Skip to comments.NY Times Opinion Writer: ‘Give Up’ On The ‘Archaic, Idiosyncratic’ And ‘Evil’ Constitution
Posted on 12/31/2012 7:28:28 AM PST by Nachum
click here to read article
It is. Once the politicians discovered they could steal money from the working class and hand it over to the nonworking class in exchange for a vote, it was all down hill from there.
You can't keep flushing other peoples wages down the welfare toilet and expect it to come back. Eventually, you're going to run out of paper. That's where we are today. The democrats parasites want to feed, but they've killed their host.
What happens when the tax slaves decide they're not going to get out of bed in the morning either, because it's no longer worth the effort? They could make more if they did absolutely nothing (or at least they'd be free and no longer be used as a slave so some freeloader can party from birth to grave.) Who's going to go out and plant the wheat? (Certainly not I.)
Now to check up on his political connections and see if he’s a Commie traitor ir not and if he’s met with the 0dumbo.
> One thing about liberals, they love to think they are smarter than others
And yet say how arrogant Repubs are...lol
It would take a constitutional law professor to make such an ignorant statement. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution, it’s the idiot politicians who create all the problems. I can just imagine what a fine job this communist blowhard is doing teaching young people about our Constitution.
“’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 downrght evil provisions,’ Seidman writes.”
Funny...the reason we’re at the precipice of all things cliff (be it fiscal, social, moral, etc.) is because we have REFUSED to obey the limits invoked by the Constitution.
Sorry for repeating if others have already posted this sentiment...
I’m sure you’ve done; but I’d tell anyone to read the Constitution for themselves. It’s relatively short, sweet, and to the point.
The Constitution is about all that’s standing in the way of President Obama (or any other) morphing into Dictator Until Further Notice Obama. Obama’s in a quest to shred that document. - Grant it oh Lord that he dearly FAIL!
Told his dopiness to leave America.
Maybe Libya, or Saudi Arabia, or Gaza will take him or Malmo Sweden,the UK, anywhere in Nigeria or for that matter all of Africa, the ME, Europe, China, most of South and Central America.
Basic conclusion, he hates America and has never lived or seen another form of government and it’s poverty stricken folks; a lame arse even with his Hahvahd edumacation.
Socialism has exacerbated a problem that began when we two things happened: America turned away from its Christian/Godly heritage and Americans failed to exercise proper vigilance when the socialists began to creep in big time early in the 20th century.
I agree with this guy, been thinking the same for some time. The problem with the Constitution is that it allows the Constitution to be changed to the point of violating the very principals of Life, Liberty and Property upon which it is founded. So we have direct representation in the Senate, an income tax far beyond what any Founder ever imagined, a comatose legislative branch through voting rights and restrictions and an unbridled judiciary making laws. All of this made possible by the original Constitution. We need to rebuild it with wording that prohibits the modern-day expansion of government.
Its a bad thing when you have to consider divorce just because of the in-laws. Been there...
The Constitution limits the powers of government and affirms that rights reside in the people as individuals, not as a collectivity.
Exactly what communists hate. communists give ALL power to government and the collectivity, and NONE to individuals. Individuals have no rights.
Moral and religious people? We no longer qualify...
I agree, and let's start with the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 8th Amendments.
This way to the Gulag, F**ktard.
It’s really painful to spend holidays with libs. Do you notice that libs are ALWAYS the first ones to bring up politics - even while you’re still trying to digest the turkey? They cannot control themselves! The are bad people with bad manners.
It's only killed at least 110,000,000 so far.
>>>I dont get that, either. Throughout history it seems, many Jews have been promoters of socialism and communism, even though they are the first ones to be targeted when the socialists attain power. Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.<<<<
Throughout history? Wrong. Since the expulsion of the Jews by the Romans, most Jews in Europe lived in small communities separate from the larger culture around them. During the first part of the Islamic expansion, the Jews were accepted as sort of favored slaves. In neither case were they agitating for athiesm and a collective state. Their religion and faith held them together against unceasing attacks from others around them.
You’re thinking about the European Jews in the past 120 years, which includes relatives that I have had the chance to listen to. Those Jews looked back on their history and saw the attacks directed at them - and in the case of Russia, the plan for genocide by Czar Alexander - and many of those attacks were supported by Christians saying things like, “The Jews killed Jesus.” This history made the athiest and frankly anti-Christian attitude of the socialist and communists attractive to the Jews. I still find much suspicion about the motives and attitudes of Christians among the Jews I know. This is especially true of the lapsed Jews that I know, who are ethnically Jewish but don’t practice their faith. They know the stories of the old days of persecution from Christians, but their own lack of faith makes them unable to see how the world has changed.
