Idiot Professor and Obama Want To Rid Us Of The Constitution

Birthpangs 2013/01/01 18:40:15
Add Photos & Videos

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

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/01/constitutional-law-profes...
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Charles R. Anderson 2013/01/02 13:24:38
    Is this guy for real? Give up our freedoms and let Obama decide what is righ...
    Charles R. Anderson
    Obama is not a constitutional law expert. He was not considered to be such by the regular faculty at the U. of Chicago, who thought him dull and lazy. I am more than a little tired of the many false, false credentials given this jerk.
  • Icanbean Arschloch 2013/01/01 21:19:03
    Icanbean  Arschloch
    Our schools produce these people and their ideology. It's time to clean out the trash from our schools.
  • jasmine1 2013/01/01 20:54:43
    Is this guy for real? Give up our freedoms and let Obama decide what is righ...
    There is an inaccuracy in your commentary. Barry was never a Constutional Law Professor. He may have taught a class at a law school but he was far from being a law professor. This is another erroneous fact he put in his biography. One fact he left out is that he is NOT allowed to practice law in the State of Illinois. Neither is Moochelle. There are new entries on the internet that say they just decided to give up their licenses because they were doing other things. The facts are they were asked by the Illinois Bar Association to give up their licenses or be disbarred. These undisclosed facts do NOT make him an expert on the Constitution. He is too lazy to be an expert on anything but Beyonce and JayZ.
  • Mike 2013/01/01 20:27:09 (edited)
    The US, slowly morphed into something other than our founders’ design thanks to Woodrow Wilson, in 1908, declaring our Unalienable Rights as “nonsense” (“Constitutional Government in the United States” by Woodrow Wilson, 1908). Later Norman Dodd’s goes on the record with G. Edward Griffin in 1982, where he mentioned events starting in 1908 supporting a change in our Nation, dismissing Thomas Jefferson’s principles found in our Declaration of Independence. The entire interview is interesting; the part about our Declaration of Independence is between 13:40 to 18:00.

  • Simmering Frog 2013/01/01 19:01:45
    Is this guy for real? Give up our freedoms and let Obama decide what is righ...
    Simmering Frog
    Why is this even being discussed?
  • Birthpangs Simmeri... 2013/01/01 19:09:26
  • Birthpangs 2013/01/01 18:41:48
  • cjj ~ F... Birthpangs 2013/01/01 18:45:40
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    The real question is how stupid do you think others are to transfer Seidman's ideology to Obama? Get real.
  • Birthpangs cjj ~ F... 2013/01/01 18:47:45
  • cjj ~ F... Birthpangs 2013/01/01 19:01:35 (edited)
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    And Thomas Jefferson supported periodically REWRITING the constitution every generation because he believed "the earth belongs to the living."
    Now what ya got to say?
  • Birthpangs cjj ~ F... 2013/01/01 19:09:18
  • cjj ~ F... Birthpangs 2013/01/02 07:17:38
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    Obviously you did not read it. Jefferson intended much more than just "amending" the constitution. Here we go again, helping a con with their homework. I should start charging you guys.

    "EVERY constitution, then, and EVERY law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right." ~ Thomas Jefferson

    Next time try actually READING it.
  • Birthpangs cjj ~ F... 2013/01/02 18:04:06
  • cjj ~ F... Birthpangs 2013/01/02 18:48:11
    cjj ~ FTGOP
    The point is that Jefferson DID agree with many of our "left-wing" ideas. It seems you are the one who has trouble with that, not I.
  • Birthpangs cjj ~ F... 2013/01/03 18:39:36

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/13 12:55:00

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals