Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 19 issues

NOVEL THEORIES

Is The Constitution Obsolete?

Law professor thinks so

Next>

by David Mark

Editor-in-Chief t +

Image: AP

Don't care for the Electoral College, Second Amendment or other parts of the Constitution? Then just ignore them. That's the advice for a Georgetown law professor whose been teaching the Constitution for decades.

In a CBS "Sunday Morning" piece, professor Louis Michael Seidman, staring straight into the camera, says, "I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie."

The bushy-bearded professor then expounds on his theory: "To be clear, 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."

Seidman's doubt-casting on the nation's founding document has drawn criticism since he floated it in a Dec. 30, 2012 New York Times opinion piece, "Let's Give Up On the Constitution." When critics have countered that the Constitution can be updated through an amendment process, Seidman has said the process is too difficult, lengthy and cumbersome.

Via CBS "Sunday Morning"

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

What's your take on the professor's theory?

View results

125 Comments (view in Forum)

  • Load more replies >

  • jessejaymes
    !
    The Constitution has no business in the world of today. It's time for a Constitutional Convention. Of course, bear in mind that with the extremism of both the left and right today, that if they start a convention on Monday next week they'll still be there 250 years from now whining, threatening, lying, bitching and complaining about each other. But we have to start sometime.
  • NTBFW
    !
    No the constitution is just fine like it is. I can't imagine how it could be improved. All we need to do is have a government that follows the constitution.
  • formerrepub
    !
    The constitution was a document that the states agreed to establish a general goverment, and the bill of rights was against the general goverment and they have trampled on those rights. The general goverment and the constitution should go. Sucession is the only answer that can fix the problem. You will never be able to please 315 mil people but you can find agreement and similar beliefs in smaller numbers.
  • bsking
    !
    Why don't you enlighten us on what exactly is wrong with the Constitution... and how it doesn't fit today's society and please be very specific
  • marine1
    !
    @bsking To amend the constitution is lengthly and cumbersome by original design, with purpose and will guide effectively forever. The problem is todays law makers, law professors, law activist are just much,much lazier than those of the days of origin.

  • Load more replies >

  • SmedleyButler
    !
    We had to fight for that, Too bad there's people not willing to keep it. Unfortunately, most of those who are in power are the ones. They're called traitors.
  • Cheenoguy
    !
    It's held up pretty well WITH several key changes. It is a good base to work from, but it is supposed to be an evolving document. Unfortunately there are some who will always fight progress.
  • PNWest
    !
    @SmedleyButler No - they are called duly elected representatives. If you don't like them then convince a majority of voters to vote them out.
  • talkenhed
    !
    The constitution has always been view as a living document capable of adjusting to the times and the along came Thomas Scalia and Alito unelected hacks who claim to be strict constructionists, lol they' re rewriting it
  • PNWest
    !
    @talkenhed We have had good supreme court justices and bad ones. The three you mentioned are among the most partisan ones we've ever had. Scalia in particular. A horrible justice.

  • Load more replies >

  • SomethinsFishy
    !
    If this is true, you better hang on to your firearms more tightly than ever before and start loading up on even more ammunition, lol. assaultweaponsbanof2013 dot blogspot dot com fauxassaultweapons dot blogspot dot com
  • woodtick57
    !
    At least he isn't of the type that think of the founding fathers as god-like and infallible. they were just plain old men, and politicians at that...
  • Tralee
    !
    This man shows what is wrong with public education now. He has no business teaching anyone, especially anyone who will be trained in the law. Maybe this is why we got the Sandra Flookes of the world from Georgetown Univ. Law School. He will single handedly run down the sagging reputation of a once fine institution. Thankfully he lives in America, many other countries would have him in prison for these kinds of remarks.
  • DerivePI
    !
    As I understand it, this is typical of law schools. Its not about the law, but about how you can get around the law. An outward representation of our "relative truth" society.
  • Tralee
    !
    @DerivePI Well, some law professors for sure, this one seems a bit more extreme than others, but as hubby is an attorney, one of the ethical ones, I will have to say that not all lawyers are bad, most are very good and it really depends which law school you go to, which state you choose to practice in (DE being one of the harder bars to pass and one with the highest ethical requirements) and the person themselves.
  • PoliticalSpice
    !
    @DerivePI The guy is an idiot. It has nothing to do with his school, it has everything to do with him. Plenty of idiots with law degrees. What law school did you go to? What an ignorant comment. Most law schools teach you to go around the law, that's just nonsense.
  • Tralee
    !
    @PoliticalSpice My hubby when to the Univ. of PA law school, I have no idea where you get your information, but most law schools and most law school teachers teach the law, not opinions or how to skirt the law. If you take the bar of any given state, they test your knowledge of the law, not how to skirt it. Most lawyers do practice this, obeying the law, applying the law etc. Are there bad ones? Sure, but one apple shouldn't spoil the entire barrel. Also, a trial lawyer, or as my hubby, a Business Litigator, must have a reputation for integrity, at least in DE for Corporate business, with the sitting judges. Out of state lawyers come here and try their tricks, are quickly disabused of that practice and either go on to lose and lose big time and find it hard to get a "Home" law firm to partner with them on trials or they clean up their act. No, the ethical lawyer does exist in great numbers you just hear about the sleeze balls like John Edwards in the news.
  • Tralee
    !
    @PoliticalSpice Disregard my comment, I though you were replying to me, I guess it really isn't "All about me Monday" after all.:()

  • Load more replies >

  • CaryNickel
    !
    Louis Seidman has made it plain that he is wholly unqualified to be teaching a class on the U.S. Constitution, or on Constitutional law, or even U.S. history. Georgetown University should be ashamed to have this guy on the payroll.
  • Knightkore
    !
    Agreed....however most of the universities these days are progressive liberal to severely socialist in nature....he's bordering on domestic treason....

