Death Toll Revised Down to 24 After Monstrous Oklahoma Tornado…100+ Injured…Children Among the Dead…Stunning Pictures…Woman Finds Dog During Interview!

Complete Oklahoma Tornado Coverage: Current Death Toll, Incredible pictures, Behind the scenes with Beck, & amazing story of a woman and her dog

Business

Here’s Why This Constitutional Law Professor Thinks America Should ‘Give Up the Constitution’

Dec. 31, 2012 12:07pm Becket Adams

Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, has a simple plan for getting the U.S. back on track: Let’s give up the Constitution.

No, really. That’s the title of his New York Times op-ed. His basic argument is that America is not in a perilous financial crisis because of simple, vapid, and dishonest little men. The U.S. is in trouble because of our unreasonable adherence to an outdated document.

“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,” writes Seidman.

An example of “evil” provisions? The insistence on the part of some that all spending bills originate in the House and not in the Senate.

Georgetown University Constitutional Scholar Louis Michael Seidman Says Its Time we Give up on The Constitution

The facade of the National Constitution Center illuminated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. (Mark Makela/Corbis)

“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?” he asks.

Tell me more!

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?

All the buzzwords are there: White, land owners, men, etc. Actually, now that we think about it, it’s rather remarkable that after teaching constitutional law for 40 years he thinks this “white propertied men” argument is original.

Seidman goes on to argue that the Constitution was born of rebellion and that the founders violated it regularly, including John Adams who supported the Alien and Sedition Acts and Thomas Jefferson who believed that “every constitution should expire after a single generation.”

“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,” he writes.

“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,” he adds.

“The U.S. Constitution” (Sara Kiesling)

Seidman disagrees with the idea that digression from the document will lead to chaos, noting that “our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.”

He does, however, note that there are certain things reaffirmed in the Constitution that we should never digress from, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection under the law, adding that these things should be observed out of respect and 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,” he writes.

“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,” he adds.

(Alex Wong/Getty Images)

So what’s his argument going forward?

“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,” he writes. “And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country.”

Seidman concludes:

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.

And that, Blaze readers, is his argument for why we should give up the Constitution. Sound like a plan?

Follow Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) on Twitter

Featured image courtesy Getty Images.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (336)

chucksue351
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:34pm
the separation of power is the fundamental provision of the us constitution, it has served us well and should not be tampered with by tyrannical thinking no nothings at some university, we can serve the country better by not allowing parties to undermine the country

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- booger71
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:49pm
  Louis Michael Seidman, Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein & Pamela S. Karlan, Constitutional Law (New York: Aspen Publishers 6th ed. 2009).
  =============
  Ties with Cass Sunstein and he came from Chicago, how odd
  
  Report this comment
- 1776freedomofspeech
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:54pm
  @CHUCKSUE351
  
  Nice Kung Fu, ChuckSue!
  
  Report this comment
- 1776freedomofspeech
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:55pm
  @BOOGER
  
  Cass is involved, the plot thickens…..
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:02pm
  Booger – Interesting pseudonym…
  “Ties with Cass Sunstein and he came from Chicago, how odd…”
  
  Coincidence, my man, merely a coincidence…
  
  Report this comment
- banjarmon
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:10pm
  We have a Dysfunctional political system BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT ADHERED TO THE CONSTITUTION!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Dkoonz
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:27pm
  Shows how much trouble this country is in when you have teachers like this filling the heads of the young with garbage.
  
  Report this comment
- Walkabout
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:32pm
  booger71
  Nice catch on the Seidman / Sunstein link :)
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:35pm
  Here is a Quote for this Nescient “Professor”
  
  “All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in our Constitution; not from want of honour or virtue, so much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
  – President John Adams
  
  This Constitutional Law Professor may be formally educated about LAW, but he is a clueless idiot otherwise.
  
  The reason our Country faces Peril is that we allowed a Central Bank to issue and controls our Currency:
  
  “If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency (instead of Congress), first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. The issuing power of money should be taken from the banks and restored to Congress and the people to whom it belongs.”
  – Thomas Jefferson
  
  “This [Federal Reserve Act] establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President Wilson signs this bill, the INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT of the monetary power will be legalized….the worst legislative crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill. From now on, depressions will be scientifically created.”
  
  INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT ???
  – Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913
  
  Report this comment
- Bobert
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:41pm
  There is a lawful means to change the clear language of The Second Amendment. There is a lawful means to ensconce a right to health care in the Constitution. There is a lawful means to make illegal the use of recreational drugs (we once understood this with alcohol and then ignored it — for expedience.) There is a lawful means to constrain the 4th Amendment and make being groped by the TSA legal. There is a lawful means to constrain your right to travel using the common means of the day. There is a lawful means to arrest and hold a US citizen indefinitely without trial.
  
  That lawful means is to amend The Constitution. If you don’t like it, amend it, or deal with it . . or move to a country that doesn’t use a Constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:41pm
  INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT ???
  
  “Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”
  ― Theodore Roosevelt
  
  “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed (Reserve) to conceal its powers but the truth is — the Fed has usurped the government!”
  – Congressman Louis McFadden, Chairman of House Comm. on Banking and Currency from 1920 to 1931
  
  “The Federal Reserve is one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever seen. There is not a man within the sound of my voice who does not know that this Nation is run by the international bankers.”
  – Congressman Louis T. McFadden
  
  “The real truth of the matter is that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”
  – President FDR
  
  JFK was going to put a stop to all of this Madness.
  Executive order #11110 is why they killed him:
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYVCIdrcS6k
  
  Report this comment
- Wolf
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:52pm
  “…our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.”…”
  
  Yah, sure it has: we’re having the Fiscal Cliff today because we adhered to the Constitution’s principles of economy and foreign entanglements.
  
  Communist Morons like Seidman are just jumping out of the woodwork.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:57pm
  I am going to give some of you a key.
  
  THE KEY !!!!
  
  Some of you have eyes, but will not see it. Some of you have ears, but will not hear it.
  
  What I am getting ready to tell you, This Law professor knows.
  Most all lawyers know, and Most all politicians know.
  
  THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO KNOW THIS !!!
  
