An analysis of Louis Michael Seidman's New York Times editorial - 'Let's Give Up on the Constitution'
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The never-ending attack
mode of the Marxists is exhausting. The fact that this attack often comes from morosophs
at some of our most ‘prestigious’ universities is embarrassing. The realization
that the majority of American voters are ill equipped to recognize the idiocy
of their arguments is disheartening. From Woodrow Wilson forward; ‘progressives’
have insisted that the chains of the Constitution must be lifted from central
government if we are to ‘solve’ the nation’s problems in a modern world. They
dismiss our Founders thoughtful proclamation that governments don’t solve
problems, they cause or exacerbate them. Only an educated People bathed in
Liberty and Virtue can actually solve problems to their betterment. The
subsequent 100 year assault on the Constitution is nearing completion. The
resulting damage to society is now used as the impetus to do away with the
Constitution altogether. Like Epimetheus, who to cover his previous idiocy,
accepted Pandora releasing all of her tragedies upon Mankind; modern liberals
hope to cure all of the ills of society which in fact have been wrought by
liberal ignorance, by completely dissolving the Constitutional chains on
central government.
Today the Grey Lady, that
faltering bastion of ignorance on parade, published an editorial by Constitutional law professor, Louis Michael Seidman. The utter
stupidity of this man’s argument to abolish the Constitution would be humorous
if not for the realization that much of today’s voting public will view it as
profundity.
Allow a layman,
unencumbered by institutional indoctrination, to dissect this moronic diatribe.
Consider his opening
paragraph:
“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.”
First: Always remember that to replace one form of
government without violent revolution one must first convince the public that
the present form is ‘broken’.
In the first sentence Mr. Seidman accepts the current
liberal meme that we are ‘teetering’ on the edge of a ‘fiscal cliff’; scary
language, no?!? He then proceeds to speak for all observers and reach the
conclusion for us all that the cause of this fiscal chaos is not politicians,
but our very form of government. I dare say that if a Republican administration
and Senate were at hand Mr. Seidman would be much more apt to blame Man than
Law. Arrogance or ideology? Probably both.
Mr. Seidman ends the very first paragraph by first
inferring that we have insistent obedience to the Constitution; then by calling
the document evil. In one paragraph this ‘professor’ asserts that this fiscal
fiasco which is our nation’s budget is not the fault of his progressive
ideologues spending our nation to death; it is the fault of that EVIL document,
The Constitution of the United States of America, and our insistent
obedience to same.
Only a professor at a ‘prestigious’ university could then
proceed to outline all of the times that we ignored the Constitution; then have
the audacity to use this ignorance as a reason to dispense with it altogether!
The sheer madness of this argument should have him committed to an insane
asylum; but of course we don’t do that anymore. We make them professors and
elect them to office.
Let us proceed with our analysis of this rube’s
editorial. In the second paragraph this Constitutional law professor shows his
sheer ignorance of the document for which he is charged to teach our youth
aspiring for knowledge, hoping to excel in life. The author laments the fact
that federal revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives.
Without fanfare he dismisses this by asking: “Why should anyone care?”
Seriously, professor? Have you even read the Federalist
Papers? Are you even remotely aware of the Founders concerns with the power
that accompanies the purse? The inherent corruption to fear from this power? Are you even slightly knowledgeable about the
plethora of regulations and codes that the government uses to coerce business
and solicit political contributions, favors and outright bribes? Do you have
any understanding at all of the purpose of coupling this power with the shorter
terms and smaller districts wherein our Representatives can be held accountable
for the spending from the People’s Treasury? Of course you don’t. You’re a
liberal. Your only concern is forcing your imaginary society on your neighbors,
while totally ignoring all of the misery your ideology creates.
Next our learned professor, the morosoph extraordinaire
proceeds to impugn James Madison. With all undue respect, you wouldn’t make a
pimple on Mr. Madison’s arse, sir.
By the fourth paragraph the author seems fit to remind us
of his long and distinguished career studying and teaching the Constitution;
coupled with his ultimate shame of said career. He then proceeds to once again
reveal the utter futility of those years of ‘study’:
“Imagine that after
careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party
leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of
action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new
information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two
centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing
law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course
of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or
her mind because of this divination?”
So Mr. Seidman first attempts to convince us in his
set-up that one leader’s considered judgment is all that is necessary for good
policy. And then…of course; Mr. Seidman has to throw out the racist and
intentionally misleading reputation killer of calling all of our Founding
Fathers ‘white propertied men who…thought it was fine to own slaves…’ ignoring
that all Founders did not own slaves, and the vast majority called slavery an
abomination that our country would have to abolish someday. These very ‘white
men’ structured our Founding documents such that slavery would indeed
eventually be abolished. What modern liberal can help from charging racism any
time their policy failures become apparent? Intellectually disingenuous and
morally disgusting.
