The NY Times ran an opinion column last week that should surprise no one given the newspaper’s far left leanings. The article is entitled, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” It was written by a Georgetown Professor, Louis Michael Seidman, who has been teaching constitutional law for decades now. It is ironic in that he appears to hold the Constitution in total disregard.
He is employed by the same University that turned out Sandra Fluke, lucky us, Georgetown has our backs.
The left wants the Constitution rewritten. The South African constitution might be nice. This article personifies the thinking that can be found in any of the liberal media outlets on a regular basis.
The far left wants your stuff and they want to redefine freedom. The Constitution is such a bother and it stands in the way.
Leftists like marijuana, so you can keep that. They like the very rich Hedge Fund managers, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet types, so they can keep their tax loopholes. They like felons, illegal immigrants and entitled people because they vote for their party, expect them to be left alone as well.
What they do not like are free-thinking people who disagree with them.
The leftists, and I am not talking about normal Democrats here, are creating a failed economic state which is totalitarian in nature. While they engage in their evil activities, guess what they are blaming for the results of those very activities? The Constitution of course!
In the NY Times article, the author echoes that sentiment so well when he says, “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.”
How does the author come to this conclusion? Well, for one thing, the House, which coincidentally is Republican, is holding back progress because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the House. [That of course was put in the Constitution to protect the Republic from statists like the author and to ensure that we maintain a balance of powers]
The author then states his marvelous credentials as an instructor of constitutional law of some 40 years to make certain we are duly impressed. Then he disingenuously claims he just realized the Constitution is the problem. I’ll believe this revelation just came to him as soon as Justice Ginsberg becomes a Rush Limbaugh fan.
He brings up the old slavery argument and the now-hackneyed argument that the Constitution is archaic. He doesn’t want us to talk about what James Madison would have done but he does want to resuscitate slavery to prove his point.
He then goes on to discuss what was wrong with the Founding Fathers as if that in some way proves the Constitution is a failed document.
He continues to ramble through history and promote disobedience to the Constitution. He believes “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.”
Respect, not obligation? There goes the rule of law and in comes a shape-shifting Constitution under the rule of statists.
His article goes on with feigned devotion to the balance of powers which his very proposals would abolish. If we did what he is suggesting, we would all be subject to whoever is in power and, judging from his article, that should only be the far left.
He calls the Constitution a piece of “parchment.” He refers to the Constitution’s rule of law as enslavement and ends by saying, “we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”
He is actually encouraging anarchy.
It is terrifying to think that this Bill Ayers wannabe has been teaching constitutional law at Georgetown for years. The words insidious infiltration come to mind.