Skip to comments.CBS's Charles Osgood: 'Is Constitution Truly Worthy of Reverence in Which Most Americans Hold It?'
Posted on 01/28/2013 5:25:12 AM PST by servo1969
Imagine you're getting ready to head to church one fine Sunday morning and on your television you hear a man say, "Let's give up on the Constitution."
Such actually happened when CBS News Sunday Morning aired a rather inflammatory commentary by a Georgetown University law professor teased by host Charles Osgood asking, "Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which most Americans hold it?" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
CHARLES OSGOOD, HOST: Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that from Lewis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University.
LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.
For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.
To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.
Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?
Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control.
I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree. But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.
Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question of policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.
This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.
OSGOOD: Opinion from Professor Lewis Michael Seidman.
The folks at CBS News were so enamored with Seidman's opinion they posted a video of this nonsense at their website along with the transcript.
Worse than that, in the last two weeks, Bob Schieffer likened President Obama's gun control initiatives to America defeating the Nazis in World War II, CBS News's political director John Dickerson called on President Obama to destroy the Republican Party, and now this.
I recently asked if CBS News is making a conscious move to the far-left to become broadcast television's MSNBC.
What do you think?
Well see, the problem is that this jackboot wannabee thinks that the abortion and gay marriage clauses that are nowhere to be found are the most inspiring provisions, whereas normal people think that our God given rights to speak, pray, and defend ourselves in order to freely speak and pray are the most inspiring.
The Declaration of Independence provides for a means to rend the Constitution asunder and start over. It also provides for the means of overturning the government that has strayed so far from it.
I don't see any alternatives at this point other than peaceful secession red vs blue states, or a bloody civil war. The government and the people are far too corrupt at this point for any kind of accord with those of us Americans who would be Citizens rather than subjects.
It's late in the empire and the Caligulas are everywhere, the media is acting as the Praetorian Guard and Monsanto is running the latifundia.
CBS’s Charles Osgood - Neo-commies can’t abide their subjects having any kind of control in the Rodina. The party aparachiks know what is best ... shut up about the Constitution and eat your peas.
Evidently ole Charles failed his high School Civics classes.
Note to charles. Those Dead People were smarter than you think. They left a way to change the Constitution, it’s called AMENDING IT.
Of course your real agenda is more communist than Constitutional so why bother with that.
Nobody is forcing Chuckie to stay here.
They don’t hate the Constitution because it’s unchangeable.
They hate it because it is a fixed set of rules that (intentionally) thwarts the ability of “elites” (humans that think they know/are better than their fellow man) to make arbitrary decisions based on their superior knowledge.
The amendment process, being part of the Constitution, is despised just as much as the Constitution as a concept.
Constitution bump for later........
It’s come to it now. Our generation will be remembered (by those who aren’t brainwashed) as the one who could have done something.
This is directly related to the gun owners backlash. I think they are a little surprised at the strength & depth of our willingness to defend the 2nd amendment.
Thus, they double down and openly attack the entire Constitution.
This a serious escalation & IMO indicates they are going for all the marbles in the next 4 years with Herr Leader. This is all going to come to a head in that time.
Be prepared patriots. Two choices. capitulate or fight back. No more middle ground. When you compromise with evil, evil always wins.
You bet your ass it is Charley.
Why should Obama care about the Constitution when he’s not a natural-born citizen. He’s violated the oath over and over again and no one in the adoring press will call him on it.
>>They dont want to be restrained by ANY constitution. (I put drug warriors in the same category.)<<
Why? The USC neither speaks to nor implies anything about drugs.
I was wonderin if this guy is the one they named that movie after; Charly?
Just another example of the unprincipled mentality underlying Liberalism. At the risk of stating the obvious, liberalism is a destructive and corrosive ideology; it is simply incompatible with the tenants of living in a free republic. More and more we are a divided nation. Eventually this will have to be resolved in some fashion, probably through fragmentation or a form of virtual secession.
This would be far more entertaining if someone did a rewrite. Imagine the outrage:
“Imagine you’re getting ready to head to a bar one fine Sunday morning and on your television you hear a man say, “Let’s give up on socialism.”
Such actually happened when CBS News Sunday Morning aired a rather inflammatory commentary by a Georgetown University law professor teased by host Charles Osgood asking, “Is socialism truly worthy of the reverence in which some Americans hold it?”
LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AT GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY
“Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.”
...”Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen.”
“This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.
If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.”
So basically this Commie knows we have a Usurper in office and his opinion is SO WHAT?
Those are dead white guy rules.
I screamed at the TV when I seen that! Scared the crap out of my Mother in Law.
Very good post. The Constitution is an inconvenient road block for the liberals. They don’t want anything that imposes constraints on their utopian designs and statist schemes.
God help us if this guy is actually teaching lawyers. Then again, they most likely won’t find jobs waiting for them.
This guy either doesn’t know, doesn’t care or never read the Federalist Papers. EVERYTHING that is in the Constitution is explained, in clear terms. Perhaps that’s the problem. His head is so far up his butt that he can’t see anything.
I would ask him what his viewpoint was when GW was in the White House, or a future Whig president.