December 31, 2012

Of Founders and Morosophs:

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


  1. The Constitution itself replaced the Articles Of Confederation, a ratified document which was found to be lacking. The framers intended the Constitution to be a living entity, subject to change according to the needs and the will of the people, hence the ability to amend it.

  2. But this man suggests we completely ignore it. What does you comment have to do with that? Of course we can amend it, but that is not what we do. We simply ignore it. Perhaps you don't care, depending on who is ignoring it...but I do regardless of who is ignoring it. Thanks for reading and commenting.

  3. Actually, he wasn't saying we "completely" ignore it, but more that some of it's tenets might stand in the way of more efficient government.

    "This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. 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."

    1. As I stated in the post; he says we should do so out of respect not obligation. Now, Eileen; are you seriously suggesting that the government would respect our rights without the obligation to do so? For goodness sakes they don't even respect them now. This is a very dangerous idea that is meant to push us closer to a Marxist style government. Surely you don't want that do you? Or are you one of those who thinks that Marxism isn't all that bad, it just hasn't been implemented right?

    2. If we have no respect for our government, we will eventually not fulfill our obligations to it. Respect that we must legislate is not true respect.

    3. If we don't respect our Constitution; our government will not fulfill it's duty to protect our rights to Life, Liberty and Property. That is all this government is intended to do. This government kills children, tramples on Liberty and steals property. It does all of this because IT does not respect our Constitution. Now they want to make their tyranny permanent by getting rid of our Constitution. If you are not appalled by this then you sell your childrens freedom for some vague promise of comfort.