Let’s have “democratic deliberation” instead?
Read Louis Seidman’s call for mob-ocracy in the New York Times.
He’s an enemy of the constitution, plain and simple. People like him are the reason Americans are arming themselves.
He sounds like he is a hippie working for international socialism?
Well, to paraphrase, democracy IS the worst form of government….
except for all the rest.
1. There will be no freedom of speech or press except for the elite left. Athiesim will be the official state religion. Any practice of any other religion is prohibited.
2. Only DHS and drug cartels will be permitted to carry arms in order to kill dissenters and rivals or debtors. All other possession of arms is prohibited.
How’s that sound for a start perfessor?
I find it interesting that Mr. Seidman touts that there wouldn’t be any major upheavals based on his “Constitutional disobedience” idea. I thought the Civil War was fought over the “Constitutional disobedience” of the South in trying to secede and the North trying to keep the union together. I would hate to see what he would consider a major upheaval.
A “major upheaval” would mean that the USA was run by footballers, pop stars, and baseball players, and, yes, hippies. That would be really great – wouldn’t it?
He makes some valid points about Britain and others not needing constitutions. However, I find the hoops needed to declare something a “final agency action” before the courts can oversee them a much more ominous requirement, and more than that, the questionable use of “standing” to make certain actions effectively unchallengeable. Neither of these are enshrined in the constitution, yet they are considered unchangeable. We should change what we can before considering abandoning one of the most stable frameworks of government in the past few centuries.
The courts are our next to last protection against the government. When they fail, we must turn to violence. I fear what will happen should the courts continue to abdicate responsibility with these cursory dismissals of their ability to review cases.
Regarding the point about Britain and others not needing a constitution:
Britain does have a constitution; every nation has a constitution. In fact every society MUST have a constitution to exist. It may not be written down in a single document, it may not be written down at all or even given a name like ‘constitution’, but it does exist and it is the founding principles or broad rules on which the society is based. If these rules did not exist, whether or not you write them down and call the document ‘The Constitution’, the ‘ground zero’ state of any society would be anarchy.
My ‘take away’ from what this man is saying is that he wants to replace one set of rules with another – his. Megalomania writ large!
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 2,182 other followers