Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 12/31/2012 View Sun 12/30/2012 View Sat 12/29/2012 View Fri 12/28/2012 View Thu 12/27/2012 View Wed 12/26/2012 View Tue 12/25/2012
2013-01-01 Home Front: Culture Wars
Let's Give Up on the Constitution
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Beavis 2013-01-01 10:09|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [336088 views ]  Top

#1 NYT article; color me surprised.

Posted by Raj 2012-12-31 10:46||   2012-12-31 10:46|| Front Page Top

#2 Here's my response as sent to the New York Sun editorial that in turn commented on this piece --

The editorial by the Sun, well-written as it is, spends a little too much time apologizing for the great sin of slavery and not enough time responding to what is Professor Louis Seidman's central point in his piece in the New York Times.

To be clear, slavery was indeed a horrible wrong, and all Americans today rightly condemn it, and work for the day when the lasting effects of slavery are finally expunged from our society.

But just as importantly, Professor Seidman complains about the Constitution today. He apparently is of the belief (as best I can tell from his op-ed piece) that the Constitution should be respected only if it is a 'living' document; which is to say that it should mean what society (and particularly, people of his beliefs) say it should mean.

In this belief the good Professor misses two key points: the first is that a charter, which is what the Constitution is, deliberately binds a people to history. Be the charter a generation or a millenium old, the whole point is to condition our behavior today on a proper respect for the past, warts and all. There are plenty of specific terms and items in the Magna Carta that certainly would be out of place in the modern world, but we (and the British) still give it reverence for what it did at that time to make us what we are today. So too the Constitution provides an enduring framework that made us the republic we are today, and channels our work, our energy and even our protests in ways that benefit our society.

The second point is even simpler: our elected leaders take an oath to defend the Constitution as their first act of office. Even if Professor Seidman believes the Constitution to be a dead piece of parchment, does he not understand and respect what an oath is, and what it is supposed to do to those who swear one? Like a written charter, an oath conditions and channels us by providing a framework for our subsequent acts. That is precisely why our Constitution, for example, requires our President to take an oath.

If Professor Seidman believes the Constitution to be fatally flawed for today's world, then he should propose a replacement. He and like-minded citizens could then try to persuade the rest of us as to the wisdom of a new charter. To ignore the Constitution and the oaths taken to defend it, however, rapidly leads to anarchy. In the end, such a society would be based on the very simple, brutish charter of human nature: might makes right.

I shall bet that Professor Seidman does not want that sort of replacement charter in the modern world.
Posted by Steve White 2012-12-31 11:30||   2012-12-31 11:30|| Front Page Top

#3 A conversation by a learned man against himself and the fireplace, third bottle down.

I would demand my money back, even if I supported this position. And for the record, I believe those founders would see quite clearly our current situation.

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate.

Hey professor, your ass is showing.
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-12-31 11:48||   2012-12-31 11:48|| Front Page Top

#4 It's interesting that the good professor did not come to this realization while W was president. As I recall, the Constitution was quite in vogue back then. What he is really saying is that the results the Constitution is currently producing -- i.e., a limit on Champ's power-- are not to his liking. Which reminds me of this exchange in :

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
Posted by Matt 2012-12-31 11:53||   2012-12-31 11:53|| Front Page Top

#5 Oops, the quote is from the movie version of
Posted by Matt 2012-12-31 11:54||   2012-12-31 11:54|| Front Page Top

#6 A Man for All Seasons. Something's wrong with my fingers this morning.
Posted by Matt 2012-12-31 11:55||   2012-12-31 11:55|| Front Page Top

#7 That already happened in the 30's.
Posted by Iblis 2012-12-31 12:00||   2012-12-31 12:00|| Front Page Top

#8 So, that means we default back to the Articles of Confederation or simply become the Disunited States, each of individual sovereignty. Otherwise, power comes from the barrel of a gun. Don't count on the military to back you up professor, the mid-ranks are relieved of their oaths and the bulk will not break for your tribe side. Meanwhile, with 3 million arms in private hands you won't have much in the way of Constitutional protection of your 'civil rights' that you obviously don't extend to others.
Posted by P2kontheroad 2012-12-31 12:02||   2012-12-31 12:02|| Front Page Top

#9 Agreed, P2k.
Posted by Barbara 2012-12-31 12:10||   2012-12-31 12:10|| Front Page Top

#10 Very well saiD, Dr. White!
Posted by Barbara 2012-12-31 12:11||   2012-12-31 12:11|| Front Page Top

#11 Our Constitution does address some forms of slavery but not others. It does not address tax slavery. Every year, the tax anniversary date keeps getting pushed further and further into the year; essentially creating a kind of economic servitude.

