NOTICE: This is an archived forum maintained only for search purposes.

Member services are being moved and revamped at

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Specifically for matters pertaining to natural law, organic law, fundamental law, constitutionalism, libertarianism, and related principles.

Unread post January 12th, 2013, 2:07 am
Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Countering Evilness, Hypocrisy, and Lunacy: Giving Up on Progressivism

Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocrities. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices, but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence and fulfills the duty to express the results of his thought in clear form.” —Albert Einstein (New York Times, March 19, 1940)


The following is in response to a progressivist/anti-constitutionist article (“Let’s Give Up on the Constitution”) that was recently written by Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman; his article is provided in-following.

In light of the article in reference, what I consider to be evil is when the author of a book charges $21.95 for a 176-page book that effectively elicits for subversion or sedition against core American fundaments; what I consider to be hypocritical is for a salaried individual, while also earning profits on the side, is meanwhile, actively insulting that very subject-matter for which they are being very well-paid to instill, as both an affinity and appreciation, within all of those highly impressionable students-in-higher-education of theirs; and what I consider to be lunacy is that such an individual has yet to have been terminated from their collegiate teaching position for violating that expectation of trust, professionalism and duty.

First it was Mr. Fareed Zakaria and his plethora of published run-revisionist-run books; then Mr. Akhil Amar with his book entitled: The Unwritten Constitution; and now most recently here cometh Mr. Seidman.

And while on the subject, what is it with all of these so-called ivy-league constitutional law professors and status quo media pundits coming out to deride the U.S. Constitution in a rather crude offensive? Is it at all possible that these individuals could actually be so inept within the profession that they have each received dignities to pursue; could they actually possess such a fundamental disregard or misunderstanding for what our U.S. Constitution truly represents? Moreover, why is it that they always seem to resort, immediately, to the concern of slave-ownership as the primary justification being supportive to their own warped arguments? Seriously, such sorted-tact and dependency should devise a new rules classification of corollaries, as under Godwin’s Rule.

Furthermore, why is it that most all attorneys argue baseless theorems that those governmentally empowered would never dare to graze their citizenry in a spitefully arrant fashion; and yet, historically this has been the case for virtually every single nation (including acts of mass-violence attributed to Western (neo)Colonialism), which has resulted in murder through campaigns of genocide and democide to astonishing sums, with well in excess of 220,000,000 individuals having been killed in the last century alone?

All of this makes me contemplate that surely there must be some secretive federal grant available to those that pump out such repugnantly propagandist nonsense!

Ergo, the fallacy of Mr. Seidman’s argument—for dropkicking our U.S. Constitution into nothing more than a tidy little footnote in history—is in his own contradictions.

The U.S. Constitution is not intended to manifest or solidify proper politicians; in that regard its only objective is to beset a pathway for which our politicians are to tread. It is for WE THE PEOPLE to ensure that those in possession of the public’s trust fully absorb the illumination cast upon them by that path—a pathway that is to remain well-traveled. As stated best by Thomas Jefferson: “Let no more be said about the confidence of men, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” and “Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day.

Mr. Seidman appears to have overlooked the fact that our U.S. Constitution merely enshrines the core principles within America’s Great Charter—the Declaration of Independence; hence, the birthright of every single American had been forged upon vellum into ubiquity over 236-years ago, not 225-years ago as a titularly convenience.

America’s charter document, the Declaration of Independence, embodies, through our U.S. Constitution, transcending maxims that are empirically proven, as having discerned vast meaningfulness within a prudent—Creator mindful—society. While, without the unrelenting presence of virtue, such does truly hold no other value, but to yield scorn and contempt in its place.

The fundaments of our Nation are not derivatives of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, but really are substantiated, doubly, by them both: “The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS.” —Alexander Hamilton


Concerning Article XIII of the repealed Articles of Confederation, providing for Amendments thereto, would have proved a virtual impossibility, especially considering such prodigiousness as has been achieved within its successor document (in comparison to Article V of our U.S. Constitution; and also to its own Article VII as to the following): “… nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.”

By-the-by, in followingArticle X of the Articles of Confederation, the U.S. Constitution had only required the votes of nine states for ratification (Article VII), because it was moving into the rule of supermajority (or qualified majority), requiring either a two-thirds or three-fourths majority vote as by what was to become our new—commonwealth—republic; and no longer a unanimous vote (or for that matter a simple majority).

