Is The United States Simply Another Failed Experiment?

As Vox Day notes in his article Creeping out from under their rocks, the anti-American sentiments evidenced in our institutions of higher learning for so many years have know gained such strength that (formerly) respected members of the intelligentsia feel comfortable enough to come right out and say what has always been their underlying conclusion: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.  The author of the piece is: “Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, (is) the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”

I’m still hoping that it is some kind of sick joke or perhaps just an inappropriate way to promote book sales by forcing those who disagree with him to buy the book in order to be able to rebut his arguments.  The problem is, after reading his article in the New York Times (see above), I see little reason to believe either hope might be true.  Ironically, it is the Constitution which he wishes to “give up on” that protects him from a charge of treason.  Dictionary.com defines treason as:

trea·son [tree-zuh n] Show IPA

noun

1.  the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.

2.  a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state.

3.  the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.

Fortunately, for Seidman, the US Constitution has a different take which almost certainly takes into  account the experiences of, as he portray them,  “…a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought…”  In other words, perhaps it was the personal experiences of these men which you now denigrate that resulted in a less inclusive definition which allows you to say the things which you do:

The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.

The difference of course being that while the professor seems to meet all three of the dictionary definitions he does not seem to be violating any of the restrictions as prescribed by the US Constitution.

I can’t say much about the contents of his book, but based on his article I would have to suggest that this person is dangerous.  It’s not just a matter of what he apparently advocates, which is obviously bad enough, but the lack of scholarship and coherent thinking evident in his article is mind-boggling. I wondered what it was my son didn’t like about Georgetown University several years ago.  This professor might well have laid those questions to rest.  Let me just say that times have changed and so has GU.

The entire article can be picked apart and undoubtedly will be, but let me leave you with his final conclusion and a suggestion you read every word of the article.

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

Just for fun, use your tab function and open up an article I have listed under my “Articles of Interest” entitled Top 20 Logical Fallacies and see how many you can pick out on your own.

Enjoy.

Here’s an article which began as “just a link” which reminds me of those occasions when I run into the grocery store intending to buy a gallon of milk, and by the time it’s all over I need a cart to carry all of my purchases.

Thanks again.

 

 

 

Advertisement