A Professor of Constitutional Law says “Let’s give up on the Constitution”

A Professor of Constitutional Law says “Let’s give up on the Constitution”

 “I’ve got a simple idea.  Let’s give up on the Constitution.  I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution.  The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long dead favored them two centuries ago.  This is our country, we live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want.  We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.  If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.” 

Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University
January 27, 2013                                                   



There are those in the media, the academic world and the intellectual elite who are suggesting our Constitution is outdated and should be replaced by something else. I believe they are America haters and mostly left wing representatives for the Democratic Party. (For this discussion I will use the words “They, Them. and Their,” with a capitol “T’ and in Italics to mean those in the left wing media, the academic world and the intellectual elite.)

I believe Professor Seidman is definitely one of Them.

 They depend on the ignorance of the people to accept the premise and imply that replacing the Constitution is an option. If They believe that would be an easy vote by some unnamed source of current authority within or outside of the federal government They are totally wrong.

I’m not saying that’s what he meant, but who knows?.

The Constitution of the United States is a contract between the States that allowed the formation of a central government with very limited authority and powers.

I call the Constitution a “contract” between the States because that’s exactly what it was and remains as today.  It was not a contract between the States and the federal government, the federal government was created by that contract between the States.

The federal government did not have any say in the contract and it was determined the federal government should only exist to serve the States and the People. (How we doing so far?)

If the federal government were to actually attempt to do what Professor Seidman may be suggesting, to not only abuse and misconstruct the Constitution, but to change it outside of the amendment process, (Or am I misunderstanding him?), the federal government would be breaking that contract. Each State would then have legal standing before the world to form another government and the United States as we know it would cease to exist.

On the other hand if he is suggesting we the people should “give up on the Constitution,” he would need far more reasons, based in factual analysis, for the people to even consider giving up their freedom.

But then anyone who would call our Constitution “an ancient and outdated document” that was created bya bunch of people who are now long dead,” certainly doesn’t understand the Constitution is the document that took mankind thousands of years to have the faith, the knowledge, the wisdom and the opportunity to write and define freedom for the people of our country.

As I point out in my book, “A Charter of Negative Liberties, Defining the Bill of Rights and Other Commentary”:

“Throughout mankind’s history, there have been kings, queens, emperors, Caesars, and the like. Most were evil, some were good, but even when men lived under a “good” king, and still, they were not free men.

 In the United States of America, a war was fought against the tyranny of King George III and was won on principles ensuring that tyranny, in all its oppressive forms, would never again exist in America.

 It is true; our forefathers didn’t immediately free the slaves in America, but they planted the seed of freedom that would finally take root seventy-five years later as the slaves were emancipated. It took civilization thousands of years to remove the royal yoke of a feudalistic and peasant-like existence from around the neck of people. What took civilization thousands of years to accomplish took America relatively few while still in her infancy.

 If we view any part of history through a twenty-first-century prism, we are not treating history fairly. In fact, we would treat history unjustly by doing so. Should we blame humankind for not having invented the wheel until they did? Should we blame Caesar or Shaka Zulu for the thousands they murdered or enslaved?

 Civilization has been on a journey for thousands of years. When it reached the eastern shores of North America, those who settled in Plymouth, Jamestown, and Connecticut did so with a complex mission, including bringing Christianity to savages. As in all things and all people, no one is perfect and to condemn the 1600s reality because of our reality would be a stupid misunderstanding of history. The condemnation would be better aimed at 1600s realities being practiced today.

 Slaves are still traded in Africa. Christians are murdered by Muslims all over the world. In Darfur an estimated two million black Christians have been displaced or murdered by black Muslims.”

Unlike Professor Seidman, I would instead suggest all nations of the world adopt our Constitution so they can have the opportunity to grow a successful society that could actually be free.

The definition of freedom will never change as long as human’s walk on this earth and our Constitution will never be “an ancient and outdated document.”

 C Howard Diaz