This specious attack on the Founders character is
intended to divert attention from the author’s previous fallacious conclusion
that a single leader’s considered judgment that something is good for the country
in itself means that it is indeed good. Of course the Founders were tenaciously
intent on preventing one Man or one small group of men from imposing their will
on the People. The entirety of our government structure is intent on preventing
this abuse of power. The Founders recognized that if something were in fact
good for the country it would be obvious to a majority of our leaders and the
People at large. In fact, if one could not convince their peers of the validity
of their argument then said argument was most likely without merit. This author
admittedly spent 40 years of his life studying the Constitution and yet he
doesn’t apparently know any of this. How can that be? It is a disgrace to the
storied University of Georgetown that this man represents their criteria for
intellectual excellence.
To move on, the author spends several paragraphs pointing
out times the Constitution has been ignored. What he doesn’t do of course, is
to outline the damage that was done by same. For instance he states:
“In his Constitution
Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document,
but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no
doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything
the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the
way of his New Deal legislation.”
We’ll dispense with the obvious insincerity of professing
‘devotion’ to something that you then ignore. The author admits that Roosevelt
used his ignorance of the Constitution to expand the federal government beyond
anything the framers could imagine! Of course Mr. Seidman also glosses over
Roosevelt’s thuggish tactics in threatening the Supreme Court. And then the
author conveniently ignores all of the damage that has been done to the People’s
Liberty by the New Deal legislation and its subsequent cementing of ruthless
power in a centralized government. From the intrusion into the health care
industry, to the murder of millions of innocent children, to the Patriot Act
and all of its perversion of our civil rights, to the absurdity of the EPA’s
dismissal of our property rights; all of these things come from the DNA of
Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s unconstitutional legislative
confiscation of the People’s right to Life, Liberty and Property. Everything
that the Founders warned against if we were to ignore the enumerated powers our
Constitution outlined came to fruition precisely because we ignored them. And
this college professor who spent his entire life studying the Constitution
fails to see this.
The author then acknowledges that the two differing views
of the Constitution cannot be reconciled. In typical liberal fashion, this does
not mean that one is right and one is wrong. No, in the morally relative world
of the disease of liberalism, there can be no wrong. Only differing opinions
that must be respected and allowed regardless of how stupid their basis. Ironically,
the author acknowledges this, but only as an attempt to impugn such judgment:
“The two main rival interpretive methods, 'originalism' (divining the framers’ intent) and 'living constitutionalism' (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your
philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong.”
As a side note; the author accepts the fallacy that the
Supreme Court is an omnipotent entity without dispute. This is ridiculous. The
Supreme Court is no more a center of Constitutional authority than is the
administrative branch or the legislative branch. Co-equal government with
checks and balances. The legislature could impeach the Justices if they had the
nerve. Does anyone believe that if the Supreme Court says you don’t have the
right to free speech, then you don’t? It’s ludicrous. Our rights come from God,
not from Man nor SCOTUS justices.
On to paragraph ten where the author brazenly suggests
that all of our ignorance of the Constitution has not caused chaos, yet
prosperity! This IS the same man who in his very FIRST paragraph lamented the
chaos that is our current central government! This type of audacity is only
possible within a liberal mind where only intent matters, not results. Our
people are prosperous DESPITE this government not because of it. In fact, the
ruse is almost up and the suppression of the people by the government,
profligate spending with no accountability and corruption of the free market
system is beginning to show signs of the inevitable end. Economic collapse
followed by totalitarian control. A Marxists dream.
In the remaining paragraphs in typical useful idiot
fashion the author goes on to say how we could keep some aspects of the
Constitution out of respect but by no means by obligation; as if Man is so
inherently honest that there is no way our government would steal our rights.
This claptrap is not only stupendously short-sighted but dangerous; which
brings us to the core of all of this idiocy. Is it really stupidity or
contrivance? It doesn’t matter for both create the same result. Failed Marxist
Ideology ending in collapse, chaos and totalitarian takeover of the nation.
Their job is almost finished thanks to professors such as Louis Michael Seidman
and the mal-educated populace his ilk provides to the purveyors of America’s
destruction.
This vermin is a microcosm of this nation’s flirtation
with liberalism/progressivism/Marxism/communism all one and the same and all
antithetical to the desires of free Men. He should be summarily fired from
Georgetown University immediately along with a statement divining their intent
to re-assess the criteria for hiring professors of Constitutional Law as well
as other disciplines. Allowing 40 years
of study of one’s discipline while displaying zero knowledge of it is beyond embarrassing, it is damning. Purging
this type of Marxist Ideologue from our midst and permanently reducing them to
the position of ridicule and contempt that they deserve is the only hope of this
nation surviving as a bastion of the People’s Liberty.
Acknowledgement: I understand that many readers may opine
that calling people idiots and morons is not going to change any minds in the
broader citizenry. Perhaps, but I simply can no longer tolerate this cultural
admonition against truthfulness. He is an idiot, plain and simple. Part of our
societal problem is our tolerance for idiots and I for one will not refrain
from pointing them out wherever they may be found. While one has a right to be
an idiot, we shouldn’t raise them to honored positions but rather should
ostracize them as they deserve.
by: Keith D. Rodebush