If an amendment were proposed to our Constitution which would basically aim at controlling fiscal messes that our government gets us into and taxes, I wonder if 3/4th of the states would ratify such an amendment? Presently, such an amendment would never get out of Congress the way things are going.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-12-31 12:43||   2012-12-31 12:43|| Front Page Top

#12 It does address tax slavery in the prohibition against a head tax. The 17th amendment scuttled that, to give us the IRS.
Posted by Fred 2012-12-31 13:37||   2012-12-31 13:37|| Front Page Top

#13 The 16th amendment authorized Congress to levy income taxes, without limit. The 17th amendment changed Senators from appointed to elected.

Sorry to nitpick. Both were huge mistakes.
Posted by RandomJD 2012-12-31 14:15||   2012-12-31 14:15|| Front Page Top

#14 Boy! After reading all the comentary, do I need to read the original piece of ... article?

Fred and Steve - my compliments. You guys ought to be in another line of work! The rest of you -- well, you're just way above average. Have a Happy New Year!
Posted by Bobby 2012-12-31 14:48||   2012-12-31 14:48|| Front Page Top

#15 My reply now is on line at the Sun. Apparently the Sun doesn't have the readership the Times has, which is a shame.

I would have posted my reply at the Times but as a non-subscriber one only gets to view and comment on 10 free articles a month and I am over my limit.
Posted by Steve White 2012-12-31 14:53||   2012-12-31 14:53|| Front Page Top

#16 Excellent.
Posted by JohnQC 2012-12-31 15:27||   2012-12-31 15:27|| Front Page Top

#17 Between all the liberal calls for the dismantling of the constitution, and the execution and imprisonment of NRA and gun owners, can we see a major push for a dictatorship in 2013?

Either way, I believe the Republic is finished. Either a push for dictatorship or a push for Federalism will be our path for the next century.
Posted by DarthVader 2012-12-31 16:14||   2012-12-31 16:14|| Front Page Top

#18 Damn, classic work FredMan.
Posted by Shipman 2012-12-31 16:54||   2012-12-31 16:54|| Front Page Top

#19 Either a push for dictatorship or a push for Federalism will be our path for the next century.

The tug-of-war is already on. The question is, which one will prevail?
Posted by RandomJD 2012-12-31 17:17||   2012-12-31 17:17|| Front Page Top

#20 Yeah--he was always aiming for that. The pattern is clear. I used to run around with the Commies in college, and O is wiping the Republic off the board--all according the playbook, with some help from Alynski and the NWO handlers. Adherence to the Constitution is one of the cornerstones of American national identity, which is what must be eliminated according to the Big Money guys.

I used to think that stuff was nonsense, but the more I find out and analyze....oh boy. NOT good.

Posted by ex-lib 2012-12-31 18:54||   2012-12-31 18:54|| Front Page Top

#21 The US Constitution will have to be formally amended to accomodate the Globalists' desired OWG + OWG GFUS e.g. NAU, etc.

To just bypass = "give up" on the Constitution, aka the "Law of the Land", is to basically admit that mainstream America has grown soft or is too lazy to stand up for its own Freedoms + Rights.

IMO the sooner the US goes over the "fiscal cliff" + Moodys, Fitch, etc. seriously degrade the US credit ratings, andor China MilPol publicly humiliates the US in East Asia [ECS + SCS, Taiwan, Himalayas] the better for Americans' + America's soul.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-12-31 19:30||   2012-12-31 19:30|| Front Page Top

#22 A shame to loose this at Midnight. :(
Posted by newc 2012-12-31 22:03||   2012-12-31 22:03|| Front Page Top

#23 I'll restart by wishing all Rantburgers and those serving our country a very Happy New Year.

