listen here

Patriot Broadcast From the Trenches Schedule 

buy gold scottsdale

An Appeal for Dictatorship Comes Out of the Closet at the New York Times

Also sent in by #1 NWO Hatr.

The American Thinker – by Daniel Downes

True to form, the New York Times saw out 2012 by publishing another apology for dictatorship. In his op-ed, Louis Michael Seidman — Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University - argues that the Constitution should be abandoned.  The suggestion is so preposterous that it is tempting to dismiss the article altogether, but to do so would be to miss some very revealing implications.  The article is not so much a suggestion of constitutional reform as an open call for dictatorship.

Seidman begins by blaming the current governmental crisis, incredibly, on “obedience to the Constitution,” which he describes as containing “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”  He does, however, lament that when some wise government official reaches a decision on what will benefit the country, he is likely to be stymied by this document.  Seidman expresses doubt about the rationality of letting our wise official be dissuaded by the views of “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.”

It is amusing to note Seidman’s hypocrisy as he takes the authority of this hypothetical ‘government official’ for granted while he sneers at the authority and smears the characters of men like Madison.  Don’t dwell on that double standard for too long, however, else you’ll miss the real sleight of hand: the insinuation that belief in constitutional government amounts to faith in the personal authority of the founders — that constitutional government has nothing to do with individual liberty.  By launching into this ad hominem abuse of the Founding Fathers, Seidman hopes to distract his readers from noticing that without a constitution there would be no restraint on the government and that officials would be free to act on the expediency of the moment.

But don’t worry, says Seidman, you can have your Constitution and eat it too, “We should continue to follow those requirements” — he is referring to principles like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the rule of law — “out of respect, not obligation.”

Suppose we nullified laws prohibiting homicide: would we then expect people generally to continue to respect those abandoned laws?  Why then should we expect government officials to continue to respect abandoned constitutional principles?  Professor Seidman provides no answer.

We can even keep, he says, constitutional features such as finite terms of office, a bicameral congress (these last two are “better left settled,” apparently), checks and balances, and “an elite body like the Supreme Court.”

Absent the Constitution, why would term limits not change?  Absent the Constitution, why would Congress remain bicameral?  If these matters are “better left settled,” why change matters like which house can raise taxes?  Absent the Constitution, by what process are unsettled matters to be settled?  Absent the Constitution and the separation of powers codified therein, how are Congress and the States to restrain the President?  Absent the Constitution, by what standard or authority is “an elite body like the Supreme Court” to rule on the legitimacy or otherwise of laws and executive actions?  Professor Seidman provides no answer to any of these questions.

A Professor of Constitutional Law is doubtless aware that there are historical precedents of elected governments that were not constitutionally limited and that there are eminently sensible reasons why those “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil” framers of the Constitution did not emulate them.  Why then does Seidman take such an absurd position?  He states his motives with perfect clarity in his concluding paragraph, “[P]erhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian.”

Obviously, if men cannot rule themselves then they must be ruled by others — by an unlimited government.  How does Seidman hope to reach this destination?  Via the false promise of unlimited democracy: “[B]efore abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.”

The alternative is simple: constitutionally limited government (which Seidman describes as “constitutional bondage”) or tyranny.  Professor Seidman prefers the latter — and so do the editors of the New York Times.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/an_appeal_for_dictatorship_comes_out_of_the_closet_at_the_new_york_times.html#ixzz2H3xNh3eE
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.
3635
Don't forget to answer the Security Question before you post comment.

21 Responses to An Appeal for Dictatorship Comes Out of the Closet at the New York Times

  1. chris says:

    TRAITORS EVERY ONE OF THE NY TIMES STAFF.