  This puts my life at risk, disclosing this simple information:
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  The Government is a TRUST !!!!!!
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  
  Before I continue, check this substantiation:
  
  “Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees. And both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people.”
  – Henry Clay
  
  (Henry Clay, Sr. (April 12, 1777 – June 29, 1852), was a lawyer, politician and skilled orator who represented Kentucky in both the Senate and in the House of Representatives. He served three different terms as Speaker of the United States House of Representatives and was also Secretary of State from 1825 to 1829. He lost his campaigns for president in 1824, 1832 and 1844.)
  
  WE the PEOPLE are the GRANTORS
  
  WE the PEOPLE are the BENEFICIARIES.
  
  ALL public officers and Gov’t employees are TRUSTEES.
  
  BY LAW, a TRUSTEE can NOT administrate authority over a Beneficiary.
  
  BY LAW, a TRUSTEE shall (must) follow the orders of the GRANTORS and they must follow the rules of the trust, which are the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLyhQqRJ7Oc
  
  Report this comment
- Cavallo
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:57pm
  “He does, however, note that there are certain things reaffirmed in the Constitution that we should never digress from, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equal protection under the law, adding that these things should be observed out of respect and not “obligation.”
  
  Why? Aren’t they also outdated ideas? Why with freedom of speech we can’t limit what can be said against the State on the internet , hate speech laws must be limited to sentencing rather than proactive prosecution. And why.. we violate the equal protection under the law constantly, so we should just get rid of that as well right? We must live in the expedience of the moment and consider the blowing of the wind to make our decisions. Imagine all The State would accomplish without the need for due process, warrants of search and seizure, and rules against ex post facto and bills of attainder! Ultimately, Seidman is frustrated that his kind of legislation is stymied by a founding contract. He wishes for freedom for himself and others like him but desires to have in chains others who do not share his political philosophy. He is a fascist, like most “academics”.
  
  Report this comment
- Trigus
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:03pm
  Another Mentally Challenged Person living in a bubble. Lets Ask Abe Lincoln what he thinks:
  
  “We the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts–not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
  Abraham Lincoln
  or
  “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.”
  Patrick Henry
  or
  “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.” Thomas Jefferson
  
  THE OATH
  
  I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
  
  5 U.S.C. §3331
  
  Seidman should be charged with Treason.
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:06pm
  @BOBERT
  
  Instead of Making an odious comment, I am going to assume you are just uneducated on these matters.
  
  The Constitution can NOT be amended with Laws that contradict The Constitution.
  
  To Make it Simple, They can NOT make amendments that Violate my ( Beneficiary to this Estate and Corp. called the United States) right to free speech, privacy, a gun or weapon, a fair trial amongst my peers or my ability to seek redress from the Trustees (Government).
  
  Learn Trust Law before you bloviate a retort.
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:18pm
  What Constitution, you mean that piece of paper that has been trampled for the last 100 years and the behest of the progressive communist?!? Progressivism is what has done this to our country, by taking away from the constitution, too many freaking laws and regulations have been passed giving more and more power to DC and it’s henchmen! Time to take a stand and RESTORE the Constitution, and remove ALL of these progressive ‘laws’ that have been passed, starting with the progressive income tax! Screw you commies, MOLON LABE!!! We are coming to restore Freedoms you have taken away, our streets will be awash in blood, and it will be on the heads of progressive career politicians. I don’t see a way around this sad fact, as I’ve read so many comments lately that people are fed up with the status quo of communism/fascism in America. I make no threats to anyone, just my observations…however, come to take my 2nd amendment rights away, and you shall pay dearly, plus my worldly troubles will be over anyway! I thumb my nose a the powers that be TODAY!
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:53pm
  I am a PROBIEMSOIVER ;)
  
  Report this comment
- RabidPatriot
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:54pm
  That damn Constitution and its pile of negative rights. Just prevents the government from inflicting… um no I mean imposing… um no that’s not it either… from controlling all those we deem harmful to the greater good… um no. It handcuffs the government and prevents the government from properly caring for those that are of the greatest need, like cute little children and puppies. If you disagree you are a right wing spree mass murdering racist.
  
  Report this comment
- docvet
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 3:17pm
  BENJARMAN: That pretty much sums it up. Thanks.
  
  An additional thought: So we change the consitition with all the resulting unintended consequences, and 225 years from now in about 2240, they look back and decide, “Crap, the founding fathers had it right. Now what are we going to do?”
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 4:11pm
  So when do we grab the rope and start the lynching? I’m so done with these people i coulod spit. Time for talking is over and no one seem’s to see this. When you take an oath to uphold the Constitution and you don’t and instead advocate that it or some part’s be romoved it’s time to grab some rope and start makeing an example out oh them.http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/
  
  Report this comment
- vpeva1
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 4:13pm
  Why change it? It has given people FREEDOM! It’s the best thing that has happened to a land organized by some of the smartest men who will ever walk it. Those who don’t like that have a different agenda that I want NOTHING to do with.
  
  Report this comment
- bamanana
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 4:54pm
  He would be better served if he was a Koran professor or a Marxist but to claim that you are a constitutional professor is disgusting to say the least. You sir & others like you are the reason our country is on the verge of collapse.
  
  Report this comment
- Wolfgang the Gray
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 5:38pm
  If the left and the “educated” college professors like this guy want to live without the Constitution, we can allow them to take the liberal states & become their own country. The conservatives states can deport the liberals living there to the liberal states & vice versa. Then we can see which country runs better. One will suck the life from the successful people to provide for the lazy while the other lets everyone pull their own weight & contribute to their own successes. I would wager the liberal states would be bankrupty, corrupt, & falling apart, while the conservatives states would be returning to the morals our founders cherrished, one nation under God.
  
  Report this comment
- desertspeaks
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 7:52pm
  I’m not sure about georgetown university but college professors are employed by the state they are in and they are obliged to take an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the united states as well as the constitution of the state.
  “I (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
  defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,
  foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
  the same; that I take this obligation freely without any mental
  reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully
  discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So
  help me God.”
  Either the professor’s at georgetown university don’t take an oath of office or this particular professor is in breach of his oath and has committed perjury! Perjury in most jurisdictions is a FELONY!
  Juramentum est indivisibile, et non est admittendum in parte verum et in parte falsam. An oath is indivisible, it cannot be in part true and in part false.
  
