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.
lordbyroniv's picture

This guy is a lawyer!!!


He took an oath to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land!!!



newengland's picture

He is a modern lawyer, a shill. His oath is to himself, and he pays lip service to anything else which his arrogance presumes to alter as he deems fit. 

He is a liar, a traitor, an enemy of the people.

lordbyroniv's picture

Someone REALLY needs to contact the Grievance commitee of the state where he is admitted.


If TREASON and SEDITION is tolerated than why have a grievance committeee?

john39's picture

Probably a dual citizen... From a certain little shithole ME country that somehow keeps turning up at the center of the world's problems.

Jam Akin's picture

Our country is "led" by our Revisionist-Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief.  (Who was disbarred in the state of Illinois some years back - don't need to be a member of the bar to teach law, only to practice apparently)  Why should we be so surprised or outraged at this editorial nonsense?

Imminent Crucible's picture


Little spellling error there: He needs to be

Fixed it.

The Heart's picture

"He took an oath to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land!!!"

All liars, er, lawyers/attorneys take an oath to the supreme law of de land...the Queens land and that bad old putty-tat and her bankster cronies in da london town are the Supreme Law of the their itty-bitty little pointed heads dat is.


dick cheneys ghost's picture

The disease is our Monetary System.


Fuck you rothschilds/rockefeller

Top_Kill's picture

I believe this arcaic document had the foresight to layout rules for changing it. This can be done at any time Dillhole!

Telemakhos's picture

Aside from the "Dillhole" comment, this is the most cogent thing I've seen said about Seidman's article.  The Constitution is not an inflexible or rigid dogma but a realistic and minimalist framework for governance, and as such it contains provisions for its own amendment, so that it can adapt to the times.  America has changed significantly since 1789, and the Constitution has been amended 27 times to accommodate those changes.  The process of passing an amendment is difficult and slow, obviously slower than Seidman would like, but that is because maintaining the rule of law, rather than devolving into tyranny, requires democratic processes to ensure that the changes accord with and derive from the will of the governed.  The current form of the Constitution is not only the work of the Founding Fathers but also of the collective will of every generation of the American people; in fact, the twenty-seventh amendment, ratified in 1992, was proposed in 1789.

Seidman's real point, though, is that he'd like to remove the basis for institutional authority with a view towards somehow forcing debate on issues.  But, this was exactly the purpose of the legislature and of the limited executive.  Two of the three problems he's cited, Presidential war-powers and Supreme Court involvement in affairs alien to the Constitution's scope, are the direct results of overreach of Constitutional boundaries, the renewed respect of which would serve far better to cure the ills Seidman decries than his own plan of abolishing those boundaries.  The other problem, that of Congress and the purse, is a more complex weed of federalist hubris and excess stemming largely from abuse of the Commerce Clause but also enabled by collusion from the Executive branch, which finds its own power increased alongside Congress' when each refuses to check the other.  The remedy for that overreach lies not only in respecting the boundaries established within the Constitution but also in pruning both the Legislative branch of many of the powers arrogated to itself and also the Executive branch of many of its encrustations.  Scrapping the framework of governance in favor of eliminating the bounds that should circumscribe government, however, is simply an invitation for unchecked excess, not a remedy of it.

F. Bastiat's picture

Bravo!  Aside from the Aside from the "Dillhole" comment, of course.

newengland's picture

He is a traitor who serves foreign ideas. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are the very source of why oppressed people fled to the USA from hateful regimes abroad  - the same hateful regimes that still exist abroad: communism, socialism, fascism, oligarchs, tyranny, mass murder of civilians, taxation without representation, bureaucratic impotence fed by academic arrogance.

The time is over due for relative new immigrants since WWI to say why their families found refuge in the USA, away from all those hateful regimes.

The USA is imperfect, but its Constitution seeks a more perfect union among equals, inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by any money whore, media lackey, 'educated fool' or 'useful idiot' as Lenin described people like Michael Seidman... or venal politician.