    HANG ‘EM ALL, HANG ‘EM HIGH

  2. Eomer says:

    ” Obviously, if men cannot rule themselves then they must be ruled by others — by an unlimited government.” So wise, yet so simple. Freedom isn’t difficult to understand. The very fact we’re seeing and hearing more and more articles like this just reinforces the fact they are expecting the US government to crumble either by their own hands or the inevitable unsustainability. Well either I’m going to live by the Constitution or by the spread of anarchy until the return of the Constitution. I’m actually looking forward to the demise of the current US government because of the fact we’re all slaves to the dollar and being that the 2nd amendment has given us such an advantage, I’m quite certain we will restore the Republic.

  3. RobW says:

    This clown was interviewed by fellow chosenite cohen on national propaganda radio the other day. He whined about “anti-semetic” slurs and threats in email he received since this was published. What did he expect? If he dislikes the Constitution so much, he should go back to occupied Palestine.

  4. Strayhorse says:

    TRAITOR. SHARLATAN. ACADEMIC PROFESSIONAL, NOT. BS FOR TUITION DEBT. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL FOR SELLING OUT AMERICA!

  5. # 1 NWO Hatr says:

    Scholastic license, perchance?

    Worthless. Every last one of them.

    I’d trade you a whole university full of them for a couple rounds (bullets OR beers) and a smoke. (Marlboro Red)

    Idiots.

    I’d be getting the better of that deal, too.

  6. rollsthepaul says:

    The US Republic will not be restored. The day of the nation state on Earth is coming to an abrupt end. The USA was a middle class experimemt but it is over. The elite have opted for neofeudalism but it will never materialize. We will start the first of three waves of global natural disasters, in the first half of 2013. This will last until 2016 and kill most humans. The mess can’t be fixed and universe will wipe the slate clean and a new Earth will take it’s place.

    • Mike says:

      Ah.. I just love feelgood sentiment! LoL Every empire comes to a toppling end sooner or later! The earth needs a break from humans anyhow. We’ve raped her plenty for a time and she’s due to shake us off like a bad case of fleas!

  7. Benjamin says:

    The CONstitution is a dictatorship. I didn’t vote for it, you didn’t vote for it, your ancestors didn’t vote for it. A bunch of mostly slave-owning scum in Philadelphia voted for it behind closed doors, and then state politicians voted for it, once. Where is the consent of the governed? The American People never consented to it then, and we’re not asked for our consent now. Don’t get me wrong, I like the 10 Amendments, but I wouldn’t wipe my rear with the rest of that document. If you want to know why we have all the problems we do today, go down to Washington D.C. and realize that everyone you have to bribe to get a new law written are all hanging out in just one building. If you want to find someone to blame for all the problems this country has, find a local Constitution-luvin Americun Paytriot. I do think it would be fitting to describe them as 3/5ths of a person.

    • Mike says:

      The constitution is nothing more than the a legal document that proclaims a persons inalienable rights. It is nothing if you don’t want it to be. I don’t see how anyone would think the Bill of Rights was drawn up to enslave them. Mentioning slave ownership amongst the founding fathers is moot. At the time of this nation’s birth the slave trade was in full swing throughout the world! The Continental Congress was trying to get the majority of the peoples of the Colonies to support the declaration of independence! Trying to abolish slavery at the time would not have allowed this to happen since most industry was involved with having slave labor. It is ugly and unfortunate that humans feel they have the right to own other humans and it still is just as prevalent today as it was 400 years ago but without the United States being created as a Constitutional Republic slavery would never have ended because of the idea of equal rights.

      • Benjamin says:

        I mentioned that I like the BIll of Rights, but I’m not a fan of the rest of the document. There’s clearly a flaw in the theory of “Representative Government” when Congress has a 14% approval rating. We should be able to vote up or down every law proposed, like they do in Switzerland – but that’s never going to happen as long as we have “Representatives.” They’ll never vote away their own power.