  Report this comment
- Deb C
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 8:43pm
  Oh yea and that other thing thats soooo old…THE BIBLE. Something is making these nutz jump on that bandwagon…sure wish I knew what it was…
  
  Report this comment
- Becks_Art_Obama_In_PeePee
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 9:21pm
  “Here’s Why This Constitutional Law Professor Thinks America Should ‘Give Up the Constitution’”
  
  No. Here’s why:
  “BECK-EXPOSED Revolution COMING TRUE! :: Leftist Violence, Socialist Vitriol, Democrat Repression!!”
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71AyPh9RPhc
  “BOTTOM UP, TOP DOWN, INSIDE OUT? That’s marxist revolutionary strategy caught on video as explained by Obama’s White House “czar” and proud communist Van Jones. The Progressives (communists) Democrats in Congress let it slip when they fawned over the “socialized health care” legislation they forced through Congress … the culmination of 100 years of effort, they gloated. The New York Democrat who said that couldn’t have been too much over sixty. 100 years? That sounds like an ongoing conspiracy from the early spread of communism from the 1900′s (Woodrow Wilson and FDR).”
  
  Report this comment
- danger08
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 9:45pm
  @Bobert, those take to long. It’s much easier to do it by decree. These so-called representatives(and their ilk) either don’t care about the oath they took or are to weak to stand up for what they pledged to protect. They are about to push their agenda across a red line. Not the politically correct, strongly worded letter from DC Red line. This a red blooded, gun toting, don’t tread on me, pissed off American red line. I hope the people wake up and end it before it comes to bloodshed. Otherwise, as I read on another post, it could make the civil war look like a skirmish.
  
  Report this comment
- Techcon
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 9:59pm
  Let me get this straight:
  
  We are where we are because we’ve followed the Constitution RELIGIOUSLY, having never changed it, having never ignored it, having never replaced it with case law?
  
  That’s what he wants us to believe?
  
  Don’t you love how he would keep the parts HE likes.
  
  Just how stupid is this guy? Sounds like a Spoiled Brat to me.
  
  @encinom-an thinks we should get rid of 2 + 2 = 4 “…’cause it’s old and outdated.”
  
  Hey STUPID, the Constitution is a basic blueprint against TYRANNY, ya know, that thing you BRATS are for?
  
  Report this comment
- Lamarr01
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 12:04am
  What part of the constitution is the senate violating tonight?
  
  U.S. Constitution – Article 1 Section 7
  
  All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
  
  The Senate is proposing and voting on a Revenue Bill tonight.
  
  Report this comment
- TeslanEdison
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 2:44am
  Yes let us re do the constitution and make illegal all forms of state secrecy, corporate and political lobbying in any shape or form. Lets use modern technology and force old timey elections out of existence, make participation in the government accessible to a much wider public via internet structured in a manner to make it less capable of control by special interests and minorities. Yes make ID a requirement to vote, and give rewards for ideas frequent useful and beneficial to the public. No more lifetime + a lifetime intellectual property, you get 10 years that’s it if you can’t monetize it that’s so sad for you, in this day an age it doesn’t take 20 years for a product to reach market. Royalties is one thing patent blocking is another. I really think if the liberals considered all of the ways they tread upon the constitution to guarantee their ability to remain elite while promoting green ideals they wouldn’t think of changing a thing. The criminality of the current situation suits them quite well, and fills their pockets with loads of cash from the wildly stupid sheeple following the POP culture. Wake up sheeple they make money every-time you do what they say. If you know what insider trading is, this is insider dictating.
  
  Report this comment
- bigbear_awake
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 8:08am
  http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/an-open-letter-to-the-united-states-of-america/
  American Flags SC An Open Letter To The United States Of America
  
  Dear America,
  
  The man in the White House is assaulting our constitution.
  
  How much of OUR constitution has he desecrated? What can be done to stop him?
  
  America, you must get involved! This is just like WWI and WWII! The American media weakened our desire to win the Korean and Vietnamese “conflicts”, but now is the time to fight for our children and our way of life.
  
  First, do you believe there is a GOD? If so, you should be aware that you will be called on to give an account of what you as a candidate and then as a member of congress have voted on in our political arena.
  
  Have you considered what a child must go through for an abortion?
  
  Remember, you will stand before GOD and give an account for your voting record in both houses and the Presidency. View the silent scream before you respond. That is what a child goes through for an abortion.
  
  We are responsible before GOD if you are a believer and responsible to the United States of America’s constitution, whether or not you do believe in it.
  
  I understand the majority of American citizens want to stop abortion.
  
  How much does an abortion cost? That’s a good second thought; naturally, the child should be the first. I believe that stopping a human heart is murder unless the heart is stopped by GOD; therefore, abortion is murder. We have been murderi
  
  Report this comment
- Thomas
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 9:12am
  I agree lets give it up just long enough to get rid of all these Communist and Socialist in this country like the guy who is saying this. Then we can return to the constitution.
  
  Report this comment
- themediamatrixhasyou
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 9:55am
  I love it. When a democrat is in office it’s “lets give up on the constitution,” but when there is a republican is in office everything is unconstitutional. Ex: Iraq war had congressional approval, Libya didn’t. Bush warrantless wire tapping illegal, Obama wiretapping is okay. Patriot act is illegal under Bush, it’s fine under Obama. Enemy combatants are entitled to constitutional protections five years ago, Obama assasinated an American Citizen with a drone.
  
  Watch, the next time we have a republican president they’ll be calling Obama Care unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
- Lotus503
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 11:57am
  The separations of power in the Constitution was invalidated in 1913 with the passage of the 17th Amendment. We have Senators only have to answer to their constituents once every six years and are totally unaccountable to the States they are supposedly representing the remainder of the time.
  
  That’s not separation of power…that’s dictatorial!
  
  Report this comment
- old white guy
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 2:02pm
  1776, is cass is involved the plot sickens.
  
  Report this comment
- fordfan
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 2:36pm
  Ever wonder why the left pushes so frickin’ hard for every young mind to have a college education? Well, here it is. The institutes of higher learning are slam full of these morons like this professor teaching their propaganda and now, 40 years later, we’re reaping what they have sown. Pay very close attention to what your kids are learning!
  
