62 votes

NY Times Calls For Scrapping Constitution

We must be close, they're openly publishing subversive propaganda now. Good to see them showing their true colors.

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ron Paul is just another flawed man doing his best.

"I'm getting a sales job so I can practice my persuasion skills so that I may go on and convince a whole generation of youth that voluntary interaction is the only moral way for humans to behave."

Later Anarchist, and good luck with that career in sales.

Just don't act all surprised when you realize EVEN CHILDREN can see through your Anarcho-Garbage. They grew up on the playground too, and know what kind of people inhabit this world. I suggest you make sure it isn't snake oil you'll be selling before you dedicate your life to it, but if not, that's cool too. The world has always had more than its fair share of snake oil salesman.

Quote from the article:

"the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution..."

The Constitution CAN be improved upon. And if we in the liberty movement don't act now, someone else will. How can you amend the Constitution when the vote is rigged and the money is counterfeited?

Because you are not reading between the lines

"And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources."

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars / But in ourselves."
Shakespeare had it right. It's not the Constitution, its us!

First of all, Seidman is complaining of the deadlock that is occurring in our government because of the checks and balances established by the Constitution. Guess what, that's a GOOD thing! It means we have debate before embarking on matters that will have a lasting impact on future generations. When we--Congress that is-- don't, thousands of pages of UNREAD legislation rammed through loaded with small print and endless addendum's that will create havoc with our our society in ways the pen-pushers never dreamed of.

Second of all, to look to the UK and its commonwealth nations "traditions" as superior stability is ludicrous! Centuries of Empire building, colonization, and social class division--Not to mention they still have a figurehead monarch whose lifestyle paid is by its its people who are referred to as subjects, not citizens! Give me a break. The man wants to tear up the Constitutional contract and rewrite a new agreement of relationship between the government and the govern in favor of the former.

Seidman offers a radical hypothetical solution based that the goodwill of men will not be corrupted by unbridled power, if we can just trash that darn Constitution. Obama said the same thing in a radio interview several years before he was elected his first term. Obama clearly saw the Constitution as a obstacle for the Federal government to exercise power freely--which he was correct, but deduced in his intellectual conceit that was a bug, not an essential feature!

Wake up and smell the hubris!

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Sneaky Back-stabbing cowardy Marxist WORMTONGUE!

Yeah, wait till the last day, with no comment option, to propose his clarion call to remove the safeguard of our liberty because HE wants the damn trains to run on time!

Self-centered conceited little Napoleon complex tyrant with delusions of grandeur thinking his pea-brain and his pseudo-paper mill degrees in political basket-weaving and rabble rousing makes him the mental superior to the best minds of our Founding Fathers who wrestled mightily to design the best instrument to protect personal liberty and restrain the powers of government.

May he live to a ripe old age to see his hallucinated-induced utopia implode upon itself and find himself a victim of the very Fascist government he seeks build upon his lying rhetoric and illogical fallacies!

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

dont hold back brother, i

dont hold back brother, i suspect you have something you want to get off your chest.

great post - thank you

happy new year...i think


Liberty = Responsibility


A government that has no limit on it's powers by it's people always leads to fascism.

I couldn't help but notice...

I couldn't help but to notice that the man's argument was not actually an attack on the constitution and its principles but rather expressed an attitude that our predecessors have indulged in far too often. The fact of the matter is that the government's extra-constitutional provisions are what is weakening our nation's integrity. The federal government has expanded its reach everywhere and the imperialism bankrupts a society, not its people's inalienable rights. Government behavior is the problem, not so much the people.

Constitutional lawyer for 40 years?

and he didn’t see that the purpose was NOT to make government easier?

He couldn't have been that good at it. ;)

Just open the box and see

Louis Michael Seidman & Cass Robert Sunstein, Royal Jesters.

These two infamous royal jesters have a very long rap sheet. Booked 4 times together. Crime spree published 2001, 2005, 2009, 2012

Louis Michael Seidman & Cass Robert Sunstein - Published Books

  • 2012. Louis Michael Seidman, Geoffrey R. Stone, Mark V. Tushnet, Cass R. Sunstein & Pamela S. Karlan, The First Amendment (New York: Aspen Publishers 4th ed. 2012).
  • 2009. Louis Michael Seidman, Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein & Pamela S. Karlan, Constitutional Law (New York: Aspen Publishers 6th ed. 2009).
  • 2005. Louis Michael Seidman, Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone & Cass R. Sunstein, Constitutional Law (New York: Aspen Publishers 5th ed. 2005).
  • 2001. Louis Michael Seidman, Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone & Cass R. Sunstein, Constitutional Law (Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Law & Business 4th ed. 2001).