In referring to our U.S. Constitution as an antiquated document, shall we next call for Massachusetts (and other postcolonial states) to scrap their State Constitutions as well? No, because the truth is that constitutions are timelessly enrooted through historical perspectives, by the aggregate of empirical experiences. They do not, as Mr. Seidman suggests, “antique”, which is, but a kinder word for being obsolete.

Much more noteworthy, is that the principles supportive to the framework of our Nation were largely adopted from English common law, including its antecedent, the Magna Carta (having been drafted first back in 1215 and much amended since), itself a document establishing human rights, as being equally inherent, within all freemen. So are we to actually believe that the U.S. Constitution has already become antiquated after merely a couple of centuries, when at the time of America’s founding it depended upon that very Great Charter (amongst other writings during the Age of Enlightenment, e.g., Bacon, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, Newton, Rousseau, Smith, Turgot, Vattel, Voltaire, etc.) as its ideal?

I call bollocks!

Really, what within humanity has actually changed between then and now? The answer is: nothing really, but of course external conveniences, e.g., advancements in healthcare, technology, and science; more effective means of communication and modes of travel; population growth and multiculturalism; large scale business transaction and interaction; roles within the family unit; etc. Nothing internally functioning about humans has provably changed; biologically there is no difference, individuals are exactly the same as they have always been. The full gambit of human emotion and necessity remain a presence, to varying degrees, within all sentient beings; be it: anger or fear, joy or sadness, surprise or anticipation, and trust or distrust; or our individual need for: understanding, subsistence, protection, participation, leisure, identity, freedom, creation, and affection.

Additionally, although a primitive form of constitutional fundamentalism, being vastly more crass and straightforward as a system of law (e.g., an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth), at least in comparison to present day standards, yet still we may look toward the Code of Hammurabi (1772 BC) and recognize its underlying ethical significances within the fundamentals of our own modernized society. Such is even clarified within its Preamble (in part): “Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; … to further the well-being of mankind.”

Now, how could anyone logically argue against the timelessness and transcendent proprieties of that? So, there it is, for it had been literally written in stone.

By the way, the Magna Carta, albeit uncodified, is considered (along with many other sacred texts; e.g., the (1689) English Bill of Rights) by the British as their constitution: “… Though the Charter still has not had the recognition that, in my view, it should have, as the first of a series of instruments that now are recognised as having a special constitutional status. They include the Habeas Corpus Act, the Petition of Right of 1627, (largely the work of Coke and very much influenced by Magna Carta), the Bill of Rights confirmed by the Crown and Recognition Act 1689 and the Act of Settlement 1700. …” —Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales (“Magna Carta: a precedent for recent constitutional change”, July, 15, 2005)


Why is it that Mr. Seidman desires to blame the House’s failure to act upon the Senate, for them serving in accordance with the U.S. Constitution? When in actuality, what our bicameral House is doing is instituting a farce over the hearts and minds of America’s masses. They are playing a political cat and mouse game. They are debating purely for show, as mere harlequins of distraction. They are shameless.

To edify, the primary reasoning (that remain: e.g., the Seventeenth (XVII) Amendment) as to why bills of revenue are to be generated in the House are: (1) the House is vastly more populated than the Senate and thereby better ensures that a more impartial attitude towards fiscal responsibility is maintained and that the interests of the people are upheld, and (2) the Senate generally consists of individuals whom are from vastly wealthier backgrounds than those in the House and would likely lend indifference to the middle and lower segments of society, whereas those in the House would be much less likely to.

While, in honesty, all of this “fiscal cliff” business is really designed to bluntly compel, through overt-force, the Cloward-Piven stratagem. Hence, as an advancing nation we have not been even remotely functioning on a laissez-faire (capitalist free-market) system. Presently, we are long-held under the egregious, crushing domination of pure crony-collectivist intentions that besieges neo-mercantilist corporatism, serving as bindings-of-fiat to enable the socialized redistribution of wealth, so as to effortlessly pass it from the now-to-have-nothing-at-alls onto the entitled-new-age-nobility that consists of nepotistic-aristocrats, robber-baron elitists, eugenicists and technocrats alike. This is very much about the planned degeneration of the proletariats and bourgeois (i.e., the inferior class or plebeian society), straight into a state of perpetual subjugation.