  Report this comment
- richfriedel
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 3:34pm
  And here is how His thinking will win out. To this end I ask you are you an “American” ? If your answer is YES, (and only you know the truth) then let me say this; “America” is a set of continents divided into 2, “North and South America”. I live in “North America” with 25 independent sovereign states, (Antigua… Canada… Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama… United States, 25 in all) in the “United Sates of “AMERICA”". The fact that our countries name is the “United States of America” serves as evidence that our country is a compact of “independent sovereign States” (50 at last count) agreeing to work in a “united” effort to some end. My point if you missed it is that for at least the last 110 years there has been a systematic war of “Disinformation” of what I call smoky truth working to ERASE the FACT that I’m 1st a “MONTANAN” (one of the 50) which by that fact makes me a citizen of the “United States of America” and not just any “American” because, if I am just any “American” then are not citizens of say “Mexico” “American”? or say citizens of El Salvador “American” ? This is a systematic an purposeful effort to erase the foundation of identity of who we are and why my State (Montana) and our Country (United States of America) was founded. To this end makes the compact (Constitution of the United States of America) become less important to the idea we are all Citizens of the WORLD and should not believe ourselves to be any different then any o
  
  Report this comment
- MLeo
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 4:41pm
  @Booger71: Great catch.
  
  BTW, here’s a classic.
  
  ***Michael Moore’s New Year’s Resolution: “Stop Saying, ‘I Support the Troops.’ I Don’t”***
  
  More of the Left’s left overs who are past their sell-by date.
  
  Report this comment
- piper60
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 5:49pm
  University professors are among the last people on earth entitled to dictate governmental norms to a free society. Thy live their lives under the heels of an unelected and it particularly come tent self-sustaining aristocracy of “administrators whose guiding principle is figuting out how to do whatever it wants without running afoul of the law.
  
  Report this comment
- SELECT
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 6:12pm
  the liberals teaching our kids and grandkids are what is wrong with America; not the Constitution!!!! please take the time to read this: http://vimeo.com/52009124
  
  Report this comment
- ChefBen
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 12:35am
  This is just insane. We should enforce the law out of respect and not obligation? Is this guy smoking crack? When you put the enforcement of law, and the distribution of justice in the hands of individuals, you give them the freedom to interpret those laws as they see fit, and not in the manner which best benefits the populace. You get latino’s more harshly enforcing the laws against others, while being more lenient towards their own ethnic group, same for blacks, and whites, and asians, it creates a complete separation of classes and cultures. As a result that fragmentation of society DIVIDES the country. It seems more to me like this “scholar” as I’m sure he’d consider himself would also prefer to abolish the term limit on presidents. Since it also sounds like he’s against elections, I wonder who would appoint the president.
  
  If anything the system we have needs to change in that we add term limits to our congressmen (being an elected REPRESENTATIVE) should not be a lifetime occupation. How can you represent any constituency when you LIVE outside of that constituency? Shouldn’t residence be where you live the majority of your time? According to that, after one term in office, no president or congressman is from anywhere else but Washington D.C. We also need to pass a bill that bans adding any additional funding for anything other than what a bill is proposed for. No more adding educational funding on a military budget, or slipping in money for this or that under
  
  Report this comment
- miboso
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 2:47pm
  I guess that he never considered that we are having the problems we are because the Constitution is NOT being followed. Oh well, you can lead a man to knowledge, but you can’t make him think!
  
  Report this comment
- Myopinionis
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 5:45pm
  There are provisions in the Constitution to make changes in it. The framers understood that concept. What makes me so mad is the progressives use every angle possible to change it without an amendment, or due process.
  
  Report this comment
- dmerwin
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:51pm
  The real reason.
  It stops the “radical reform” necessary to move “Forward”. If the shoe was on the other foot he would be the last defender of the constitution. Ask him if the house, senate and White House were in GOP hands or, god forbid, teapartiers would he be so quick to dismiss the constitution.
  
  Report this comment
GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:33pm
So….

Decades of evil people subverted and ran end runs around the Constitution to enact wholly evil laws, and the problem, according to this wonder boy, is that we have the Constitution to begin with?

I’ll bet he really has some kind of fetish for being in handcuffs and manacles.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- AllLost
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:36pm
  Decades of lawyers who have been taught by lawyers like this one have moved our country away from the Constitution.
  
  Lawyers don’t learn how to obey the law, but how to twist it through language to their own means.
  
  Our government has a very tenuous respect fro the rule of law and many times only play lip service to the Constitution.
  
  What brass these guys have to think they are smarter than the like of Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams.
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:51pm
  Every nation derives meaning and purpose from some unifying quality—an ethnic character, a common religion, a shared history.
  
  The United States is different. America was founded at a particular time, by a particular people, on the basis of particular principles about man, liberty, and constitutional government.
  
  The American Revolution drew on old ideas. The United States is the product of Western civilization, shaped by Judeo-Christian culture and the political liberties inherited from Great Britain.
  
  Yet the founding of the United States was also revolutionary. Not in the sense of replacing one set of rulers with another, or overthrowing the institutions of society, but in placing political authority
  in the hands of the people.
  
  There are essentially 2 ways spelled out for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.
  
  1st is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a 2/3 majority in each. Once passed in both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically 7 yrs) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
  
  The 2nd is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by 2/3 of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These are then sent to the states to be approved by 3/4 of the legislatures or conventio
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:52pm
  - cont’d –
  This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
  
  Regardless of which of the 2 proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by 3/4 of states.
  
