10 thoughts on “Georgetown prof calls for abandoning the Constitution”

  1. Good one!
    I completely agree with you Savebyj. In 20th century, I think that every country must have a constitution. As when you are dealing with mass public then having a set of common governing laws really helps in maintaining peace and order in the country.

  2. @BenOfHouston.
    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!

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.