reason the country is so fucked up is our OBEDIENCE to the constitution.

2.  Getting rid of the constiution won't be so bad because our government has already ingnored it (that is , DISOBEYED IT!) numerous times in the past (and, gives numerous examples).

I guess he never considered the possiblity that our country is so fucked up precisely because our government has ignored the Constitution so many times, not because is has obeyed it sometimes.

What a fucking idiot.

 

lakecity55's picture

You have just described in 1 brief statement the (lack of a) brain of a Statist.

newengland's picture

Excellent point, Doomer.

The profiteer professor is tied up in his own contradictions. Hey ho. He's paid well to serve foreign ideas, and the New Jerk Times likes him.

F. Bastiat's picture

Indeed. We are already in a "post-Constiutional" America, as some wise men have noted.

An amicable separation of the legitimate Constitutional Republic, the red counties, from the blue urban alchemic utopias seems to be the most prudent path forward.

The alternative would seem to be complete destruction.

Go Tribe's picture

There is the problem of legislatures acting together being allowed to amend the Constitution, which is written in the Constitution - the creations modifying the creator as the Founders argued the issue. That process needs to be rewritten for sure.

yogibear's picture

Problem is that his goal is to turn the US into a crap hole like North Korea, Syria, or Egypt.

ultimate warrior's picture

1. People like him are the reason I cling to my ****. 2. His statement is treason against the Republic which is punishable by *****

I better edit that....big brother and all.

newengland's picture

The snivelling profiteer...err professor...backs a CONgress that wages endless war, so I say he should get what he gives: a bullet or more, metaphorically speaking, allegedly, PC bullshit etc.

He is a snivelling coward who undermines the Constitution which protects him, so long as better men die for his right to write.

He is filth, a traitor.

F. Bastiat's picture

There's too many of us for "Big Brother" to handle.  Not sure if you've ever seen a member of the despot's regime, but most of them are affirmative-action types. They'd have a hard time telling you how many sides a triangle has.