  The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
  
  • Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
  • Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
  • Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
  • Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
  
  Third option… KISS OFF AND MOVE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY !
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:59pm
  Hello Mr. Jefferson… We have a lot in common…
  I have been studying your work for a couple of generations and look forward to learning more from you and your fellow patriots…
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:00pm
  Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams were not gods, but flawed men. Their opinions should act only as guides to be considered and not handcuff the present and future to a past 200 years ago. History did not stop when the Constitution was ratified and their are other lessons to learn. The 2nd Amendment is a relic of an era that is no longer, yet the gun lobby and gun makers have sold fear and paranoia to a minority of Americans, staining the country with the blood of, often young gun victims.
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:07pm
  @U.S. Constitutionist
  
  So those the freedom of the Press include bloggers, what about free speechover phones or on the internet. These technologies were not conceived of at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified so do new Amendments need to be created to address new technologies? The founders were smart enough to be vague and leave much of the Constitution up for interpetation. What does Interstate Commerce mean, when a person in California can connect to a internet router in Texas to order a product from a company based in Utah and shipped from a warehouse down the street. Is the Airforce unconstitutional, what about NASA?
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:09pm
  So MR(?) Encicom what are you proposing?
  
  Popular Amendment – One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution, and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the Constitution.
  Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed Amar’s book, The Constitution: A Biography.
  
  The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people.
  
  Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change?
  
  As Wilson noted in 1787, “… the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:17pm
  (Mr?) encinom – “So those the freedom of the Press include bloggers, what about free speechover phones or on the internet.”
  
  Remember that the constitution is a marvel of BREVITY and CLARITY. Especially CLARITY.
  Interpretations, yes… hence court decisions on their interpretation. Next question?
  
  Report this comment
- Silversmith
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:17pm
  I’m with you Ghost, The constitution works just fine – it’s all those who have tried to change, subvert, and nullify it’s function that have created what is untenable.
  
  It is really time to clean house legislatively speaking.
  
  Silversmith
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:40pm
  encinom – “ What does Interstate Commerce mean, when a person in California can connect to a internet router in Texas to order a product from a company based in Utah and shipped from a warehouse down the street.”
  
  The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states, and with the Native American tribes.
  
  Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to the Congress of the United States.
  
  It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as “the Foreign Commerce Clause”, “the Interstate Commerce Clause”, and “the Indian Commerce Clause”, each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.
  
  Dispute exists as to the range of powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. As noted, the clause is often paired with the Necessary and Proper Clause, the combination used to take a broad, expansive perspective of these powers. Many strict constitutionalists deny that this is the proper application of the Commerce Clause.
  
  Report this comment
- Zipit
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:40pm
  Take it away boy’s! We will then be nothing more than say, “France”, er Encinom! i.e.; weak, feeble, small minded, cowards ultimately! European socialism is not something we should aspire to!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- Popp40
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:44pm
  @Encinom…you claim the 2nd admen. is a relic….so are you telling me protecting oneself is a relic or the possiblity of our government becoming a tryannical government is a relic as well?
  
  We all know that your dream is for the government to control everything and tell us what to do, when to do, how to do it, where to do it, and I would say why to do it but our current government doesn’t want us to think for ourselves so they don’t need to tell us why. The only thing I am left to wonder is which group do you belong to…..do you belong to the elitist government officials who think they are smarter than everyone and believe they are destined to rule over us (you know the common folk/peasants) or are you one of the mindless slaves who needs to be told everything and wants the government to take care of you all your life?
  
  Report this comment
- BlackCrow
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:10pm
  It is not sporting to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Being as this liberal troll has already surrendered his second amendment rights he is unarmed.
  
  Report this comment
- Publius Duo
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:14pm
  There you go again Encinom. The framers did not purposefully make the Constitution ambigious, if you read The Federalist Papers, you would understand this. Are you one of these nutty professors that are trying to tell us things about the Constitution that are incorrect so you can convince us that the Constitution is “antiquated and needs to be changed” to fit your agenda?
  
  Report this comment
- Unix
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:26pm
  Good on ya Ghost! Spoken like a true man! Restore the constitution is the answer! Repeal all the progressive laws written to control us…tax law, Patriot Act, NDAA, Dodd-Fwank, Obamacare, etc…to name just a few!
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:27pm
  Remember that the constitution is a marvel of BREVITY and CLARITY.
  Especially CLARITY !
  
  Report this comment
- michaelmoron
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:51pm
  @U.S.CONSTITUTIONIST
  
  “As Wilson noted in 1787, “… the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them.”
  