It’s interesting that the Jews forced out of their Middle Eastern enclaves have no such bias in favor of socialism.
Yes, of course this makes many Jews the “useful idiots” described by Lenin, and Jewish culture promotes intellectual discussion and academic discovery, which puts them in a bad place with any sort of socialist or communist regieme. On the other hand, it isn’t the first time the Jews have strayed from God’s path. We are described as a “stiff-necked lot” in the Bible. Socialism and communism is just a modern version of the worship of Ba’al.
Excuse me... but certain parts of this country do still qualify as moral and religious.
If he wants to put aside the Constitution, we should dissolve the United States of America entirely and divvy its assets and debts.
Membership in the new nation should be entirely voluntary.
I figure if the Government, not based on the Constitution, has no legitimacy, the first part that loses legitimacy is the IRS.
The only good Commie is a dead Commie. Just sayin...
I agree...but not overall. I think people living in the areas you cite would be stunned by the immoral culture/behavior of the 'blue' states...even that of 'red state' cities. Red Hampshire just 'doubled down' on immorality by sending TWO vile pro-abortion and pro-sodomite women to Congress. They elected another one Governor. The differences between New England/New York and the South are like night and day. Living in New England is like living in a foreign country...the South/Midwest/Rocky Mountain states resemble the America I remember...the people the Constitution was written for...
OK, so we can secede then.
Reminds me of the first time I met my soon to be B-I-L.
Big Lib, retired College Professor. My S-I-L was gushing about what a wonderful conversationalist he is, but warned me not to discuss Politics since she knows I’m somewhere between Ronald Reagan and Attila the Hun.
So, the three of us are having a nice conversation about the guys grown Daughters and his Grandchildren, when my S-I-L excuses herself to finish up Dinner. She walks out of the room and this guy says to me, “so what do you think about that War Monger Bush?”.
My response was, yeah too bad he’s a RINO. He should have Nuked the Bastards after 9/11. He thought I was kidding, so we started talking about Nuclear Energy, which he hates. After I informed that more people died in Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile than died at Three Mile Island it was mercifully time to eat Dinner.
The rest is history. We are separated by 2000 miles, so it isn’t a daily problem for me. I wish you the best with your “confused” F-I-L.
Twitter exchange via LegalInsurrection...
Just in under the wire, a clear winner for dumbest and most incoherent NYT Op-ed of 2012:
ggreenwald calls it the dumbest and most incoherent NYT op-ed of 2012. I think its pretty good:
There seems to be a “Progressives against the Bill of Rights” group rapidly emerging on Twitter: exciting!
ggreenwald Whatever, Im back to the fiscal cliff beat. Just dont run around saying Im against the bill of rights.
mattyglesias That’s what that Op-Ed you endorsed is saying - that’s ignore- rather than amend - the Constitution means.
Very true... one caveat... most of us southern boys and girls know exactly what kind of morality rules the progressive... wherever they are found. Happy New Year friend.
The purpose of this editorial is to float a trial balloon for Obama to dismiss Congress by use of force and rule as absolute dictator.
The gridlock surrounding the “fiscal cliff” is exactly what the Framers wanted.
When a divisive issue appears, the authors of the Constitution wanted lengthy and ferocious debate. (They had more than a few of those, themselves.) Man is a flawed animal and only a system of checks and balances, pitting one faction against the other, could keep one side from dominating the other, sometimes to ill effect.
Haggle, argue, bicker, negotiate and sometimes fail to reach an agreement. Fine. That’s how the system is supposed to work.
Funny. But of course if you boiled it down to his actual beliefs he would be against the BOR too.
Questions like "Should Catholic hospitals be forced to supply birth control" or "Should Catholic Churches be forced to perform same sex marriages" or "Is private gun ownership a right" would show that he would eliminate nearly all the BOR anyway.
In that case, I think that Louis Michael Seidman should be arrested for anti-government speech, and held indefinitely without charges.
And if his lawyer should file a writ of habeas corpus, it should be denied out of hand...
I miss Tennessee; can’t wait to get back there (G-d willing)...a Happy New Year to you, as well. We do win in the end; but it is going to be a bumpy ride until that day.