Effectively, it is intended to champion the downfall of America’s dominating stature of unchallengeable superiority to that of second-world status, in that China (for example) may rise, within the coming decades, as the new world superpower atop of America’s embers; and most importantly, so that presently third-world nations may also themselves arise to a higher status. This is really about bringing the economies of the world into a unifying alignment of perpetual harmony or achieving the envisioned utopia of the status quo. Well, that is at least in all outward appearances; however, this is all really a thoroughly planned charade designed to enveil from the mass-populaces, its true intentions. That is to institute invasive data-mining and damning population control on an unimaginable scale; to, through proxy, possess control, pricing, and distribution over the whole wealth and resources of the world; and to operate all nation-states under one unifying council (a de facto league-of-nations) that coordinates exacting rulings, regulations, policies, and enforcement-actions among designated regions and sub-regions all throughout the world.

While, socialism is but a polite initiation into collectivism, communism intends itself to be a much more aggressive, directed approach in achieving that very endgame. Such is the underlining agenda that the “greatness” in federally tax-exempted think-tanks is truly intended to oblige, which includes the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rockefeller Foundation, American Council of Learned Societies, Ford Foundation, etc. These foundations are actually serving to incestuously merge America beneath the auspices of communist-collectivism. (H. Res. 217, Reece Committee, 1953-1954.)

It needs to be realized, that whenever Mr. Barry Soetoro (i.e., President Barack H. Obama) speaks of wealthy America—rambling on and on about them—paying their fair share, everybody doing their part, etc., he is really meaning to include America’s middle and lower classes within that context, for they are in-fact themselves wealthy when compared to those in vastly less fortunate nations. Which is of course, aside from the obviousness that when one is ceaselessly dealing with trillion Dollar deficits, taxing only the rich, even steeply, will bring in only a miniscule sum of revenue and will additionally serve to sap America’s future grown in the process, thusly effecting a negative-growth potential for whatever remaining revenue streams that there might be.

All the while, such reconditeness in long-term agendas is being depicted right out in plain view. Being that it is all right there on the backside of the $1 talisman (By the by, have you ever noticed that there are no longer public United States Notes in circulation, only private—nonconvertible promissory notes—Federal Reserve Notes?), for example: besides its unfinished all-seeing-eye pyramid, included also as part of the Great Seal of the United States are: “E PLURIBUS UNUM” which is Latin for “one from many”; and on its other portion: “ANNUIT COEPTIS” being Latin for “he approves of the undertakings” and “NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM” also Latin for “New Order of the Ages”.

Perhaps more notable is that President Roosevelt (FDR) was a known Freemason (Honorary Grand Master of the Order of DeMolay), while varying mottos of Freemasonry include such irresponsible guff as “Ordo ab Chao” in Latin indicating: “order out of chaos” (Craft Masonry); “Ordo ab Hoc” meaning in Latin: “order out of this” (France Supreme Council of Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite); “Lux e Tenebris” translates from Latin into: “light out of darkness” (Scottish Rite); et al.


Concerning FDR’ New Deal, the fact that the Legislature allowed for the upstart of any portion of that agenda (e.g., nationalizing social justice programs, Executive Order (E.O. 6102) gold confiscation, abusive modes of taxation, etc.), let alone the entire context of it, while implementing blatant propaganda—i.e., the National Recovery Administration (NRA)—in shop and store windows all across America, and moreover the fact that FDR was able to overpower the will of the U.S. Supreme Court by sheer threat, as to their prior ruling, is nothing short of predominant in revealing the covert connections left to fester between those in government and robber-barons, secretive societies, think-tanks, and global interests.

The Great Depression was in-fact a manufactured prelude to the New Deal, being hell-bent on riving Americans by way of the Hegelian Dialectic (i.e., problem, reaction, solution). Whereas, the three “black days” of 1929 were actually coordinated strikes, having been setoff through a series of margin calls, which subsequently lead to a run on the banks (bank runs); this was all intended to greatly aggrandize Wall Street powerhouses such as the Rockefeller family, for example.

The scheme precipitating the Great Depression had resulted in the Glass–Steagall Act, which has since been repealed (1999), and thusly commenced the immediate breading of the real estate/house bubble of 2000-2006, leading into the Financial Crisis of 2007-present.