  ~~~~~~~~~
  
  That is simple. Because the PEOPLE are the Grantors of this trust. The Grantors Make the rules of the Trust. We allowed the trustees to “represent us” and make amendments to the rules of the trust.
  They F#@k@d up !!!! We F#@k@d up by allowing trustees to accept bribes from corporations and Banksters and amend rules of the trust.
  BUT….. We the GRANTORS can fire the TRUSTEES at ANY TIME and immediately rewrite the Rules of the Trust.
  This is why our founding Fathers said we can “throw off such a Government”.
  
  By telling people how the government worked, without telling them outright that the Government was a TRUST, it worked to their advantage. It gave them an edge over the people.
  As fiduciary trustees they, in good faith, had to tell the beneficiaries the truth in a round-about way.
  
  It is to the Lawyers and Politicians advantage that the people not know about the TRUST, because then the PEOPLE realize how much power they really have.
  
  Report this comment
- 1TrueOne55
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 3:16pm
  @ALLLOST: I agree with you our founding Fathers had more education than any of these Bobble Heads in our Colleges today that make a claim of being a Profressor. Definition of a Professor is some one who speeks whether they have understanding or not. Apparently he has not the understanding that God gave to our founders because were better read than this grey haired yokel.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 3:35pm
  if the government is not going to follow the existing U.S. Constitution, let us at least make a new Constitution that will be followed.
  
  Currently, we have a government that does not follow any rules – which is lawlessness
  
  Report this comment
- RepubliCorp
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 4:01pm
  ” 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.” in other words ” have you hugged a commie”
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 4:11pm
  1TrueOne55
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 3:16pm
  @ALLLOST: I agree with you our founding Fathers had more education than any of these Bobble Heads in our Colleges today that make a claim of being a Profressor. Definition of a Professor is some one who speeks whether they have understanding or not. Apparently he has not the understanding that God gave to our founders because were better read than this grey haired yokel.
  _________________________
  Another member of the cult of the Founders. The Founders did not receive magically understanding from some sky diety, they were men, some educated, some not all with the same flaws as men today. The Constitution was not written by the hand of the divine, but by these imperfect men in order to create a more perfect union. It is doubtful that these men of reason and enlightenment would want future generation to be slaves to 18th Century understandings and ideas. Its the ignorant, the lazy and the con men that belong to this cult, that refuse acknowledge two centuries of history after the ratification of the Constitution. The words of founders are helpful, but not law themselves.
  
  Report this comment
- civilwarcometh
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 4:40pm
  Hey SOY you want a new Constitution? Then go get your own country and make one but leave mine alone!!!!!!!
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 4:55pm
  @Enicom
  
  Given your inability to spout anything but party dogma, you are the epitome of flawed. Your words, your reasoning, your very presences here is irrelevant. Your life simply serves as a warning to others on how not to act, if one wishes to be a free, independent human being.
  
  Take your cultish dogma somewhere else kid.
  
  Report this comment
- Dan_o
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 5:03pm
  encinom, so by your logic, we are more perfect in thought and deed than the founders? That’s a ridiculous notion. Neither as a whole or as individuals are we better, but maybe the same.
  
  Nobody here is worshiping them as a cult, but that’s how you on the left destroy people. First, assign them a dubious moniker. Second, repeat said moniker in a mantra the useful idiots can understand. Third, use a tragedy (real or contrived) to enact desired change.
  
  There are 3 major problems with the constitution and all of them can be traced back to the progressive interpretation introduce by Alexander Hamilton. They are 1) the supposed need for centralized banking, 2) “implied” powers of the U.S. Gov’t, and 3) the interstate commerce act which is a direct result of the first 2.
  
  Report this comment
- HollisBrown
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 6:56pm
  @ENCINOM, You are so unhappy with what you see in the mirror, in fact there is a side to you that you cannot stand and it eats on you like the plague. I envision you as the next shool shooter and im sure you are being looked at very closely by authorities. I have read alot of the post here on the blaze and most are very stupid and childish, but your post have to get the attention that those demons within you demand. You come here to the blaze for the attention and this is how you get your rocks off. I can tell you that you are a loner who was never accepted and you need the reciprocating retoric to make you feel like you belong. you people who respond here on the blaze beware of some of these loons because its encinoms type that we see on the evening news and its this parasite we must caution others of.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Cabrito_Goat
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 11:14pm
  Encinom, I….oh just forget it.
  
  Why don’t we just delete him already? He doesn’t care about political, reasoned contemplation and discourse. He trampled it, wipes himself with it daily with his spam and harassing comments.
  
  Report this comment
- soybomb315_II
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 10:30am
  @civilwarcometh
  You know i want our government to follow the existing constitution more than anything. But if the government will not, and if the republican party doesnt even accept the Constitutional candidates – then maybe we should consider amending the Constitution to allow us to start over and write a new one that will be followed. We currently have no Constitution because it has been shredded through 200 years of activist supreme court and wartime presidencies.
  
  In my opinion, better to have a flawed Constitution that is followed than a perfect Constitution that is not followed. We gotta do something man, and when people like Ron Paul are laughed off the stage – the prospects of returning to the current Constitution are bleak
  
  Report this comment
- MLeo
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 4:58pm
  How better to disarm the victims than to deprive the victims of their pre-existing, inalienable rights of ownership: of their thoughts, beliefs and speech, their abilities to defend themselves, family and property, and to their sovereignty of citizenship and of alloidal title.
  
  We are sovereign. Whatever nay-sayers and blathering, ubiquitous, body-snatcher memes you hear, we are the employers of DC. It would not be so important to send their flying-monkey trolls here and on other forums unless those in DC actually were afraid–of US.
  
  Report this comment
kat747
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:30pm
We don’t have to “give up the USA Constitution”.
What we have to give up and get rid of are the “Anti-Americans” !

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- whatthecrazy
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:42pm
  You got that right Kat.
  
  Report this comment
- Small World
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:20pm
  Amen!
  
  Report this comment
- thegreatcarnac
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:10pm
  That is a correct statement. It is simple and directly to the point. Good for you
  
  Report this comment
TeresaJ
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:29pm
There’s nothing wrong with the Constitution. What’s wrong is the people constantly trying to break it undermind it. John Adams said the Constitution was only for a moral and religious people. Lord knows we haven’t been moral, and now lately, our own “President” is trying to help insure we aren’t religious either.

Such officials are not the ones I have sworn my allegiance to. If this becomes serious (and with the way things have been, it wouldn’t shock me), be prepared for another fight of some sort.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- GunsBlazin
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:55pm
  What are you prepared to do? It needs to be all or nothing. We’re long past voting for change. Guys like Beck, Rush and the others need to shat or get off the pot. The time for talk(our first amendment right) is over, now we’re moving towards the 2nd option…
  This is the same thing our founders had to deal with… Petitions and letters achieving nothing… Being silenced. Recklessly taxed.
  
  This country and our giverment needs a giant cleansing.
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:05pm
  GunsBlazin – “What are you prepared to do? It needs to be all or nothing.”
  Sir, how is it that you are questioning a fellow patriot on what they are prepared to do?
  Sir, I ask what are YOU prepared to do?
  
  Report this comment