    • Henry Shivley says:

      Our Bill of Rights were not amendments to the Constitution. They were indeed the first 10 articles. When the Constitution was rewritten after the Civil War, the rights were made amendments and this did represent the first infringement.
      The Bill of Rights existed before the Constitution in the various colonial settlements and it was the enforcement of the Bill of Rights that sparked the beginning of our Revolution more than a year before the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
      You are correct in saying the Constitution was created by the elitists of the day. It is in fact written almost verbatim from the Masonic constitution. Had it not been for patriots like Patrick Henry, who forced our Bill of Rights into the Constitution, literally under threat of coming to Philadelphia to violently confront the founders, the people would have been put in chains immediately.
      Bottom line, the Constitution is an elitist rulers’ document without our Bill of Rights, which at present are removed via the injunction particularly described as the Patriot Act and the NDAA. In essence, we are right back at 1775 again.

  8. Joe says:

    Rollsthepaul Wrote: ” The mess can’t be fixed and universe will wipe the slate clean and a new Earth will take it’s place.”

    I’ll have my new earth now, thanks. Saves me having to renew all these govt documents, passports, car rego, etc. Y’all can come, too. We’re sure to look after the place. Wonder whether all the property developers and bankers will perish? I hope so.

    Benjamin Wrote: “The CONstitution is a dictatorship. I didn’t vote for it,”

    Awww, nuts, lost my can of “Troll-Spray”. Help, Mr. Henry, Heeeeelp!

  9. Joe says:

    This Seidman piece, and resulting discourse works very well as an intelligence gathering tool. Lure the patriots out with it, let the SPLC identify and characterize how big a threat they pose. Give their names to statist goon squads…

    • TranceAm says:

      I think the SLPC in their co-operation with DHS, already has established that everyone is a potential danger.
      Ownership of a pocket Constitution… (As best Example.)

      I bought 2, and put a $2 dollar bill in it as bookmarker.

  10. Patrick Conway says:

    “Absent the Constitution and the separation of powers codified therein, how are Congress and the States to restrain the President?”

    Do you happen to notice anyone restraining the SOB now? I believe it’s pretty fair to say that we are “Absent the Constitution” already.

    • Benjamin says:

      Exactly. I love how the Constitution starts with “We the People,” but there’s no role for “We the People” to participate in government directly from there on out. All we can do under it is vote for a “Representative” and wait for them to do the opposite of what they promised on the campaign trail.

      • Henry Shivley says:

        Not exactly, Benjamin. We actually had the final say so on every law via jury nullification before our people became dumbed down to the point that they allowed the first infringements, the takeover of our judicial system.

  11. Eomer says:

    There are many ways in which safeguards can be implemented to prevent what we are living through today. This can be done after we RESTORE THE REPUBLIC with of course the Constitution containing the Bill of Rights. If you wish to continue being a slave ruled by tyrants, you’re welcome to lay down and take it but make sure you dont get in the way. Isn’t it amazing that people who want to fight for freedom get labeled as “Americuns” who listen to Toby Keith, drive raised pick-up trucks with rebel flags, are pro Iraq and Afghan war, are good ole boys who know nothing but Nascar and drinking Budweiser. Oh and I almost forgot the most important one of them all. If you live in a rural area you are an uneducated hick who hasn’t traveled beyond the limits of the county line and also shares the same previously mentioned qualities. The same very people who urge this stereotype are the same people who pretend to be against stereotypes. It’s the A/B mentality that if you’re not a Democrat you’re a Republican, if you’re not the typical hipster urbanite you’re a redneck living off possum in the woods.

  12. Eomer says:

    Oh, and Benjamin, there is a reason for the system in which we vote for Representatives. I’ll be the first to admit that it isn’t working very well now that it has been infiltrated and overthrown. But as I said before, there are solutions to these problems that can be implemented only after the current criminals are removed, permanently. Yet if we simply use a majority vote on every law that comes and goes, we are simply going to get what the majority wants. So say we would have a majority vote on the 2nd amendment today. What do you think the outcome would be? I sure hope we would come out on top but after the recent churn out of the propaganda machine, I’m not sure we would fare too well. Majority opinion doesn’t equate justice and is easily swayed.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

What is 8 + 5 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)