Posted on 12/31/2012 11:10:48 PM PST by Bratch
Edited on 01/01/2013 1:00:12 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I first thought this was going to be some kind of parody.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservatives4palin.com ...
The same reason Obama was a Constitutional Law “scholar”.
How can this clown (or insane person) end up teaching Constitutional Law at a major university?
Good grief!
We should dump a constitution that was 17 years in the making, debated ad infinitum, because a queer professor at Georgetown thinks it's antiquated?
Who will remember who Seidman is 50 years from today?
I could post so many reasons why delusional neurotics get media exposure when they spout nonsense, but I'll revisit this thread in a few hours, and hope normal people take a moment to respond.
You bet,, and happy new year!
Ask the faculty hiring committee and the dean at Georgetown Law.
Andrew Jackson famously dissed the Supreme Court, didn't he? When he defied their ruling against his eviction of the Seminoles.
Of all the branches of federal govern ment, the SCOTUS has the most tenuous hold on power, being entirely dependent on the executive branch for compliance with its decisions. One might say the same for the congress, I suppose, especially with the hyperextended powers of the executive branch these days, except that congress has deep roots among the populace, and many voices.
Of course, Seidman's call to brush aside the Constitution can be nothing other than a call for Presidential tyranny.
You too!! United we stand...
Too right. Finally read his entire piece without laughing and it appears that he actually does like the Constitution, but only the bits that refer to the structure of government, you know, like 90%? And he's actually for the restrictions on the Executive except where they prove inconvenient.
To be honest, I've seen better pieces on the Constitution from junior high-schoolers. Seidman's case is that a government official who has decided on a course of action should not be impeded by white male colonialist oppressors' outmoded ideas, instead being guided by whatever happens to be in his head at the moment. The difficulty is that the government official in question owes his office to the legitimacy accorded by the Constitution, and if he doesn't listen to it, why should we listen to him?
The Constitution is what created Congress and allows it to continue. Scrap the Constitution and you scrap all of Wash DC.
Hmmm....
By the same token, if BO scraps the Constitution, then [yes I know he’s not Constitutionally eligible to begin with] he no longer has any claim to power over the United States, whose Constitution creates the office of POTUS.
Might want to drop this a$$hole a line, I did! isn’t it always the case that these fatuous pricks think they’re so important that they need to use their middle names just to make sure we know who they “really” are! Like there are so many Louis Seidman’s around that he needs to differentiate himself by letting us all know his middle name. You will also note the obligatory beard.
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/seidman-louis-michael.cfm
The video is fantastic! Another one to watch is Obama and Racist Black Theology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7XMNEvDPUA&playnext=1&list=PL7870DC23E604F0FB&feature=results_main
“Seidman is well known for his contributions to constitutional legal theory, principally his theory of unsettlement put forward in his book Our Unsettled Constitution: A New Defense of Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Yale 2001).[2] Drawing from the critical legal studies indeterminacy thesis, Seidman argues that because constitutional law cannot settle fundamental political disputes, constitutional legal discourse and judicial review instead act to “unsettle” them. Rather than resolving conflicts definitively, the temporary resolution of any controversy in constitutional law through judicial review leaves open the possibility that the losing side may make an equally plausible alternative constitutional argument. In this way, both the prevailing and losing sides in a dispute recognize their positions as unstable and subject to revision within the recognized standards of legal argument. As a result, both winners and losers have reasons to continue their debate within the framework of constitutional law, thereby keeping all parties at the table and consolidating the legal system.
Seidman’s defense of judicial review provided a counterpoint within the critical legal studies school to his colleague and sometime collaborator Mark Tushnet’s attack on judicial review as undemocratic.
In addition to Seidman’s theory of judicial review, he is also known for his widely respected[3] constitutional law casebook, co-authored with Pamela Karlan, Mark Tushnet, Geoffrey Stone and Cass Sunstein. Seidman is also noted for his work in criminal law and his book Silence and Freedom.[4] During the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, Seidman also attracted attention as an outspoken liberal detractor,[5] writing a scathing response to Sotomayor’s claims that she simply applies the law to the facts (arguing that this is impossible to do).[6]
Seidman has also recently intervened in the health care reform debate, defending the constitutionality of the single payer mandate against libertarian criticism on fora tv.[7]”
I looked the guy up and, sure enough, he is right there with the White House insiders. Critical legal theory is an Obama creed. Cass Sunstein is a co- author. We are going down this road, like it or not.
What’s the Constitution to Zer0? Zer0 wants to destroy America. This is total destruction where there will be nothing left.
You’ve got it. Liberal elites want a document that puts them in charge... Seems that’s been tried before in the world... Oh wait - yeah - it’s every two bit dictatorship in the history of the world... right? Yeah, we’re all soooooo impressed.
This leftist nut is sensing that the days of Republican or conservative control and influence in Washington has ended. He knows he has a fellow leftist ally in Obama and that Dem candidates of the future will most likely be as leftist as Commissar Barack. So who needs a silly thing like a constitution? Stalin certainly didn’t. What was good enough for Stalin is good enough for the U.S.
He can call for the restoration of the King of England to rule America, his right to write nonsense is absolute.
Just as I can write that traitors should be hung from lamp posts.
THRIVING ON CHAOS Vote-crazed para-military dems----and disturbed Obamaton cliques----are creating a dysfunctional chaotic culture, The anti-social psychopaths recognize no moral and ethical boundaries----aggressively going after what they want, irregardless of the consequences.
===================================================
FR POSTED America is now run by angry, feral adolescents fueled by hatred, jealousy and revenge
Coach Is Right ^ | December 21st, 2012 | Derek Hollenbeck
POSTER COMMENTS It’s not uncommon for some in the minority community to believe that the white establishment (Republicans) uses its power to slander and destroy those who threaten the "status quo"......
Snide remarks about the “invisible and permanent powers-that-be” (Republicans) trying to take down minorities...... is a sentiment some minorities bandy about when they try to justify (what they deem) is their loser status.
================================================
THIS KIND OF PERVERSE CORRUPT THINKING IS REMINSCENT OF THE POST-CIVIL WAR ERA----Carpetbaggers---Northern invaders into the South ----were prominent in politics until 1875, but nearly all left under pressure from the Red Shirts and White Liners -----white paramilitary organizations, then-described as "the military arm of the Democratic Party", working openly to violently overthrow Republican rule, using intimidation and assassination to turn Republicans out of office and suppress freedmen's (former slaves) voting.
The Republican sheriff of Yazoo, Mississippi, received a brief flurry of national attention when insurgent white Democrats took over the county government and forced him to flee. (WIKI)
================================================
FREEPER ACTION MEMO In 1875, Hiram Revels, a Mississippi Republican--and the first African-American US Senator-- wrote to then-Pres Ulysses S. Grant denouncing Northern invaders into the post-Civil War south for manipulating the Black vote for personal benefit, and for keeping alive wartime hatreds. (WIKI)
We need to get someone with integrity----like Cong Allen West (not reelected)----- to write letters to his colleagues, and to the media.
Cong West needs to do the following:
(1) decry the agitation and intimidation tactics being used by these groups,
(2) expose using hatemongering for personal gain,
(3) emphasize the illegalities WRT threatening members of the US Congress,
(4) precpitate investigations into fraud and intimidation upon our electoral/legislative system by these hate-mongering groups, and,
(5) determine the scope and dimension of subversion these activities are visiting on US ntl security.
I have already commented on this article twice in the last 24 hours. Go find those threads... I have nothing left to say except... get a rope for this jerk.
LLS
LLS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.