    Now people should have a better idea and understanding why the 2nd amendment is there....
  • DARSB
    !
    For sure, the Constitution has its flaws and we'll always argue over parts of it, like the Electoral College, but I think we can always say that its major advantage is that it works 3,287 times better than any other form of government
  • Yank
    !
    @Chromalord then why would you use this to attack the right when Obama has done just as much as Bush? Isn't it the left talking about the 2nd amendment being obsolete? Where is the outrage over Obama and his Patriot act? How about the outrage over the DoJ now keeping a file on all Americans and using it to check if we show signs of engaging in criminal or terroristic activities?

    When Obama swore to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, I couldn’t stop laughing.
  • Chromalord
    !
    @Yank Obama is doing nothing to 2nd amendment. The Patriot act was created during the Bush W terms, Obama eradicated some of its invasive and unconstitutional provisions, while elevating both transparency and accountability of it.

  • Load more replies >

  • jessejaymes
    !
    Thomas Jefferson thought we need a revolution every 50 years or so. We've gone far beyond that. We can't beat them with guns. It's time for a ballot revolution and if you want to keep the constitution then it's time for some new amendments. Like election reform on contributions, term limits and the electoral college.
  • RobertJHarsh
    !
    Professor Seidman is correct, 110%. The Constitution is routinely ignored by both parties as well as local and state governments. I live next to an all Democrat city, led by a racist black man mayor, who he and his city council ignores it wholesale. And it's not just him, Bloomberg in NYC does as well.

    On the state level, Ohio's income tax has been proven unconstitutional yet it remains. Most federal gun laws violate the 10th amendment, which is state's rights. The federal reserve is questionable since centralized banking is de facto illegal and the amendment to ratify it was questionable. As was the income tax amendment.

    Most drug laws are unconstitutional as is asset-forfeiture-seizure and drug raids.

    The Patriot Act and NDAA violate the 1st, 4th, 6th, 8th, & 10th amendments...in fact now that I think about it, the 10th amendment is already void. Seidman is correct, why is there is a Constitution anymore? Everyone ignores to suit them and only decides to "use it" when it suits someone, for example when Soetoro got PWNED on his recess appointments. But instead of removing those jokers and undoing what they did, they just go behind close doors, exchange some money, and all will be forgotten in two or so weeks.
  • jessejaymes
    !
    While I agree with you on some things you say, I disagree on others. And that is the point. No two people agree on everything. But the majority should rule when it doesn't disenfranchise a particular segment of American Citizenry. We haven't had a vote on a constitutional amendment since the Equal Rights amendment back in the 70's. That's 40 years. The people should get to vote every 4 years on half a dozen amendments and those amendments should be declared constitutional before being put up for a vote and if they pass they should written in stone unless removed by another majority vote.
  • RobertJHarsh
    !
    @jessejaymes You hit the nail on the head....majority rule DOES disenfranchise a particular segment. Everyone who voted Republican is disenfranchised, right now, as far as the federal government is concerned. As are people living in Maryland and California. You have Democrat supermajorities there and they could care less about the other side. Same is true in Texas, where the Republicans rule there. Its all about how the game works for them. As for us, we don't count.
  • kathyparsell
    !
    The hubris of these "scholars" is unfathomable, to think that they could in anyway judge the brilliance of our forefathers. Men born of revolution and hardship; as opposed to a life of enviable easy, that risked their wealth, families and their very lives, to create a document that gave rights and freedom to all citizens of this nation. I am glad they were so nearsighted as to invest the power between three branches that didn't include the overly educated big mouths.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • kathyparsell
    !
    @Russell797
    Talk about stupid! What in the world are you talking about? I never said I want people not to be educated. I said I was glad the Constitution wasn't in danger from overly educated people that think they are sooo smart we should dismantle the Constitution on his say so. Something that IS as relevant today as when it was when written, because we could ammend it when necessary.
  • Russell797
    !
    @kathyparsell First, I have no idea why my post was removed by the moderators???

    If I said something offensive I apologize.

    What exactly are "overly educated people"? I think it ridiculous that you can say that. So there should be limits to how smart or knowledgeable a person can be to qualify for public office? No one is discussing the dismantling of the Constitution, that's a right wing strawman pushed by people full of hate.
  • kathyparsell
    !
    @Russell797 Au contrarie, the above referenced professor said just that..ignore what you don't like as it is obsolete... As to the moderators they are sometimes contrary ..have had several bizarrely removed myself. BTW little offends me.
  • Russell797
    !
    Sound principle is timeless, holding value forever. That does not mean that every single point of interest contained in the Constitution is any longer relevant to modern day realities. The Constitution is supposed to be a living, breathing document, not some dogmatic religious doctrine.
  • WMCOL
    !
    Well for sure the Constitution contains the seeds of its own destruction if we allow them to grow and choke out the enduring, eternal principles that gives the Constituion its vitality. If Constitution is allowed to adjust to the nations changing needs it preserves the nation and thus itself, but a dead Constitution buries itself.
  • LGRepublican
    !
    Let's be honest, the constitution contains parts that are no longer "politically correct" (like that pesky second amendment). For those thinking about changing it or scrapping it, just ask yourself how long before someone suggests eliminating a part that's important to you. Like the old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it"....
  • R Load more comments...