How many time have you heard someone say, the Constitution is old, outdated, not relevant to our times, or some such thing and then advocate for the abolishment, trashing, ignoring, etc. of the same? How many times has that person been a professor of Constitutional Law? Yeah, I didn’t think it would be too many times. But that is just what Professor Michael Seidman did this weekend in a CBS aired editorial piece on one of their morning shows. I’ve posted the entirety of the video below:
Now, I understand the Constitution is over two hundred years old. But is the United States in perilous economic trouble because of the Constitution; because men long dead couldn’t predict the path of American greatness and then decline? Men who realized that simply giving a straight democracy to people would lead to “51% of the people taking the rights of the other 49%.”
This isn’t the first time that Seidman has advocated getting rid of this document, tossing on the trash heap of history, and saying let’s do something completely new. Of course he fails to lay out any kind of even skeletal plan of what new thing would take the place of the Constitution that has helped hold this nation together for the last two hundred and thirty odd years, through two world wars and one civil war, through recession and depression, through terror and strife. What else could serve the people so flexibly and help pass the reins of power from one person to the next, between political parties without any violence what so ever? How many countries can say that has been their history for the last few centuries. Damn few and most of them are monarchys…perhaps he believes a monarchy would serve America best then.
Actually Seidman has written that: “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. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”
So the Constitution is bondage? Apparently the bondage of the Amendments giving our freedoms, not limiting them, and the sections of the Constitution that set forth the exact roles of the government are too constrictive. We need to be free to do as we wish and settle every argument through what….discussion without law….violence? I don’t get where he is going. How in the world do you solve a disagreement when there is no baseline from which to factor the pros and cons of both sides of the argument. Perhaps Seidman would be better served with some kind of anarchy.
Because if you were to rid this country of the Constitution plenty of states, territories, towns, cities, etc. would simply say, okay, we’re on our own. They would cut ties with the entity that was no longer the United States and band themselves together. And what of the military who take an oath to defend the Constitution…they would become a tool of a faceless state, serving the powers that be and not the people of the nation.
I really don’t think this law professor has thought things through. I think he believes that an agenda he favors would be easier to implement if he could just convince the people to give up the one document we all follow keeping them safe from bad leaders and poisonous ideas.