- encinom
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:12pm
  Another anti-american confederate, ignorant of history and filled with paranoid conspiracy theories.
  
  Report this comment
- GunsBlazin
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:20pm
  I have been reading a lot of people talking(typing) loud about a coming civil war, rebellion and all this and I have to wonder when? And who? At what point is enough enough?
  
  Oh and encinom you’re a ****! Go flush yourself down a toilet.
  
  Report this comment
- Hotconchick
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:20pm
  So when do we start that cleansing? We just voted a Fascist back into office. The Constitution is being trampled on every day and nothing is being done. We are sitting idly by and watching it happen. It just seems like everyone likes to talk about the Constitution but where is the line drawn? When is this government over reach enough to do something about it. We the people are not being heard and I think it may be about time we are.
  
  Report this comment
- usedCZARsalesman
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 5:12pm
  GUNS…I’m prepared to do what I’ve BEEN DOING…store food (racked up about 6 months worth for my family of 5), store gas (only got about 50 gals, but I only make 30K so I think I’m doing pretty good), rack up on ammo (3,000 rounds and counting)…
  
  When “that time comes”, it won’t be some collective uprising. It will be an individual thing. Someday, those of us that TRULY are committed to defending the Constitution will have the fight BROUGHT TO US. They WILL come knocking on your door, or your brothers, or your friends, or your next door neighbors. THEN is when you will have to decide “what you are prepared to do”…for now, lets all pray that we don’t have to it, and continue to prepare in case we must.
  
  Report this comment
- bintalshamsa
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 1:42am
  UsedCzarSalesman, one unmanned drone could eliminate all of those provisions in less than five minutes. Your gas would just be fuel for the flames. There’s essentially no difference between hoarders and preppers. You’re delusional if you think that you can take on the American government and you’re doing your family a disservice by wasting the family’s resources in that way.
  
  Report this comment
- GhostOfJefferson
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 11:35am
  @Bint
  
  That must be why the Soviets, and now the U.S., are flailing about in primitive Afghanistan, a nation comprised mainly of nomads with bolt action rifles. Study history please, before assuming omnipotence on behalf of any government.
  
  Report this comment
- usedCZARsalesman
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 10:29am
  Thank you Ghost, that was more or less my thought.
  
  BINT…my preparations are to keep my family ALIVE during the initial confusion/rioting/looting/FEMA trains. After that, I won’t be sitting out in the open waving a flag and painting myself with IR so they can drone me…moron
  
  Report this comment
- MoseyAlong
  Posted on January 2, 2013 at 1:45pm
  If you think that a drone is going to shoot a hellfire missle and blow up your house, you need to take a step back.
  
  We are a long, long way from that happening.
  
  Report this comment
thibx
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:28pm
leave this country and go live in a muslim country. we damn sure don’t need or want you.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IMCHRISTIAN
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:26pm
Why would we want the Presidents term to be any longer. We have suffered from overspending and bad investments (Obamas share) the last four years just think of what damage he could do with more. No changes need to be made in the Constitution just changes for kickbacks and favors to be kicked out.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- romsquiz
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 3:42pm
  Bush didn’t help either…..your broke because you don’t pay enough taxes and the debt was bi-partisan…sigh. So clueless
  
  Report this comment
- IMCHRISTIAN
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 6:40pm
  Rom – I know Bush didn’t, but I did say Obamas share was what I am talking about because he wanted to be President to correct spending and he didn’t did he? so clueless
  
  Report this comment
Swamp_Hunter
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:21pm
Repeal the 17th Amendment so our Senate is once again filled with “state’s men” instead of political whores, and we can start getting this nation back on track. The problem isn’t the Constitution, it’s the damage to it done by the Progressive Movement over the last century.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mrunner
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:27pm
  Truly starting to believe you have got something there.
  
  Report this comment
- booger71
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:42pm
  Nail on head
  
  Report this comment
- usedCZARsalesman
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:58pm
  the 14th goes HAND IN HAND…we MUST stop the children of illegals and muslims from gaining auto citizenship, and take away the Federal governments ability to regulate states under the guise of “civil rights”
  
  Report this comment
- thop1960
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:28pm
  I see a trend here with progressives…
  
  Men shoot people, guns are the problem…
  
  Men violate the Constitution, The Constitution is the problem…
  
  Educated morons…
  
  Report this comment
- circleDwagons
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:51pm
  Need bigger hammer. Git rid of 16 th also
  
  Report this comment
Serenabit
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:21pm
Any guesses as to the political leaning of this “intellectual scholar?”

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
lel2007
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:21pm
It is disturbing that our Constitution provides ******* professors the same rights as any other American. We’re obliged to tolerate then, and we can just shoot the SOBs.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Zipit
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:45pm
  Hey Encinom! What does that say about you when, “the inbred, trailer trash, home school drop outs of the tea ****** party.”, pay all of your bills? Sad, huh pencil d1ck?
  
  Report this comment
- ThePirateRagnar
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:13pm
  I would be interested in knowing which coast Encimom is on.
  
  Report this comment
- U.S. Constitutionist
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:36pm
  Mr(?) Encicom is a follower of Mother Jones… a politically left-wing American
  
  Report this comment
RoDogg
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:20pm
why a need to give up something we don’t adhere to anymore to begin with! Getting rid of something we trample on wont solve a thing! Maybe restoring it would make MORE sense?

Anyone with this view of the constitution that has credentials to lecture on it… should have those credentials STRIPPED from them!!!!

Barry saying the constitution is a book of negative liberties has always been a red flag to me!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
StormRider
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:20pm
Hey Prof you don’t like it go Fluke yourself.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
The_Woofster
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:20pm
We need to give up lawyers. A lawyer cap!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
DougHuffman
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:19pm
That our political system is dysfunctional is clearly a personal opinion. It seems to me that it is working perfectly. That the Ship of State has a moron for Commander in Chief and idiots for the crew is not the fault of the Constitution.

μολων λαβέ molṑn labé ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒE “From my cold, dead hands” works for me.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
GunsBlazin
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:19pm
How about we fight for it? All us Constitution loving, gun-toting Americans vs. everyone else. Seems LONG over due to me…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
TX_45_ACP
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:18pm
Can you say “COMMUNIST”?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
JohnGalt
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:18pm
The way government was setup was to be slow, we would have a Government that can run amok and trample civil liberties by passing any law it chose, if not.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
MrKnowItAll
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:17pm
United We Stand. Divided We Fall. Prove that wrong!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- starman70
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:24pm
  PLEASE, someone provide this idiot a plane ticket to N. Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela, or China. He is absolutely unworthy to call himself an American citizen, no less teach the Constitution!!!
  
  Report this comment
Dushman Kush
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:17pm