And hence: “Competition is a sin.” —John D. Rockefeller


Initially, I had presumed that Mr. Seidman was making a (desperate) plea to Con-Con for the ratification of something similar in context to the “Constitution of the Newstates of America” (Rexford G. Tugwell, THE EMERGING CONSTITUTION, Harper & Row, 1974); however, he is rather apparently, in his writing, advocating for America to move itself into a system of government that is essentially akin to that of a pure: (A) democracy (i.e., to rule by a vote of the majority), (B) demagogy (i.e., to rule through deceit and appeal to emotion), or (C) ochlocracy (i.e., to rule at the whim of mob-force); or perhaps, even precisely, (D) adhocracy (i.e., to rule without a foundation, to merely react to issues as they arise). When in reality, to implement such a system of non-constitutionalist governance, whereby, we no longer argue within the confines of an equitable structure, but otherwise by the impassioned discretions of a puristic collective, tomorrow you might awaken to find yourself living a vastly altered way of life; be it until one day, you are made into an outlaw, and the day after, into the vindicated, and within that, is the transposing of all reality into a surreal cycle of rudderless insanity. Apropos, no thank you, I declare.

Unfortunately, the America we are presently living in is not one of prosperity and wondrous amazement:

  • We have confined ourselves within a behemoth welfare-to-warfare state; now, with more than one-in-six families dependent upon government social justice (family aid) programs and one-in-four children participating in public food programs.
  • Jobless Americans are, as a last resort, filing for permanent disability in record numbers.
  • Our so-called “President” is engaging the U.S. Military in over six undeclared wars all across foreign soils of lesser developed nations (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen).
  • Our Congress stays mute, opting instead to debate over the planning of their next distraction.
  • Our Nation’s debt is continuously racking up its toll to surpass the next trillion Dollar marker.
  • Residences are going vacant, street lights are being stripped of their copper wiring, meanwhile our local, state, and federal “officials” and bureaucrats are either getting pay raises or are left to continue enjoying their overly indulgent six-figure salaries and ample perks all across the Nation.
  • The majority of Southwestern states and Florida are being overrun in population by illegal immigrants from both Mexico and Cuba.
  • Americans are being taxed more than ever before in history (man alive, not even vassals who were subjugated to the abuses of their lord’s knights had it anywhere near this bad).
  • We now have a monstrous governmental bureaucracy—the Department of Homeland Security (DHS/FEMA/TSA)—embedding itself into anything and everything, be it a school event; sporting event; a ride on an airplane, boat, bus, public highway, or subway whose sole intention is to literally invade your personal effects, to grope you down, and to irradiate you with a machine that is many times more powerful than what your dentist would use to x-ray your teeth (and in which case you are given at least a lead vest for protection, meanwhile the room is cleared of all dental staff).

Where his argument fails even further, is that if we are incapable of achieving reasonable agreements within a tangible framework, then neither could we do so, without the provisos provided by such a framework.


The U.S. Constitution did not invent slavery, for it had previously existed; as long as there has been history to reference, there has been slavery of one form or another. Slavery had long ago established itself as a social expectation, even during this respective period of American history. For the Framers of our newly independent Nation to have even made a hint or notion of abolition, would have served only to ensure the near-complete dissolution of the United States of America into a fractionalized nation of wholly independent states. So the goal of federalism, then, would have fizzled into total mootness.

Every other nation that has abolished their dependency on slavery had done so without the necessity of a civil war. The fact is that the ‘Emancipation Proclamation’ was itself incidental to the American Civil War, which had already been raging for approximately two-years prior to the issuance of President Lincoln’s executive decree; itself having been intended merely as a purposeful strategy to turn the tide of a losing (civil) war back into the favor of the Federal Army. In that this action would serve to transfer-over one of the primary advantages held by the Confederate Army, while at the same time greatly weakening them—and as it turned out, doing so worked well.

The primary concerns precipitating the events that lead to civil war, concerned: (1) the Southern states squabbling over statehood sovereignty—demanding rights of nullification for all undesired federal impositions upon the states—primarily due to encroaching federalism; (2) conflicts concerning established “free states” during America’s Westward expansion into newly acquired states; (3) Congress’ heavy imposition of taxes upon the manufactured products within the industrialized Northern states, effectively making it more costly for the Southern agricultural states to afford purchasing the finished goods of the once crude articles that they had been compelled to sell (cheaply) to the North in the first place; and (4) of course all of the talk of the Southern states seceding, largely due to the federal government alienating them as to the aforementioned points. It was this combination of factors that had served to kindle the future American Civil War. In fact, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas had already seceded from the Union prior to Abraham Lincoln having even taken office as a U.S. President.

