Dump the Constitution? Here's Your Answer Right Here

A Liberal Constitutional Law Professor suggests we stop listening to "now long-dead" people and instead listen to important and inspiring modern ideas. A Conservative reacts to 'lawlessness.'

Dr. Louis Michael Seidman, a liberal Constitutional Law Professor known for making controversial statements, made headlines this week appearing on CBS, calling for an end to the Constitution.    

I recently wrote a blog where I swore off listening to the elite smart people promising instead to seek out those with common sense. Here is further proof since Dr. Seidman qualifies as one of those smart people. Here is what Dr. Seidman said:

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.

In this argument the good Doctor is saying he is smarter than our founding fathers, an argument Liberals use to downplay the Constitution with a thought to replacing it with liberal decrees. Liberals, with an arrogance defying belief, purport to know better than the people who risked their lives and fortune to found this miracle of a country.

President Wilson’s ideas, restated recently by President Obama, believed the Constitution is a collection of negative rights. These rights keep the Elites from making over the Country the way they want, because it restricts action by the Federal Government. The really smart people would prefer positive rights which require Federal Action on any subject they choose. The Founders recognized this desire and took action to protect future Americans from a Government with all the answers.

Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what? 

Great question. So what? This leads us to the idea of Judicial Activism, a touchstone in some legal circles for years. If one actually believed in the Constitution, believed in the oath our forefathers took to defend the Constitution, saw themselves as a presentative of the people, it would be impossible to say “So what.”  This is ... lawlessness, according to Dr. Thomas Sowell. By this reasoning, we should only be required to follow those laws which you personally approve. This is how we get to Illegal Immigrant Rights, Abortion Rights and attempts to restrict the Second Amendment, all in the name of "So what?"

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself. 

Yes, Doctor, exactly. The question will always remain whether we are a society based on law and a Constitution or whether we are a society dominated by Liberal Thinkers with great ideas and limited practical experience? Liberals are certain they have a better plan and the higher intelligence to act. The fact people have not accepted their role is an endless frustration to them.

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.

There you have it.  Never before in our history have Americans been willing to come out and challenge our Constitution. The naked truth is Liberals are insulted the common man will not accept their leadership, ideas or direction. This is the reason they insulate their ideas behind the fog of claiming they are for the poor, downtrodden and needy, the very people Liberals hurt the most with their programs.

Who would the good Doctor suggest we use to create this new “living” document? My guess is it would be academia, politicians and lawyers.  What could possibly go wrong with that idea? I mean, beside restricted liberties, high taxes and a constantly changing series of guidelines that “responsible people” would be
required to follow.

When actually reading the Constitution and the Federalists papers, hearing the Founders' own words, the thought process which moved the Founders toward a Constitution, their fear of big government and the very outcomes envisioned by Liberals it is easy to see why they gave limited, defined powers to the Federal Government. 

We have evidence of how governments work under the guidance of Liberals by looking at local governments under the long-term rule of Democrats. States like Illinois currently racing toward bankruptcy while constantly raising taxes and imposing stricter rules on its citizens while children die in the streets from gang violence. Look at Detroit, which has been dying for years despite being the home of the American Automobile Industry.

No thanks, Dr. Seidman, you and yours have a track record. You are all talk about how much you care overshadowed by a history of bad results. If you really cared you would be for the individual and not big government. We’ll stick with the Constitution.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

tiny February 11, 2013 at 01:46 PM
tick tock: www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-10/putin-turns-black-gold-into-bullion-as-russia-out-buys-world.html earlier: www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2013/01/16/germany-repatriating-gold-from-ny-paris-in-case-of-a-currency-crisis
tiny February 12, 2013 at 01:19 AM
Ongoing 'Western' Economic/Financial outlook: 1) Divert and deflect 2) Delay and pray 3) Extend and pretend
tiny February 12, 2013 at 02:46 AM
Confessional - went to the Lakewood Mall yesterday and saw there was hardly a white face there. And this makes me feel bad. So for me the issue is letting things go on autopilot as they are in the big picture, which is destruction, or caring about the future with Glass-Steagall, which would take things as they are, cut out the cancer and build from there.
tiny February 12, 2013 at 05:26 AM
The most primitive but effective divide and rule strategy of the Oligharchy is: they are working for a one world order where a few families run most of the planet. To do it they have to destruct all the nation states. In my view their most basic way is to divide people is based on income and reproductive growth inequalities. So Europe and America had the income and much better standard of living while other areas are less developed but have much higher reporductive rates. So with globalism you intermix these disparities, divide peoples from each other and are one your way to a reality where the elites control everything, you have their gov't enforcers and everybody else is in a cattle like, manual labor type global village situation with a much reduced world population. But maybe I just have an active imagination?
tiny February 12, 2013 at 04:28 PM
"cut out the cancer" should read: stop the 5-yr now ongoing bailouts.......


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »