Let’s Give Up on the 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 downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

What bothers me in reading this thing is that this guy seems to believe in arbitrary rule, and not the rule of law. The same kind of noise came from Obama when he recently complained about the constitution getting in the way of the things he wanted to do for the people, so screw constitutions. Who does he think he is ? A non-moron or something?

Laws are always going to get in the way. But rather than be inconvenienced by procedures our grandiose elitists insist on ruling by decree. This is really scary when for our aspiring dictators when you have ignoramuses like the above mentioned driving issues like like “over-population” and “clean energy” (but not nuclear).

The truly disturbing aspect of this column is that it appears, not in some obscure vanity journal of the progressive left, but in the flagship media organ of American Liberal Socialism. What we see as “bone-headed” appears to be a position widely held among those on the left. They really believe that jettisoning the rule of law will usher in a new age of efficient and enlightened governance.

That pesky constitution is so dusty and slow. What’s really needed is an expedited ticket to downtown Utopia. Professor Seidman cynically uses the Orwellian language of opposites to simply dismiss the U.S. Constitution:

“...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.”

To Seidman, “We the People...” is a utopian fantasy. He urges us to abandon the checks and balances of limited government in favor of his cultish central planning by unknown elites like himself. As insane as this sounds, it must be taken very seriously. The totalitarian statists are on the march. Law is inconvenient for them. Its subversion and circumvention in pursuit of progressive ideals is ALWAYS okay; always in process:

Debauch the currency.
Foment class struggle.
Erode individual sovereignty.
Attack private property.
Promote radical, Jacobin-style egalitarianism.
Disarm the common people.
Encourage dependency on the state.
Balkanize the electorate along racial, ethnic, religious lines.
Destroy the rule of law.
Control the media, public opinion, and access to information.
Dumb down public education.
Manipulate the economy.
Assault traditional institutions: Religion, military service, marriage and family.

This op-ed is a harbinger, a clarion of the left’s true intention. Believe them in their own words. If they can get away with it...they will make a run to scrap the Constitution.

This op-ed is a harbinger, a clarion of the left’s true intention. Believe them in their own words. If they can get away with it...they will make a run to scrap the Constitution.

I agree with you, Charles. This is exactly what they want to do, and Obama's re-election has emboldened them into open admission of their grand plan. That this column was published in the New York Times and not some commie blog like Mother Jones is what is extraordinarily dangerous, since the Times (Slimes) like to style itself as the mainstream of liberal thought and a National opinion shaper. This is the first shot in trying to turn public opinion against the Constitution and to begin paving the way for its destruction.

I guess I’m not bothered by it because I’m used to it. That’s been the prevailing judicial philosophy since the progressive era: the law says whatever I say it says. Which is why whenever anyone brings up the academically sainted (aside from the too many generations of retards case or the Eugene Debbs case) Oliver Wendel Holmes I wanna pule.

Confused is my main reaction. I don’t see how it never occurred to them that at some point they may not be in power, and then may wish for the law to protect them. They’re protected, sorta, by the zeitgeist argument. That is, they’re not replacing the law with Anything Goes or their own personal preferences, oh, no no. They’re merely updating the law to reflect “the times.” And I suppose they’re confident either they’ll always be with “the times,” or that they can control popular opinion well enough that it won’t be able to stray too far. Which has been the case thus far.

The entire postwar conservative movement, so significant to me and probably you, with titans of thought like Hayek, Mises, Friedman, Kirk, Strauss, Weaver, Voegelin, etc. and the politicians who put their thought somewhat into action like Reagan, on down to the shock jocks like Rush who keep people entertained on a daily basis are as gnats swirling about their ears to them. They own academia, the MSM, most government, etc., and are untroubled.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.