Posted on 02/26/2013 6:53:41 PM PST by marktwain
For some reason, I just don’t get juiced by the idea of listening to an hour long podcast from an economist, but I’m glad that Ed Driscoll did.
He transcribed the part where Glenn Reynolds, law professor at the University of Tennessee and blogger of Instapundit fame, dropped the boom on the socialist supporters of Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman, who advocates giving up on the constitution.
REYNOLDS: Here’s the problem with public officials — because that’s really [Seidman’s] audience — deciding to ignore the Constitution: If you’re the president, if you’re a member of Congress, if you are a TSA agent, the only reason why somebody should listen to what you say, instead of horsewhipping you out of town for your impertinence, is because you exercise power viathe Constitution. If the Constitution doesn’t count, you don’t have any legitimate power. You’re a thief, a brigand, an officious busybody, somebody who should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for trying to exercise power you don’t possess.So if we’re going to start ignoring the Constitution, I’m fine with that. The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say.
ROBERTS: But his argument is that we already ignore the Constitution; it’s not really much of a binding document.
REYNOLDS: Oh, well, then I’m free to do whatever I want! And actually, that is a damning admission, because what that really says is: If you believe Seidman’s argument; if you believe that we already ignore the Constitution anyway, then in fact, the government rules by sheer naked force, and nothing else. And if that’s what you believe, then all of this talk of revolution suddenly doesn’t seem so crazy, it seems almost mandatory.
Reynolds wrote a column on Feb 4th explaining those views in more detail.
Americans are out of sorts, and increasingly they’re unhappy with the government. According to a Pew poll released last week, more than half ofAmericans view government as a threat to their freedom.And it’s not just Republicans unhappy with Obama, or gun owners afraid that the government will take their guns: 38% of Democrats, and 45% of non-gun owners, see the government as a threat.
Add this to another recent poll in which only 22% of likely voters feel America’s government has the “consent of the governed,” and you’ve got a pretty depressing picture — and a recipe for potential trouble. Governments operate, to a degree, by force, but ultimately they depend on legitimacy. A government that a majority views as a threat, and that only a small minority sees as enjoying the consent of the governed, is a government with legitimacy problems.
We’re rapidly approaching a point where Americans are going to have to make a choice to gut the power of the federal government, or the federal government is going to gut us.
Professor Reynolds suggests a constitutional convention will be the best way out, and indeed, it may be.
Myself, I have the same wary view of a convention that Matt Bracken does. Would-be elites who can steal elections can steal constitutional conventions, and I don’t think for a second that the GOP wouldn’t collaborate with the socialists to stay in power to keep feeding off the corpse of the Republic.
Judging by the continued arms an ammunition shortages, that appears to be a fairly common belief.
Bob Owens is an Appleseed instructor.
Marking...
You’re very welcome. I just had to post those.
——The first part I’m going to start ignoring is the part that says, I have to do whatever they say.——
My statement of that view is....
When they change the rules, the rules change.
When laws protecting citizens are ignored, laws protecting tyrants can be ignored.
BTW....... horse whipping doesn’t solve the problem. Stronger treatment is required to prevent vendetta like response
My tagline for months was “Those in a rush to trample on the Constitution forget that it is the source of their authority.” If the government doesn’t follow the Constitution, then it has no legitimate authority to enforce its edicts.
“Reynolds suggests a constitutional convention will be the best way out”
Why would a government which ignores the current constitution pay any attention to a new one?
A constitutional convention would be a major fail after 30 million “proud” illegals start voting themselves money from those evil white devils. They’ll be full voting citizens seconds after a convention is hinted at, and congress will be redistributed minutes later.
“When laws protecting citizens are ignored, laws protecting tyrants can be ignored.”
I’m stealing this. It might get me in trouble, but I’m gonna use it.
“I swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States...”
Now finish the sentence.
“...and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Seems if there’s a choice between the Constitution or the POTUS-UCMJ the latter rules.
If you ask me, they hold on to power not so much through brute force (although that is there...) as through “bread and circuses.” Keep masses fed and entertained and they won’t try to overthrow you - the elites don’t give a darn what the masses do each other and to the middle class, so long as they aren’t bothered.
BTW: A Constituional Convention would be catastrophic. You’d end with a document with all sorts of “positive rights” like “rights” to food, shelter, medical care, education, and entertainment, and a government empowered to enslave and rob anyone it likes in order to pay for these “rights.”
No, if the orders violate the Constitution, then they’re probably unlawful, and service members are REQUIRED to disobey unlawful orders. They are legally liable if they fail to do so.
Don’t forget Nuremberg.
A re-dedication to adhering to the Constitution as is. A convention would become a “Rights of the Government” obamanation.
Well... Yeah. I've been saying exactly this for a while now. Hopefully, I seem less and less crazy as more people wake up to reality.
The oath I swore was for a clearance for a civilian job and makes absolutely no reference to the POTUS.
Does anybody here trust Harry Reid or Nany Pelosi (or Boner & McConnell for that matter) with a ConCon? Not me. Uh uh, no way Jose. A ConCon is out of the question, and you'll never get enough State Legislatures to sign on because they don't trust them either.
A Con Con would be the worst idea in the world given the current climate in this country. State sovereignty is the correct way to restore the constitutional republic.
There are different versions of the oath. This is the one I remember, (”So help me God.” can be left off of the end.)
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.[1]
Michelle WILL NOT RUN, not going to happen.
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.