F. Bastiat's picture

It is certainly a primitive set of alien superstitions espoused by the likes of Seidman, Cass Sunstein, Gyorgy Schwartz, Andrew Stern, Fox-Piven, Bill Ayers, and Joseph Schwartz.

Very, very primitive stuff.

CompassionateFascist's picture

Bill Ayers? Bill Ayers?? Ohyeah, Bernadine Dohrn's shabbatz goy. 

The Heart's picture

Well said thank you.

"- the same hateful regimes that still exist abroad: communism, socialism, fascism, oligarchs, tyranny, mass murder of civilians, taxation without representation, bureaucratic impotence fed by academic arrogance."

All these are puppets on the chessboard. Please expand your horizons and ask, who creates all sides, every one, and pits them together to gain from the losses both sides take in wars and conflicts? Give ya a hint.: They call money god and rule countries with it.


keesooi's picture

The one and only Tom Woods did a albeit short takedown of this:


forexskin's picture

excellent work, especially some of the considerably insightful comments by readers.

In my view, Mr. Seidman's argument here is simply a cleverly packaged offer of support for more Centralization. With regard to his comment about 'following requirements out of respect, not obligation': Since when did men 'respect' each other for any length of time without a set of rules or standards above themselves, before one imposed his rule upon the other - by way of Force...?

surf0766's picture

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRuck this P.O.S and his useless communist / socialist/ NWO opinion.


He is book buddy with Cass Sunstein. No more needs to be said !

F. Bastiat's picture

Tar and feathers are seriously under-utilized these days.

bskiles's picture

I thought we already gave up on the Constitution. How about we go back to it? 

James-Morrison's picture

What does it take for ZH to become a State?

With it's own zipcode, two senators etc.

We are already a state of mind.

JoBob's picture

The seed for revolutionary (transformational) thought has to be germinated somewhere, so why not in the ZH state of mind?

A Lunatic's picture

I honestly have trouble coming up with any Constitutional provisions which have not already been obliterated by so called Constitutional Lawyers. I live in a country where men in battle gear can kick my door down, confiscate all of my shit without due process, and cart my freedom loving ass off to Gitmo to be indefinitely detained with no reason or recourse. So sure, let's do away with the pretense of Constitutional authority and get right down to brass fucking tacks shall we???

SilverRhino's picture

Amendment III is the ONLY right in the Bill of Rights still completely in force. 

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.'s picture

We still foot the bill for the standing army's housing.

Wakanda's picture

Lunatic is mostly right - the sacred American Constitution has failed.  Brass fucking tacks is obviously the next step since the rule of law is a parody of a joke.

We are coming close to the part of the cycle (or story) where it is easier to admit failure and accept the burden and hard work of re imagining, re defining, and re building, than it is to keep pretending.  Admitting failure is tough for an empire, but love it or hate it, the USA still has courage and determination in its DNA.  It will take all of those good qualities to pull off the transformation that is inevitable and desperately needed.

The Second American Revolution, being sparked by assholes from Georgetown U and the NYT.

bag holder's picture

He's right, you know.

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”

- Lysander Spooner

Water Is Wet's picture

Spooner doesn't play well with the Zerohedge libertarian crowd for some reason.

A Lunatic's picture

Stirring the social contract kool-aid with the Lysander Spooner often gets mixed results.........

sun tzu's picture

Quoting a nobody doesn't give your opinion more credence. In the history of this country, Spooner is a nobody

Rossalgondamer's picture

A leash doesn't just attach to the dog.



karzai_luver's picture

How about Jefferson.


Abolish it as the document has lead to the idiot raving in this thread, it clearly is a fail.

The country is berift of any that can reason above a 2nd grade level.

Have at it, you sound exactly like the Muslim extremists that cheer for death to the infidel.


The state has really done a masterful job of indoctrinating fools like you.




Cabreado's picture

"As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos"

Fiscal chaos be damned.

