Misc. comments.
Seidman is all over the place re the Constitution. He says to scrap it and rely on customs, etc. I think that is called “Common Law”.
Using England as an example of anything relevant to orderly rule is not very smart. The government can collapse on one vote, or when one party, faction, etc. gets pissed at someone and takes all their marbles and go home.
Also, the marxist labor movement in England, for too many decades, ran the Labor Party and the country, into the ground. They were also an unchallenged Fifth Column, operating in the leadership ranks of Labor on behalf of Moscow.
{I just opened myself up to criticism because AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka is a hardcore red, and former thug leader of the United Mine Workers of America. However, even his iron rule met significant resistance from the non-marxist unions and government rules concerning strikes that affect the national security/economy).
The Constitution may be old, but there was a lot of collective wisdom put into its creation and final version, plus the Bill of Rights.
It is the Democrats who have refused to abide by the rules, not only of the Congress (i.e. Holder not prosecuting the thugs of the Black Panther Party for voter intimidation, among others; resisting legally ordered document production from Congress; and protecting the President when he ignores Congress and the Constitution), but also the White House’s undercutting ICE, Homeland Security, and the Border Patrol from doing their mandated jobs properly.
Georgetown Un. Law School, over the past two decades has taken a decidely leftist turn, including hiring well known communist/marxists/sympathizers (Rev. Robert Drinan, a certifiably psychopathic Jesuit priest and lawyer, former congressman; David Cole of the CPUSA legal front (National Lawyers Guild) created offshoot, the Center for Constitutional Rights (loaded at its birth in 1966 with old Communist Party attorneys, sympathizers and proteges; Castroites and even a few Trotskyites & Maoists).
Whether Seidman is that far left, I don’t know, but his thinking is similar to that of avowed marxist CCR leader Michael Ratner, among others. They use the Constitution to destroy it, try to interject international law and other countries laws into our system, and personally support the most law-restricted countries in the world includingt Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, the Soviet Union/Russia, and Nicaragua, among others).
What is really needed is a national debate on the relevancy of the Constitution today. I’d love Mark Levin and a few others on the conservative side to take on Seidman, etc.
It would be really informative if done well. I’m reminded of the Prof. Arthur Miller (GWU) townhall seminars on the law that appeared on TV about 10 years ago. Very well done and thought provoking.
The American people have to be reminded of the long struggle to define our country’s legal basis, judicial system, governmental structure, and how the Constitution has kept us running despite ocassional hitches (Watergate, Bill Clinton’s impeachment, and Fast & Furious).
We are a good country but are under many attacks, from without and from within. The Left, now aided by the covert Moslem shariaists and jihadists, has undertaken a full frontal assault on every basic American political, cultural, historical and economic foundation stone, and they are succeeding beyond their wildest dreams.
This needs to be exposed on a national scale, in a national forum. The American people must be awoken from their stupor and stupidity, in plain language and through understandable examples and incidents, if we are to survive as the America we know it, or become Obama’s Marxist-Lite version on the way to the heavier stuff (Obamacare’s punishments should be the searchlight in the face on what has been planned for a long time and what is yet to come).
Seidman should not be ignored. He has opened a door. The only question is what goes through it, an American 18-wheeler with the Constitution written on its side, or a Cesspool cleaning truck driven by Obama and Company.
Time to stand up for the Constitution and America, or get ready for leftist tyranny from the bench.
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?