Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman wrote a New York Times op-ed admonishing America to just “give up on the Constitution,” most conservatives dismissed him as another liberal picking and choosing which parts of the Constitution to keep. However, Mr. Seidman’s argument is more radical than the usual liberal critiques of the Constitution. Mr. Seidman doesn’t want to get rid of parts of the Constitution. He wants to scrap the entire Constitution as a source of law.
He writes that the Constitution lacks any discernible meaning. It’s “obvious” that “much” of our “constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions.” Mr. Seidman’s premise is wrong. There aren’t infinite potential meanings to the Constitution. (exerpted from Washinton Times opinion editorial – click to read full article)
Seidman’s statement is so rediculous it doesn’t deserve a detailed response. What do I mean? His (and other ultra-liberals) agenda is blindingly obvious here.
Several years ago my wife & I struck up a momentary relationship with a couple we met while travelling. During a conversation about the Bible (and no, I have zero recollection how the subject came up) the gentleman stated , “It isn’t what people don’t understand in the Bible that stops them from accepting it. It’s what they do understand but don’t want to hear.”
Those people trying so very hard to remove the influence of the Constitution from our nation do not find the rules and regulations that are responsible for the USA success convenient. After all, the checks and balances bring about balance to their extremism and put checks on their radical plans.
This is the solidest, longest standing Democratic Republic that creates personal freedom in all recorded history. But as each year of letting those freedoms slip slowly away we move closer and closer to that drawing to an end.