Under the guise of teaching Constitutional Law & Court Proceedings, these unscrupulous royal villeins advocate the dissolution of the foundational law of our land & legal proceeding. Are these jesters wishing us upon the royal English monarchy?

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

My (lengthy) response. Let me know your thoughts.


I found your article to be confusing and contradictory. I'll look at it piece by paragraph by paragraph and share my thoughts with you. My letter to you aims to spell out why I think your article is nonsensical.

1. Let's give up on the constitution - title and conclusion

Premise: The system of government is broken, as we can see from the economic chaos.

Culprit: The constitution

First thoughts:

Since this is the main claim, we'd have to first look at if the economic policies of the constitution here are actually followed by the government. I don't see you address that at all. I.e. Gold and Silver being legal tender. Nixon destroyed the last shred of that.

The federal reserve was founded by Woodrow in order to avoid further financial crisis. But it didn't work. We have crisis more than ever. What did the founders have to say about a national bank? Jefferson ruled it unconstitutional.

2. Citation of a constitutional rule of where revenue measures originate.

Thoughts: This is a political game and using constitution rules as an excuse. The senate renewed FISA for another 5 years completely ignoring the 4th amendment of the constitution. It's argued and followed where and when it benefits the argument at the moment.

3. Shame because you finally realize following the constitution bizarre because it's 225 years old.

OK, so you admit shame that it's taken you so long. Suddenly you have a revelation and you confess you've been wrong about the constitution for 40 years. This has no bearing on the subject itself, but really has volumes to say about you as a person. That's a long time to follow such a path.

The framers were avid studies of human history and human behavior. Yes, the constitution is 225 years old, but did they only study the last decade of history? Or the last few thousand of years. You'd have to claim that there's no human behavior patterns that can be inferred, and worse yet, you'd have to be pretty convincing to say that only in the last 200 years or so, human behavior has changed so much as to make the constitution completely irrelevant. Yet you don't , because you mention some amendments you'd like to keep. The reasoning is unclear, other than subjectively, you think those are good.

4. Constitutional disobedience is nothing new. It's been done Sedition Act is cited.

Yes, Ignoring the economic guidelines of the constitution is one. One which is likely to have a huge deal more to do with the current economic chaos than the constitution itself.
You have to prove that following the constitution is worse than ignoring it, as we have.

Sedition Act was by no means the first incidence which I'm surprised you don't mention. We've got the Whiskey Rebellion, or Washington trying to establish the first national bank, spurned on by Hamilton.

So far I can only see evidence that ignorance of the constitution is the problem, not following it. So why then are you saying to give up on it? What alternative do you offer?

5. Abe lincoln and slavery.

This seems to be neither here nor there. Should have been in the above paragraph perhaps? What point are you making? How does it support your claim?

6. Roosevelt expanded scope of federal power beyond anything the framers imagined.

Again this is more about not ignoring the constitution. The general theme is now, let's do away with the constitution, because we keep ignoring it.

That's a defeatist argument and hardly surprising, but the confusion comes when you advocate for SOME of the constitution which you seem to believe are good. Freedom of speech, equal protection etc. Those are, you claim, are good whether they are in the constitution or not. Well, of course. Lots of things are good on their own whether they belong to one set of views, none, or every view.

7. Judges can never agree what the constitution says.

Another argument to toss it. Same as above. Agreed on these premises. Sadly. However, again, no alternative form of government is offered, and the conclusion that this is the fault of the constitution itself is peculiar. I would infer that regardless of the rules which are established, people will prefer to follow whatever they want or believe. Human behavior. And Jefferson did say we have a Republic, if we can keep it. So why fault the constitution for human behavior? There will be no other alternative which can solve this and is certainly not grounds for dismissal of the constitution.

8. Nothing gives you any indication of what would happen if we deserted the constitution or at least, that we'd be worse off in fact, disregarding the constitution has led us to prosper in many cases.

What acts of disregard has led us to prosper? There are no examples. What would the outcome have been if we followed the constitution instead? Can you say that it would be unprosperous?
Can you say with certainty that our prosperity wasn't built on a facade that's set to collapse as the result of the same disregard? Ignoring gold and silver as legal tender which is your initial premise perhaps?

9. You list the things you seem to like about the constitution.

It seems you don't think it's all bad. Only some things. It's very unclear which things are bad in the constitution, and which things are good. The concept of amending the constitution hasn't been mentioned yet either.

You argue the constitution can be done away with, yet in the same breath say the president wouldn't have unlimited powers due to congress and the states. Well, wait a minute. What is congress? Supreme court? What are their powers? Those are also in the constitution. But you're not looking to do away with that part neither?