This does sound like a plan. Our New Constitution should incorporate Sharia compliance. Amerika is soon to have a full Constitutional Convention. The midterms in 2014 and the 2016 election will give the Democratic Party overwhelming majorities in both the House and the Senate. Change is coming to Amerika at last. Long Live our Leader and Long Live the Communist International !!!
Log in to ReplyReply
- whatthecrazy
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:37pm
  @Dungman you just can’t wait for the murdering of christians to began huh.Make no mistake Evil may win the battle but God will win the war and by God i don’t mean that nasty chester molester God you worship.
  
  Report this comment
- Hotconchick
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:30pm
  I’m pretty sure that the Commie (Democrat) party will be decimated in 2016 when the true BHO comes out.
  
  Report this comment
- ares338
  Posted on January 1, 2013 at 7:28am
  Folks this specimen…mr. KUSH..Lol….is a pimple faced kid trying to stir up trouble by saying controversial inanities. Please disregard him at your earliest convenience. This has been a public service announcement.
  
  Report this comment
Metallicat
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:17pm
The Constitution is fine,its the politicians grabbing power that was never meant for a centralized federal government that has confounded it. The Constitution was built around state run government,not a tyrannical federal government dictating to the states. The federal government is suppossed to work for the states,not the states working for a centralized federal government.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:23pm
  Unless I’m mistaken, it was the absence of a centralized federal power that prompted the drafting of the Constitution in the first place.
  
  Report this comment
- Metallicat
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:45pm
  I must be mistaken then,because I thought that the purpose of the Consitution was to insure a government of free states not dictated to by a centralized government,and provide representation to all citizens of those free states,that allows their will to be done over that of a centralized power.
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:03pm
  It’s really basic US history. The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation, under which Congress was more like a gathering of ambassadors from the states than a true national legislature. The framers created a strong executive (the presidency) where there had effectively been none at all, allowed for a system of federal courts, and provided that the House would represent the people of the United States as a whole, not the states as such. Their creation of the Senate and the Electoral College, and the later adoption of the 10th Amendment (not of course part of the original Constitution) show that they intended to strike a balance between ongoing state sovereignty and the need to provide for the common defense–and relieve the burden of state debts by having the new Federal government take them on.
  
  Report this comment
- Perkins
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:11pm
  @Drako, you’re glossing over a whole lot of history there. True, the Constitution was a response to the inefficacy of the Articles (a point contested by the Anti-Federalists who contended the system was non-optimal but working as well as Europe and so was not the dire crisis the Federalists claimed… never let a good crisis go to waste?), but the reason the “Bill of Rights” was adopted was not as some “after-market-add-on.” The promise of the amendments was necessary for ratification of the new constitution; otherwise the Anti-Federalists such as Patrick Henry would have prevented the adoption of the constitution because they, rightly, saw the evolution of the federal government from a strong guidance of several independent republics into the large centralization of a single governing body we know and love. The obvious concern here was, as we all know, large republics fall into despotism in short order (and yes, bureaucratic despotism is still despotism a la Europe and the USA), so the centralization of the Federal government into one large republic would inevitably lead to tyranny, hence the Anti-federalists requiring the second amendment as their “poison pill” against that eventuality. Time will tell if that was sufficient to prevent the budding tyrants from flowering
  
  If you haven’t, read Publius’ counterpart, Brutus and several others. A little harder to find, than the Federalist papers, but they are out there, and they nailed where the constitution is ta
  
  Report this comment
- Perkins
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:15pm
  taking us.
  
  Report this comment
- Publius Duo
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:21pm
  Perkins, You mean the anti-federalist papers. Also known as the Agrippa letters.
  
  Report this comment
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:26pm
  @Perkins: Yes, as I said, the intent was to “strike a balance” between the need to strengthen the central government–really, to create a central government for the first time–and the natural concern of the states, especially the smaller ones, that they would be smothered by the Federal government. Without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution would not have been ratified, and without the Constitution, the Bill of Rights would have been a piece of paper, er, parchment.
  
  Report this comment
HelloWorld
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:16pm
Georgetown Unniversity lost it’s academic standing this year secondary to falsifying it’s records. Wasn’t that reported several months ago? I wonder where they obtained their legal advice?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- revelation2012
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 5:01pm
  who gave ‘them’ saudi oil money,,, many universities are selling ‘their’ souls
  
  Report this comment
phrogdriver
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:16pm
Georgetown law, eh? Well, at least we know where Sandra Fluke got her socialist indoctrination.

The scarey thing is, these idiots always think they are the first ones to come up with this stuff.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
IndyGuy
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:15pm
My guess is that this idiot was either Obama’s Professor or a classmate…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
love the kids
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:15pm
Doesn’t the Constutional law mandate that a budget is passed? Doesn’t Constutional law have a mandated debt limit that Obummer want removed? The problem is that WE HAVE NOT been following the Constution. What an idiot

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Lloyd Drako
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:28pm
  No, there is no mandated debt limit in the Constitution. It’s mandated in measures passed by Congress going back to the early 20th century. There was no debt ceiling before World War I, and yet for a few months back in the 1830s the national debt was entirely paid off. Go figure.
  
  Report this comment
kickagrandma
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:12pm
Tell you what, you imbecile~~~ YOU give up the Constitution, take all who feel as you do and LEAVE our beloved country.

WE THE PEOPLE will do just fine with our OLD BOOK, our OLD CONSTITUTION, our OLD GOD and our OLD GUNS!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:14pm
  Agreed and I will chip in to pay for a one way ticket to North Korea for him.
  
  Report this comment
- IMCHRISTIAN
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:18pm
  Well stated. I will drink a 16 oz soft drink to that.
  
  Report this comment
SocialistSlayer
Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:10pm
The only thing I got out of this article is the Professors at Georgetown Law School are a bunch of Blithering Idiots ! Anyone disagree?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 1776freedomofspeech
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:23pm
  No disagreement Sir. Wholeheartedly agree that law professors profess too much…..
  
  Report this comment
- vic138
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 12:39pm
  So what is he teaching? Does he have a contract with the school to teach constitutional law? Because it sounds like he he should be fired. Can all contracts be broken? Are all people good and trustworthy? He sounds like an anarchist.
  
  Report this comment
- BetsyRoss1513
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 1:05pm
  @vic …. Apparently, studying Constitutional Law does not necessarily translate to the support and belief in the Constitution. In his case, it’s a prerequisite to learning how to tear our country from limb to limb.
  
  What irritates me is that, HEY, if you don’t like our country, you’re FREE to leave it. YOu don’t move to Japan and insist everyone learn English. You learn Japanese.
  
  Report this comment
- vic138
  Posted on December 31, 2012 at 2:17pm
  @Betsy I agree. But what if I have a phd in women’s studies and later in life decide women were better off before suffrage. And that they should stay at home and have babies and cook. Would that be cool with Georgetown? I think I would be fired.
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.