While on the matter of slavery, in light of the American Civil War, the government in granting freedom to escaped slaves had intended only to restrict or ham-fist the forceful aspirations of the Southern states to continue expanding slavery and also to deny them secession from the Union; it was never (at least initially) intended to outright abolish slavery through a constitutional amendment or the like. Ultimately, the act of abolishing slavery, outright, served as finalizing insult to punish all of the Southern states that had seceded and waged war and death against the United States; and also as a reward to the newly freed slaves that had fought in battle against the Confederates. From a purely realist perspective, this has since effectively worked to propel our present society into a new indirect form of slavery, one of self-managing vassals held in reformed fiefdoms, without lending much, if any, consideration to gender, ethnicity, or age; e.g., children are made slaves to the faux public education system, while adults are made slaves to the usury compelled upon them through a fictional monetary system of debt-into-credit.

President Lincoln’s anti-slavery decree was one involving unusual circumstances, being that a large portion of states had departed from the Union, and he had very likely realized that his Army stood very little (to no) actual chance of success without the aid of additional manpower—or even cannon fodder; the situation was a dire one and the freeing of slaves brought forth much needed resolve to the predicaments of his time. So perhaps, as to this point, the abuse of his power was more a bourne of necessity than of righteousness.


Perhaps the justification for the Louisiana Purchase can be reasoned with the realization that the purchase was in large part a tactical move to avoid a potential war with France? In 1803 Thomas Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, which cost $15-million in exchange for over 800,000 square miles worth of unexplored lands, had also served to secure America’s access to a necessary exports port leading into the Gulf of Mexico, and additionally the whole of the Mississippi River. While at the time, the decision to arrange the purchase and secure a loan required haste, for Spain had sold the lands (in secret) to France, which resulted in cutting off America’s access to a necessary port located in New Orleans (for the port had just then been closed, including the right of merchants to make deposits, by the decree of the Spanish’ king—one could speculate at length as the coincidences of this all). And thusly, due mostly to France’s desperation to procure additional war funding, America was instantaneously doubled in size, along with realizing the bonus of securing it access to a necessary port, a great river, and a peninsula all for a mere 4-cents each to the American taxpayer (which is equal to about $1 in today’s inflated currency). Also worth mentioning is that Thomas Jefferson had happily justified that purchase, stating: “[B]y a reasonable and peaceable process, we have obtained in 4. months what would have cost us 7. years of war, 100,000 human lives, 100 millions of additional debt.” (Nathan Schachner, Thomas Jefferson: A Biography, Volume II, p. 736)


Ultimately, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 serve to prove the precise forms of soft-totalitarianism that those with power are willing to commence with no legitimate reasoning, but for prideful contemptuousness, or to justify their own efficacious means to an end; that individuals, given the “authorization”, may as-a-fact serve others fallibly or even virulently. This point is only further proven by other similar acts, such as the Espionage of 1917/Sedition Act of 1918. Moreover, it is through adjudication—including our immutable rights of: protest, redress, due process, (jury or state) nullification, suffrage, et al—that such legislative tyranny is to be quashed from public enforcement.

And lest we forget that in 1804 Vice President Aaron Burr challenged Secretary of Treasury Alexander Hamilton to a duel, which was due to Hamilton’s unrelenting defaming of Burr. The duel resulted in the mortal wounding of Alexander Hamilton, who passed away the next day. Clearly, our Forefathers did not tolerate guff, even amongst themselves.


To state it correctly, Thomas Jefferson had written that constitutions should expire every 19-years, not every generation. Within this proposition, holds many interesting considerations to be reasoned, while raising points that we can easily realize even today; although his notion would be highly impractical to actually implement. Perhaps the intent of his proposal was to follow the 72-year cycle of human progression/regression, or to ensure for a uniform purging of bureaucratic buildup, or just as a legislative relief-value of sorts. In any case, what Thomas Jefferson had most definitely underlined as by his tone, was clarifying in that, simply, our Nation’s posterity should not ever be confined by the actions, interests, or motivations of preceding governments. While, this was not intended to mean that the empirically infallible maxims represented in America’s founding documents are to be outright discarded, piecemealed, or waned by succeeding governments or later generations.

Also it should be clarified that Thomas Jefferson was very much an unacknowledged anti-federalist; however, he denied being either, although he did write that he was nearer to being federalist than anti-federalist. Mr. Jefferson (serving as the Ambassador to France at the time), along with many others, did not take part in the Constitutional Convention to craft what was to become our U.S. Constitution—though he did craft our charter document, the Declaration of Independence. That having been stated, Thomas Jefferson also held that federalism should remain preferentially weak and limited with consideration to the several states.