10. The rules in the constitution should be challenged on their base for legitimacy.

Still you argue for tossing the whole thing without mention of amending. Why? It is a tool in the constitution to Amend. Your example is odd here, since it talks about the presidents military action. This is a balance of power you just mentioned. Congress is supposed to declare war. Never the president. You should know that, you're supposed to be a professor of constitutional law. This is one of the checks and balances you just professed to be necessary to avoid an "all-powerful president". I'm baffled as to why you now say he should be free to do as he pleases without "a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief." He doesn't have such power now. It would be just another case of the constitution ignored, and checks and balances failing.

11. The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition

Once again you contradict yourself. I will say only that such disobedience HAS unravelled our social fabric. Isn't this the economic chaos which first made you write this article?

What resources does Britain have that we can draw on? With all the talk about disregard for the constitution, what part of it are we actually shackled by? Are they not suffering from similar economic chaos? Is their government without flaws? With CCTV's in every street corner, are they more free than us?

12. You mention what has preserved us as a nation.

Considering that the United States were formed as many nations, it's an odd idea that we have been preserved as a result of being one. You are of course aware that America was a big experiment. And it has indeed prospered on a very large scale. What other country has done so? Certainly not Britan nor New Zealand. But the states have also remained independent. If you propose to Sweden or Greece that they throw away their laws, and simply obey the laws of the European Union, you would be met with sneers and jeers, and so you should.

13. If we acknowledge that the constitution can be interpreted in so many different ways, it becomes irrelevant, we may have a different attitude.

We can argue that position on just about anything in the world. Gun control? Let's do away with it because we won't agree. You can of course take the opposite attitude, gun control? Let's have it, because we won't agree.
You get nowhere with that attitude.


You don't seem to know what you want. You argue for the abolishment of the constitution because it's ignored, claim it's good that it's been ignored, and at the same time blame it for causing the problems. Why is it a problem? Is it a problem because it's been ignored? What's a better solution? None of these questions are addressed. To find the constitution to be the culprit is a staggering idea.

It's quite obvious that you have the attitude of a living constitution. We'll, you got your wish. It's been interpreted haphazardly "in light of modern demands". And so because your interpretation has failed, you blame the constitution, not your erroneous interpretation.


Please verify grammar and spelling, and PLEASE make this a thread of its own and also reference the nytimes link. Thank you for taking the time to break it down :-)

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul


I was thinking very similar things. He absolutely contradicts himself.

I haven't the time to address

I haven't the time to address every grammar and spelling error. Perhaps a qualified proof reader will give you feedback before you send off your missive. You make some good points. I'd hate for them to be ignored due to technical reasons.

WOW... there's the pot calling the kettle black!!!!!

Here's a quote from the article

"AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil"

FIRST: Let's point out some SERIOUS errors in this article.
This statement clearly says "our insistence on obedience to the Constitution".... SINCE WHEN HAS THE CONGRESS OR THIS GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY OBEYED THE DOCUMENT???????!!!!!! RIDDLE ME THAT 1!!!!

Is it possible, that NON-Obedience IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM!!??
Well that and the dumbing down of the majority of the population with this blatant nonsensical propaganda?

I will say... that without a RULE BOOK written in advance, what is it that the government should be doing? I mean, why not just throw all caution into the wind and give infinite power to a group of people, elected or not, commonly referred to as "Government"!!??

Wow, how FAR AWAY THIS GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY from obedience to the oath of office, that oath which is pledged to the document we term the US Constitution.

S h i t appears to be hitting the fan as we speak, write and breath!

Love Liberty, be Vigilant

"Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty" (2 Corinthians 3:17)

Faith in God will prevail all things!

The New York Times and

The New York Times and General Motors have at least one thing in common.

They both should be out of business.

I see no plausible way how this supposed, "news," entity remains in business without some kind of government handout.

Seriously, when't the last time you actually sat down and read a newspaper?

The NYT is nothing but a government run propaganda machine, and a very weak one at best.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

How many law students has this guy taght the Constitution to

in 40 years? Probably thousands. I'm sure he's not the only constitutional law professor out there trashing the Constitution on a daily basis. But everybody would be so proud if their kids went to Georgetown and studied law. We reward it and put it on a pedestal and then wonder why it happens.

Seidman & Accomplices: Court Jesters on crime rampage!

Louis Michael Seidman & accomplices - Jointly Published Books 4 books over 11 years.

  • Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein & Pamela S. Karlan, The First Amendment (New York: Aspen Publishers 4th ed. 2012).
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone, Cass R. Sunstein & Pamela S. Karlan, Constitutional Law (New York: Aspen Publishers 6th ed. 2009).
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone & Cass R. Sunstein, Constitutional Law (New York: Aspen Publishers 5th ed. 2005).
  • Mark V. Tushnet, Geoffrey R. Stone & Cass R. Sunstein, Constitutional Law (Gaithersburg, Md.: Aspen Law & Business 4th ed. 2001).

Are these jesters wishing us upon the royal English monarchy?

Seidman, Louis Michael (54): Alleged University Professor. Practiced in the art-of-deception. Has access to printing press.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

SteveMT's picture

Here is a nice rebuff to this miserable op-ed.

Concerning Louis Michael Seidman.
By Evan Fleischer · December 31,2012

In yesterday’s New York Times, Louis Seidman — a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown — made his case for abandoning the Constitution of the United States. He makes this observation after noting that “observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken,” a startlingly original observation that no one in the history of this country has considered, thought upon, let alone realized over the past 263 years. The Swedish Academy should clear their desks and seriously consider rewarding the man their prizes for literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, and peace for making such a breakthrough. Anything less than this and a ticker-tape parade and a garland upon the head would demean this idea’s rightful station. Hail, hail, Mighty Idea!
More at:


they certainly haven't obeyed it in my lifetime.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Idiots - like jews who helped raise up Stalin and Hitler.

Those who cannot learn learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. - George Santayana


"Take hold of the future or the future will take hold of you." -- Patrick Dixon

If Jews helped

If Jews helped Hitler, Stalin was a Jew as was Churchill and FDR, why did the international Jewish community declare war on Germany in 1933 the moment the national socialists came to power.

Ignorance and false information never contribute positively.

"The prerequisite for action is the will and the courage to be truthful".
—Adolf Hitler


Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Poorly written

It's poorly written junk. Try this as an exercise, ignore the title of the article, and try to see if you'd come to the conclusion that he wants to abandon the constitution.

What an idiot

"And that is what the Constitution is all about - providing freedom from abuse by those in authority. Anyone who says the American Constitution is obsolete just because social and economic conditions have changed does not understand the real genius of the Constitution. It was designed to control something which has not changed and will not change - namely, human nature." -Cleon Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap

“It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till." -J.R.R. Tolkien


Stand tall for Liberty today!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Twin Royal Jesters! Rap Sheet: 5 books. Book 'em.

    Louis Michael Seidman & Cass Robert Sunstein

Louis Michael Seidman Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law :: A.B., Chicago; J.D., Harvard

Areas of Expertise Formal Education: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law and Procedure. His authorship is derisive,

After graduating from Harvard Law School in 1971, Professor Seidman served as a law clerk for J. Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. He then was a staff attorney with the D.C. Public Defender Service until joining the Law Center faculty in 1976. He teaches a variety of courses in the fields of constitutional and criminal law. He is co-author of a constitutional law casebook and the author of many articles concerning criminal justice and constitutional law. His most recent books are On Constitutional Disobedience (Oxford, 2012); Silence and Freedom (Stanford 2007); Equal Protection of the Laws (Foundation 2002); and Our Unsettled Constitution: A New Defense of Constitutionalism and Judicial Review (Yale 2001). In 2011, Seidman was elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

Co-authored 5 books related to the US constitution w/ Cass Robert Sunstein.

Cass Robert Sunstein: Infamously foisted proposals on "Conspiracy Theory" undermining.

"Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories ..."

  1. Target those that dare theorize that US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks.
  2. Labeled such as, "extremist groups."
  3. Ban conspiracy theorizing.
  4. Impose tax on disseminaters of such theories.


Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Ah that makes sense

Gotta love Cass Sunstein! j/k



"oh, the Founders were flawed, therefore throw out the constitution because I want a tyranny with the 'right' people in control who will 'get things done' because I can't be arsed to understand separation and division of powers" Arrrggghhh. These freakin' "constitutional lawyers". Freakin' flat-earthers.

I might come back and post more later, but almost all the words I can find to use right now are swears.

How convenient

that no comments can be posted to the article.

Sustainability: http://www.compostforsale.net

NY Times

What a piece of sh**. What about the rule of law. I'm singing to the choir. Basta***

It's not like the Government

It's not like the Government honors the Constitution now as they do what ever they please. At least we would all know that "Officially", we have a Rogue Government.

There is no Left or Right -- there is only freedom or tyranny. Everything else is an illusion, an obfuscation to keep you confused and silent as the world burns around you." - Philip Brennan

"Invest only in things that you can stand in front of and pr