The real chaos -- cause and effect -- is in the collective mindset of a critical mass of the pathologically Self-Absorbed. 

Mike in GA's picture

I can't know the future any more than anyone else but I don't see how this can stand much longer. Everything seems so unsustainable but continues to be levitated by emergency fixes, smoke, mirrors and a decidedly low-information populace. Lurching from 'great problem to great problem', fedgov growing at each crisis, is considered governance today.

I have to agree with several posters on ZH who have withdrawn from economic and electoral participation in this insane form of (low) life. There's no fixing this now. No one will voluntarily retract their outstretched hand, personal or corporate, much less fedgov fiefdoms. Collapse sure seems inevitable.

I know there are many who deride the founding documents for all the reasons we've all read before. For you guys/gals, red arrow away. I'll feel like you'll be validating my thesis thereby.

I believe there are many more like me who still get a shiver when we read the words of those brave and courageous men who stood up for liberty and freedom so future generations could benefit, if they so chose. I am grateful to them and their sacrifice.

The maintenance of liberty requires responsibility of a moral nature. Lack of that maintenance leads to catastrophic failure, period.

We've lost something so beautiful and wonderful and rare. It's so rare in fact, the only currency that purchases it is blood.

A Lunatic's picture

Ideologically we have two Americas and the chasm is too wide to bridge. Might as well make it official.......

Shell Game's picture

Flyover states and the South, the haters/takers can have the rest.  We can teach them what strong borders mean..  ;)

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot's picture

Now we're talking. The Northeast and the West Coast can FOAD. 

F. Bastiat's picture

The red counties are the legitmate Constitutional Republic, the legitimate Union.  The alchemic urban utopias are basically occupied territory.

Karlus's picture

I do not think there is an interest in dividing the country, rather those that produce will witthold to those that wont and we will see how long Cali and the Northeast can hold out.

They might get some care packages from Russian container ships, but I feel like it will disgust Putin to help these lick spittles.

Yes, i will defend the authors freedom of speech, but that does not mean I will not bring war upon his house.

F. Bastiat's picture

Certainly, conquest is a legitimate option.  The others being surrender and separation, IMO.

The moral depravity in DC is serious under-estimated by those who have not been exposed to it.

F. Bastiat's picture

That is true.

The questions now are What? and How?  An amicable separation of the legitimate Union of red counties, from the alchemic urban utopias, would seem to the most prudent path to take.

Sow the seeds, build public opinion.

The central government is morally, intellectually, and fiscally bankrupt.

Cabreado's picture

"Ideologically we have two Americas and the chasm is too wide to bridge. Might as well make it official"

I don't think so -- let's not make it official yet.

There is Resolve, and there are the Clueless.
The Clueless are in dire need of affirmations... that the Resolute can provide...

it is the assholes that stand in the way.

It always works that way.



Pareto's picture

Its America's moral compass.  Its the perfect document that enshrines personal and economic freedom for everybody, everywhere, all at once, and always.  When we think about throwing it out for something else, we ought to know that it is at that moment that we are giving up inalienable rights for an allocation determined by others who have no incentive to protect your personal and economic liberty and instead have every incentive to take as much away from you as possible, everywhere, all at once, and always.  It saddens me that such a great history can be so easily discounted.  As if it never happened - a moral deterioration we thought could never happen.

karzai_luver's picture

Those brave men would have thrown this doc in the trash as they see what it has allowed to be brought about.

The cowards are those that bray for the state at the top of their lungs so as to protect their ipad and their lake house.

The founders would disown the lot of you timid cowards.


stant's picture

for gods sake lets kick this war on and get it over with. we will either have a republic or no one left to care.

Jim in MN's picture

Let's give up on Goldman Sachs agents having any part in our government.

Fuck corruption and anyone who doesn't want to fight corruption.

Fuck red herrings.

Fuck social issues.

Corruption is the issue.

Hobbleknee's picture

Ok. How do we go about doing this?  Seems like voting doesn't matter.