If our Legislature was the least bit honest, at all, they would have long ago informed the populace that it had been knowingly collecting federal income taxes in a manner never intended by breadth of the Sixteenth (XVI) Amendment. That they have been taking in far too much revenue per annum, permitting for more than $2.3-trillion to be converted from the pool of individual taxpayers, from their income-capital. And that our system of perpetually inflating currency is really but a very slick hidden tax being imposed upon the people that had never been authorized by Congress.

Our political system is not dysfunctional because of our U.S. Constitution or James Madison; it is so because whenever a phrase, such as ‘checks and balances’, ‘enumerated powers’, ‘necessary and proper’, 'probable cause', 'reasonableness', or ‘unalienable rights’ is uttered to the Legislature, they indiscriminately roll their eyes in apathetic disgust. Moreover, our system of government is broken because it has become infested thru-and-thru by communist-progressivism, and shameful paganism. Our Legislature has come to view our U.S. Constitution as being either wholly irrelevant or otherwise malleable to their fancy.

How convenient such is for the few governing in ascension over the rest of us?

Now of course, there will always remain small factions of individuals that are willing to subscribe to mantras of the ends justifying the means. Such has been known since Rome (preceding 43 BC) by Marcus Tullius Cicero: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. … A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” There they will go on about, diligently performing their covert tasks—sanctioned to remain under the radar by partisan tact—to realize their selfish goals, to then seize upon their own aggrandized opportunities. However, the U.S. Constitution, that is our constitution, is not a white elephant. It is in vast, desperate need of resuscitation, of restoration; it is not in any need, whatsoever, of repealing, radicalizing, or disobeying. In discarding the U.S. Constitution, you are as well, casting away our own Great American Charter—the Declaration of Independence.

Moreover, if this is not about the upholding of our most basic of laws, which are fundamental and natural, then what is the point of any of this? For we exist indigent within an oceanic capriciousness, if yet of petulant relativity.

Still perhaps, a bit of humor may be found in the incongruity of this all, in that the very document they (e.g., neo-liberals, political leftists, progressives, etc.) loath so very much is as well that which empowers their professional existence, having come to provide them with vast personal enrichment and domineering authoritarianism.

Clearly, we all should begin reflecting as to why the whole of our representatives in government have, rather than coming to revere the fundaments of our United States of America, opted instead to denigrate it; and truly, is it any small-wonder as to why we, as individuals, have become so immorally lost inside of our supposed modernist egalite? Perhaps, resolve is to be found in a revised mantra, for it has been adequately stated, if you do not stand for something, you shall fall for anything.

In closing, seriously, if by whatever chance, any of our Forefathers were to walk into the White House, one of three things would very likely happen: (A) they would instantaneously die from a burst artery after coming to realize the arbitrary horror of dependency and democratic subjugation that has metastasized throughout their envisioned United States of America; (B) they would be immediately shot and killed by two-dozen Secret Service agents, as they exclaimed “Back to Britain, all of you treasonous traitor Tories!” and shot-dead every single disgraceful government official found cowering throughout the White House; or (C) they would be assassinated immediately by a CIA, NSA, or Pentagon ordered unmanned drone strike for posing a risk to national security and being a known domestic terrorist.

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.

Frederic Bastiat (The Law , “Let Us Now Try Liberty”, 1850)


The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

Thomas Jefferson

Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations; but, on a candid examination of history, we shall find that turbulence, violence, and abuse of power, by the majority trampling on the rights of the minority, have produced factions and commotions, which, in republics, have, more frequently than any other cause, produced despotism. If we go over the whole history of ancient and modern republics, we shall find their destruction to have generally resulted from those causes.

James Madison

Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.

John Adams

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.

James Madison

Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.

Thomas Jefferson

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Op-Ed Contributor Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN | Published: December 30, 2012

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. 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?

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)

In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on.

The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore — should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong.

IN the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine. The Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text.

The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity. And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.

What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.

If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

If even this change is impossible, 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.

Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 31, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.

SOURCE: ... =all&_r=1&

Weston White Lead Researcher

Lead Researcher
User avatar

Location: Fresno, California

Finally, after working on this retort for close to two-weeks, I have completed the PDF revision. Please enjoy! :D
Countering Evilness, Hypocrisy, and Lunacy: Giving Up on Progressivism
(138.67 KiB) Downloaded 1348 times

Return to The Constitutionalist's Fundamental