Barack Obama and Louis Michael Seidman have a few things in common: they are both “progressive” leftists; they were both Constitutional Law professors; and they both want to get rid of the US Constitution. The difference is, the President probably wouldn’t just come out and admit it, but his actions indicate that he wants nothing more than to just scrap the entire document and declare himself dictator.
Seidman on the other hand wrote an op-ed in the New York Times with the headline, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” His article makes the ridiculous claim that the reason our country and government are in such disarray is not because our elected leaders completely ignore the Constitution, but precisely because they’ve been abiding by it for so long. No, he’s not joking, and as for his mental status, one can only imagine. He stated that our problems are rooted in “our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.” He mocked the idea of original intent and compared it to this hypothetical situation:
“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?”
It’s the “particular course of action that is best for the county” that is frightening. Seidman wants all of us “Constitution nuts” to let the president be free to make these decisions for us as long as he thinks it’s “best for the country.” So if Chairman Obama decides that it’s best for the country to disarm all law-abiding citizens, there should be no Congressional opposition, no references to the 2nd Amendment, no federal lawsuits, no petitions and certainly no resurrections of the writings of the founding fathers. After all, the founding fathers didn’t know anything about fighting off a tyrannical government. And besides, they owned slaves.
Seidman decries slavery, but at the same time wants to rid America of its rule of law and yield all power and authority to the whims and fancies of a dictator who promises he’ll only make decisions that are for the “good of the country.” So, what if slavery was instituted at the hands of a dictator who claimed it was for the “common good?” Without the Constitution, what entity or checks and balances would be in place to challenge the institution? In fact, the dictator might just believe that it would be best for the country if all those opposed to him be either imprisoned or just eliminated. While Seidman claims to be opposed to slavery, he seems perfectly happy with Obama enslaving an entire nation under socialism.
The Constitution was designed to prevent a dictatorship. No wonder Obama and Seidman don’t like it. It’s too restrictive. The various checks and balances and layers of government were there to make it impossible (or nearly impossible) for one person to call the shots and overrule everybody else. We’re a Republic “if we can keep it,” said Ben Franklin, and we’re not doing a good job keeping it.
Only a moral society can take the Constitution seriously. And since we’re not a moral society anymore, the politicians we elect don’t care about the Constitution, and people like Seidman are calling for it to be abolished.