Reply With Quote
the cons ution is "evil" and we need to get rid of it so we can give "real freedom" a chance
/cliffnotes for the dumb s
http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/31/ge...-cons ution/
With hours to go before nation heads off the fiscal cliff, Georgetown Law professor Louis Michael Seidman writes that the time has come to scrap the Cons ution.In an op-ed published in the New York Times Monday, Seidman, a cons utional law professor, claimed that the nation’s foundational do ent is the real impediment to progress and solutions to America’s troubles.
“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” Seidman wrote. “But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Cons ution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”
According to Seidman, the country’s insistence that it maintain the will of a centuries-old do ent “has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public.”
Seidman, author of the forthcoming book “On Cons utional Disobedience,” explained that adherence to cons utional law, which he has taught for over 40 years, is just “bizarre.”
“Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country,” he wrote. “Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?”
The Georgetown Law professor argued that disobedience to the Cons ution is older than the do ent itself — noting that in 1787 the framers abandoned their mandate to amend the Articles of Confederation and instead created an entirely new do ent, the Cons ution.
Seidman cited examples in which monumental figures in American history have turned their backs on the do ent, including John Adams’ support for the Alien and Sedition Acts, Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal expansion of federal powers.
“In the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Cons ution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text,” he added. “Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Cons ution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.”
Seidman concedes that his goal — to scrap the Cons ution in favor of long standing ins utions and good judgment — is likely not to happen anytime soon. Instead, he advocates beginning to “soften the habit.”
“If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by ‘We the people’ is impossibly utopian,” he concluded. “If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from cons utional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/31/ge...#ixzz2GkLnFxNx
/cliffnotes for the dumb s
dailycaller
Propaganda for right-wing dumb s.
(simplistic) text worship is a false god rampant among simple-minded bubbas, "Christians", right-wingers, along with the total misinterpretation of sacred text to fit their personal political advantage.
They're gonna take my guns and my cons ution that Jesus signed.
"Stop throwing the Cons ution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper!"
Without that simple text the case law from the last, oh... 300 or so years would be null and void. If the do ent itself is outdated, so are the decisions that were based on it. That means women and blacks don't get to vote, there's no freedom of speech, of religion (worship or you will be sorry), no due process, no states rights, ect...
It's one thing for a Harvard grad cons ution professor to comment, but something completely different for an ignorant ass liberal buzz word slinging got like you to just blurt it out like you even remotely understand the ramifications of what you're suggesting, and before you play the CD/Fuzzy card and challenge me to prove you suggested doing away with the cons ution, pop your head out of your ass but warn us first so we can prepare for the sonic boom.
Pretty sure that was retracted by the originator and shot to pieces by Factcheck.org."Stop throwing the Cons ution in my face, it's just a god damn piece of paper!"
I'm even more sure the originator's actions backed up the stance much more than any words would.
I think the stuff in the cons ution about slavery was downright evil.
Ok, but the quote is false. The cons ution has been virtually ignored by most presidents in my life time, at every juncture.
That's actually at the core of what the article states. Far from 'liberal' or 'conservative' progress. I thought it was a good read and brings up some valid points (even though I personally don't subscribe to the notion we should flat out ignore the thing)
Problem with scrapping the cons ution is, what do you replace it with?
No matter how you change it, people will find ways of exercising power over others. The root problem is the sheeple voting for these people. As a whole, the public gets what it deserves.
The executive branch is historically not concerned with the judicial side of things. The three party system works well in that regard, in that, by and large, even infractions by high level executives gets challenged and often defeated by high level jurisprudence. So it doesn't move me that certain elected leaders did not embrace or even willingly adhere to the Bill of Rights. Legislators are guilty of this as well, and that's why I view the USSC as the most important establishment in the country.
The executive is directly responsible for the composition of the USSC. I would hardly call that 'unconcerned' with the judiciary. I think all powers like to test the boundaries, and have little qualms of applying novel concepts to try to avoid old power checks. When a claim of 'national security' trumps any judicial oversight, the judiciary is simply being bas ized and I think our balance of powers take a real hit. I would agree with you that the legislative is oftentimes complicit.
That's addressed in the article.
What did I miss? He mentioned the Articles of Confederation being replaced by the cons ution, but I'm not sure what you mean. I'll pull the link up again.
If you mean this:
I only see that as completely foolish. Besides, he is wrong about the examples he claims as uncons utional.scrap the Cons ution in favor of long standing ins utions and good judgment
Start at This is not to say that we should disobey all cons utional commands.
Obviously, that's his opinion. You should address questions about it to him.
By your reply, you seemed to understand something I don't. I guess you are in the dark too.
I could disagree with his opinions. I'm not sure I would say a guy with 40 years of teaching cons utional law has no clue what's cons utional or not.
He lays down what does the cons ution would be replaced with. I thought that was your question.
When you have an opinion that opposes law, lawyers are known to find ways of claiming the laws wrong. The same holds true when the law is followed, lawyers can find ways of saying it isn't. For your view to be accurate, this guy would require to have no bias. How likely is that?
I don't follow, what are you arguing here?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
