Liberals finally admit the don’t like the Constitution

This has been floating around all day today. A so called professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University, one Louis Michael Seidman ((Louis Michael Seidman)), finally let the cat out of the bag. He has written an Op-Ed piece in the New York Slimes titled Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.

Professor, and I use that term advisedly, opens the Op-Ed with this paragraph:

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.

Now, a quick look at his bio on Wikipedia, he clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall, so that would indicate to me that he is, or was a member of the Bar. (A lawyer) Lawyers are supposed to revere the Constitution, after all, our whole legal foundation is based on it. Professor Seidman continues digging.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. 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. 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 contempt for the constitution and the founders of this nation doesn’t just drip from Professor Seidman, it rages like a torrent over Niagra Falls. Of course, Comrade Seidman doesn’t want to throw out the entire constitution. He seems to want to keep the parts he likes.

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.

Gee, that’s nice of you to say you moron. So, what do you propose we do?

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. 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 constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Well, that looks suspiciously like Obergruppenführer ((Obergruppenführer)) Seidman would like to have the United States ruled by an elite, educated few rather than have to deal with those pesky items like voting for our representatives and president every few years, states rights, and although he doesn’t mention it, I’m sure he would like to do away with that pesky 2^nd Amendment.

Does General Secretary ((General Secretary of the Communist Party)) want to bother with holding a Constitutional Convention whose purpose would be to basically revoke that fine document? Nope, He basically thinks we should just ignore it. Considering this has been the general rule for Progressive Liberal Democrats going back to Woodrow Wilson, Comrade Seidman’s Op-Ed comes as no surprise.

However, not everyone is agreeing with this idiot. Steven Hayward of Powerline Blog was quite happy to show his utter contempt in this blog post.

I frequently bait the law professoriate with the axiom that if you really want to understand constitutionalism, and the U.S. Constitution in particular, don’t take constitutional law at an elite law school. There you will only receive systematic mis-instruction in the subject. Joe Knippenberg reminds me that my AEI colleague Walter Berns always said that the problem with law professors is that they taught constitutional law, not the Constitution. Hence most constitutional law professors treat the Constitution as a plaything from which to extract whatever outcome they want.

I never went to law school. Because of this, I wasn’t brainwashed into thinking the constitution doesn’t mean what it actually says. Granted, the constitution isn’t always clear on something as Mr. Hayward writes, but in others it is very clear…except to Progressive Liberals.

In some cases the general wording of clauses of the Constitution (like the Fourth Amendment’s “unreasonable” search and seizure clause) does require exercising judgment about how to apply the text to changing circumstances and technology. But then there are those pesky clauses written with sufficient specificity (such as the “embarrassing” Second Amendment—as some liberals call it) that not even the inventive Cass Sunstein can find a clever interpretive workaround to generate the desired liberal result. At such times this impulse yields to the suspicion that many liberals don’t really like the Constitution at all, and would junk it if they could.

No! That can’t be true! Liberals are always saying they support our rights, and we have the ACLU that will sue people and organizations at the drop of a summons.

Woodrow Wilson professed this openly. But the Founders built well, knowing that the Constitution—the documentary embodiment of the Rule of Law replacing the Rule of Man (or Rule of the King, as practical matters had it in the 1780s)—would work only if it became an object of reverence in place of a monarch among the people. As such, directly attacking the Constitution has always been a non-starter in American politics. Instead, liberals typically repair to the doctrine of the “living Constitution.”

Ah yes, the “Living Document” crap that the liberals have been shoving down our throats for decades. We have had many judges and supreme court justices who have used that term when making things up out of whole cloth to fit their statist, totalitarian view of how this country should be run.

It’s scum like Seidman who are the real threat to this country and our freedoms. They hate the constitution becuase it won’t let them do what they want, and they know that going for an amendment to change the constitution in most cases is a nonstarter. They also hold the “Common Person” in utter contempt, especially since most people who read the constitution can figure out exactly what it means. This is why most people don’t accept the “Ruling Elite’s” definitions of the separation of church and state, states rights and that ever so annoying 2^nd Amendment.

Even the current president, and noted Constitutional Scholar, Barack Obama utterly despises the document he SWORE to uphold, defend and protect. This is why he has announced that gun control, (In other words, gun confiscation), is his priority next year. In an article on Forbes from last summer, Paul Roderick Gregory ((Paul Rodrick Gregory)) wrote an article asking what the fuss was with Obama. Everyone knows he favors redistributing other people’s money to his cronies. Here are a few highlights.

Obama’s radio interview offers four main take aways, which I summarize using his own words where possible:

First: “We still suffer from not having a Constitution that guarantees its citizens economic rights.” By positive economic rights, Obama means government protection against individual economic failures, such as low incomes, unemployment, poverty, lack of health care, and the like. Obama characterizes the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties,” which “says what the states can’t do to you (and) what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.” (Ask not what you can do for your country but what your country can do for you, to paraphrase John F. Kennedy).

Right there is the typical way of thinking for the average Progressive Moonbat. They fail to understand that the whole idea of the constitution was to LIMIT the powers of government and ENHANCE the powers of the people as individuals.

Second, Obama regrets that the Constitution places “essential constraints” on the government’s ability to provide positive economic rights and that “we have not broken free” of these Constitutional impediments. Obama views the absence of positive economic liberties that the government must supply as a flaw in the Constitution that must be corrected as part of a liberal political agenda.

Not that Der Fubar has let those constraints stop him. First an utterly illegal war in Libya, Obamacare, and now the assault on the 2^nd Amendment.

Third, Obama concludes that we cannot use the courts to break free of the limited-government constraints of the Founders. The courts are too tradition and precedent bound “to bring about significant redistributional change.” Even the liberal Warren Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”

Obama opines that the civil-rights movement’s court successes cannot be duplicated with respect to income redistribution: The “mistake of the civil rights movement was (that it) became so court focused” and “lost track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground…In some ways we still suffer from that (mistake).”

First, Warren and the other justices should have been impeached and tried for treason for the damage they did to the nation and the Constitution. They were notorious for that “Living Document” crap.

Fourth, Obama argues that economic rights that the state must supply are ultimately to be established at the ballot box. Those who favor redistribution must gain legislative control through an “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.” The electoral task of a redistributive President is therefore to craft coalitions of those who stand to benefit from government largess. The legislature, not the courts, must do this “reparative economic work.”

In other words, assume dictatorial powers and steal all the money from the working people who earn it and give it all to his cronies. We can also toss in a few free Obamaphones ((The ring of truth behind the right’s ‘Obamaphone’ line)) as well for the peons and serfs.

Next year we are going to see a full blown assault on the constitution starting with the 2^nd Amendment. Many people are thinking that Obama and the Progressives are going to pull something that will cause a massive and violent reaction among the “Hoi Polloi ((Hoi polloi))” leading to Obama suspending the constitution and arresting anyone who disagrees with him.

Yeah, that’s paranoid, I know. But what can you think when you have Progressive Liberals like Seidman saying that we need to get rid of the Constitution?

Now, I have no idea of Seidman is a tenured professor. It wouldn’t surprise me a bit of course. That makes getting thise scumbag fired will be almost impossible. He definetly needs to be removed from the classroom though. His comments show that he is utterly unfit to teach the next generation of lawyers. (I also think we need to have a lot few lawyers too, but that’s for another day)

Thatisall

*Note. As I was working on this I hit the publish button instead of the save button. This is why this post is changing at this moment. (AWM)

~The Angry Webmaster~

(4 votes, average: 1.00 out of 5)

Loading...