Give Up On The Archaic, Idiosyncratic And Evil Constitution”
This guy just shot up to be frontrunner for an Obama nomination to the supreme court.
That’s for certain!
“John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 warned his fellow countrymen stating, “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The right to keep and bear arms, for one.
That's why they hate things like the US Constitution, privately owned guns and true freedom of political speech.
Anything which helps provide a bulwark against totalitarianism is despised, mocked, and demonized.
Thus, is it any surprise that our legal establishment has a perverted view of the Constitution?
This assclown Rothman is allegedly a "constitutional law professor"? Oh... Of course he is.
Anybody with the slightest clue understands that America's problems today are the result of the scumbag politicians' insistence on ignoring the Constitution, not their "obedience" to it. Georgetown again... Where does one college come up with so many simpletons? I wonder if Rothman is chums with that Georgetown slut Sandra Fluke who thinks her neighbors should pay for her sexcapades?
Oops.. Rothman is the author of the article.
The simpleton Georgetown perfesser is Louis Michael Seidman.
I'm inclined to suspect that the good Professor's actual academic corpus is a little more refined than this - surely no one with even a slight familiarity with the origins of the Constitution can fail to recognize that it was not Madison, but Montesquieu, who insisted that an inefficient government is preferable to an omnipotent one. This is not, however, the message the Times wants to float. As I recall they were very much on the side of Constitutional propriety when they were hounding Richard Nixon from office. Less so when the fellow in the sights was a Democrat named Clinton, far less so now.
The Constitution is an experiment in a world-wide petri dish, and one cannot explain the success of its adherents merely by accusing us all of theft. As a plan of government it is skeletal - contrast, for example, the encyclopedia of bureaucracy that is its counterpart in the European Union. That is, in the case of people determined to circumvent its provisions, unfortunate - one merely heaps tiny exceptions to it in small doses until the principle is buried under an insupportable burden of contrary case law. That 0bama has Czars, executive boards, discretionary spending powers, and a lickspittle press to make the whole thing go down easily, is not the fault of the Constitution, but of academics and politicians who insist that they can do better if they just don't have to obey it.
But the actual results where such conditions exist suggest otherwise. The Professor scoffs that we will enter a state of Hobbesian chaos, and rightly so - it's only a straw man anyway. What we very well may enter is the long, sad story of the persistent and repetitive failures of autocratic government. A police state is not chaotic - it's much worse than chaotic.
There are other frustrations 0bama's little band of czars is facing than merely financial. One is their insistence on opportunistic gun control in the face of a clearly contrary Constitutional stance and a clearly refractory polity. It is here that the screaming is loudest against government "by the people" - and here that the danger of autocracy is greatest. We are not simply going to go through a period of infinite "dialogue" and compromise until "no" becomes "yes" even if it is the received opinion of the entire New York Times editorial board AND the faculty of Georgetown University. The answer is no.
And so the Constitution staggers along under the load of this sort of detritus. If it ever does collapse the result won't be pretty.
C'mon, folks. It's time for a reality check. The Constitution doesn't count for anything. It means whatever nine unelected judges says it means. And they can, quite obviously, be coerced. So ultimately it means whatever the guys with the dirt decide it means.
We need to secede. It's over, my friends. Give it up.
Let's get out of this and start again.
1) If Mr. Seidman is a Constitutional law professor, but believes we ought to get rid of the Constitution, then the only intellectually honest thing he could do is resign.
2) If we do away with the Constitution, then those of us in red states can secede and the blue states have nothing to say about it. Then the red states can reinstate the Constitution - then let's see who prospers.
This is some big time kook stuff. Even for the whack left NY Slimes. A reputable paper it is not.
Rothman? That’s Chinese right???? Seidman? That’s Kenyan, right?? Silly me!
“This traitorous a-hole should be disbarred and run out of town on a rail.”
Insufficient. There are millions like him.
The only question is, will it be Chile, or Indonesia. We will not be done with people like this until the Mississippi runs red with their blood.
Sounds like the pefesser has it exactly back-asswards. It is the 75 years or so that the Constitution has been whittled away at by the “liberals” that has caused the mess we’re in. I wonder how many unconstitutional laws (both Federal and State) there are out there today since so many SCOTUS’s have opted to read Marxist tea leaves instead of the Constituton.
Stalin, before he died, was preparing a vast pogrom, a genocidal pogrom, of Jews living within the Soviet Empire. The ultimate Soviet Socialist was preparing to finish the work in eastern Europe that the National Socialist paperhanger began.