Mr. Seidman has squandered his 40 years. He should know that the Constitution as adopted by those slave holding white men was pretty well eviscerated by the 16th and 17th amendments adopted 100 years ago that fundamentally altered the balance of power among the people, the states, and the federal government, and the unauthorized amendments adopted by the Supreme Court since 1937.

It is unfortunate, because those white men understood our present situation better than those governing us today, for there is nothing new under the Sun. 1913 was a very bad year, leading to many worse. 2012 looks to have produced an evil as bad. Our chance to reverse the evils of 1913 may have disappeared. We shall see.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2013-01-01 05:28||   2013-01-01 05:28|| Front Page Top

#24 Injecting the language of slavery always validates the argument and provides cover for progressives. Thanks for the guilt booster shot professor, but I'm allergic to the serum. Please forgive me for my involvement as a horse holder at Wounded Knee. I still have nightmares by the way.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-01 06:55||   2013-01-01 06:55|| Front Page Top

#25 It HAS been given up on, to a large degree. I can read, and lots of stuff government does is unconstitutional, but even the Supreme Court lets it go on.
Posted by Glenmore 2013-01-01 09:01||   2013-01-01 09:01|| Front Page Top

#26 "and lots of most stuff government does is unconstitutional"

FTFY, Glenmore.

(No charge, us being friends and all...)
Posted by Barbara 2013-01-01 09:41||   2013-01-01 09:41|| Front Page Top

#27 Let's give up on the Constitution NFW!
Posted by JohnQC 2013-01-01 10:01||   2013-01-01 10:01|| Front Page Top

#28 No Constitution. Okay. Then the Federal Government loses whatever pretense of legitimacy it had left and it is lock and load time.
Posted by Secret Asian Man 2013-01-01 11:13||   2013-01-01 11:13|| Front Page Top

#29 While we are on the subject of the Constitution can someone tell me how John Kerry was able to circumvent Article 3 of the 14th Amendment? Did he not give both verbal and visual "aid and comfort" to the enemy?
Posted by Jack is Back! 2013-01-01 11:14||   2013-01-01 11:14|| Front Page Top

#30 That "aid and comfort" bit was cancelled out by the shooting of a wounded VC with his .45 auto.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-01 11:20||   2013-01-01 11:20|| Front Page Top

#31 Besoeker, the aid and comfort happened after he shot a wounded teenage VC to death. He did the aid and comfort to atone for the shooting.

Anybody know what the statute of limitations is for treason?
Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2013-01-01 11:37||   2013-01-01 11:37|| Front Page Top

#32 Anybody know what the statute of limitations is for treason? Posted by Rambler in Virginia

For the Champ, it's the moment he steps away from the lectern.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-01 11:42||   2013-01-01 11:42|| Front Page Top

#33 The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was administered the oath of office four times, more than any other president. However, since President Barack Obama's second inaugural is to fall on a Sunday, he is likely to be sworn in twice for his second inauguration with the second falling on Monday. If this occurs as expected, Obama will also have been sworn in four times counting the two from his first inauguration, due to Chief Justice John Roberts misstating the wording of the oath on his first attempt, thereby causing a request for a re-administration of the oath shortly after in private quarters.

So in taking the Oath of Office and then advocating the dismisal of the very document by which he holds office presents the American People with what ?

The big "T" word....Treason ? No, the Constitution having been dismissed, invalidated, holds that the "T" is the impeachable offense; no Constitution, no offense.

Sweet. Herzlich Willkommen Sie auf der neuen America
Posted by Au Auric 2013-01-01 11:55||   2013-01-01 11:55|| Front Page Top

04:09 GolfBravoUSMC
23:51 trailing wife
23:24 Pappy
23:19 Pappy
23:13 Pappy
22:03 newc
21:20 Christopher Stevens
21:16 Grunter
21:13 Barbara
20:57 newc
20:39 Airandee
19:58 Injun Stalin7884
19:56 Injun Stalin7884
19:49 Frank G
19:48 Frank G
19:35 Rambler in Virginia
19:33 Besoeker
19:30 JosephMendiola
19:29 Besoeker
19:28 Barbara
19:24 tu3031
19:18 tu3031
19:11 Frank G
19:09 ex-lib

Search WWW Search