Things to Come 13 - Goodbye, Constitution

The Left now openly admits that they want to scrap the Constitution.

In the few weeks since the election, this series has spanned an incredibly wide range of topics, from international affairs to religion to the economy to regulation to health care and, hey, even prostitution.  The primary theme, alas, has been that thanks to Mr. Obama's re-election, everything conservatives care about is going to get a whole lot worse.

There's a subtext to our arguments, though, that some of our regular readers have identified: aren't we protected by the Constitution?  Don't we still have rights that are enforceable, and which still limit the size and scope of government?

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "No!"  In practical terms, our Bill of Rights only mean what the Supreme Court says it means, and four more years of Mr. Obama probably mean that the Court won't be saying it means much at all.

Are we being too harsh?  We no longer have to speculate on what the left intends for our Constitution.  Mr. Obama's re-election has now, finally, encouraged the left to come out and boldly state what they've believed for a hundred years.

The New York Times recently published an op-ed from respected Constitutional scholar Louis Michael Seidman in which he flatly stated "Let’s Give Up on the Constitution:"

We ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance. [emphasis added]

What's a Constitution For?

Who is this "we" that Prof. Seidman wants to extricate from "bondage" to a centuries-old piece of parchment?  You're supposed to think it's you - but does the Constitution bind you?  Where does the Constitution prevent you from doing what you want to do?

It doesn't, not at all.  That's not its purpose and never was.

Our Constitution is one of the greatest documents in all of human history, because unlike virtually every other law ever written, it was never intended to limit what the people can do.

The Constitution's goal and glory is the exact opposite: It was intended solely to limit what the government may do.

The "we" whom Prof. Seidman wants to unshackle is he himself and his fellow liberal elites who run the government.  The potential scope of their tyranny - of their age-old desire for absolute power - has thus far been limited by the Constitution.  Therefore, as practical power-mad would-be tyrants, they want to persuade us to ditch the only thing that protects us from even more instrusive laws, even more onerous controls, even more infringement upon our rights and liberties as human beings and as Americans.

Prof. Seidman wants to unleash a monster that our Founders fought and died to put into chains.  As he recounts in his article, his fellow elite leftists from Franklin Roosevelt to Mr. Obama have had this goal for a long time, and he praises them for it.

Should that be our goal?  Is it better that we simply acknowledge that the end has come?  Are we better off doing as Prof. Seidman suggests and publicly scrapping the Constitution - which, in reality, would merely be recognizing what has been increasingly the case for a long while now?

Or would be do better to quietly accept our Constitution's and our nation's demise as a fait accompli?  After all, Mr. Obama did win, should we just get over it?  Should we, like John Boehner, shrug and accept the "will of the people"?

What will you do?  What will I do?  When is enough enough - and when will we know?  Or will we, like so many in Germany, only have our eyes suddenly opened when it's truly too late?

This series has answered a lot of questions about "Things to Come," and made many predictions.  This last is one where we can't - because it's not up to us.  How we react to the death of everything America stands for is up to you.

Petrarch is a contributing editor for Scragged.  Read other articles by Petrarch or other articles on Politics.
Reader Comments

I'm sure we all remember what obama said the night of his first election that he "Will fundamentally transform America." We just didn't realize how deep he meant that night but we are slowly becoming aware of what he meant. He continues to enslave the very people that he says he is trying to help while putting himself into a position of absolute power. It is not unthinkable that he will in 2015 or 2016 find a way around the Constitution or what is left of it and reign for another 4 or more years. Don't think that it can happen? Stay tuned.

January 17, 2013 3:00 PM

The Bosheviks made no secret of their objectives: did we listen?
The Nazis and Fascists openly declared their aims : did we listen?
Mao, and Castro were hailed by Western dupes as agrarian reformers despite their ideological credentials. Did we listen? History shows the answers.

Even tinpot Marxists like Ortega and Chavez made no secret of their aims in the Western hemisphere and others are following suit: no-one listens, ergo goodbye Monroe Doctrine and JFK promises.

Muslim/Islamic jihadists declared war on the West in the late 1990s but we were deaf until 9/11. That declaration of war stands but we tie our hands behind our backs. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose." Now you have the base for Islamic radicalism on a large scale - look to Europe for what follows.

Obama's ideology is soft left, with hard right tactics to enforce it. When they come for your guns will you remain passive? The "entitlistas" with their had out mentality grow day by day, as the so-called "Yankee can-do" fades into obscurity.. The US is running out of options and with the suicide rate among those serving abroad, they will constitute a run-down, alienated military.

To whom is the National Guard loyal? During the Vietnam War a novelist wrote a fascinating novel: "Take the War to to Washington." Far-fetched was how some described it but you face civil disturbance and street violence; a hare-brained idea of secession (because only "We the people" support such a move, not their comfortable representatives in Washington); a coup or complete disintegration owing to the financial situation prompted in part by the nonsense of Francis Fukuyama and galloping corporate greed. This resulted in exporting labor, massive sub-contracting and then the export of industries. What was learned from the first GFC post-Cold War? Nothing and the carpetbaggers returned with raises and bonuses to continue their destructive habits. The PRC has you in hock.

The Constitution needs updating for the 21st Century while retaining core values. Otherwise valé America the beautiful. Will we see a dis-United States of the PC; separate feminist and gay states? I'm glad I'm not young anymore.

January 18, 2013 2:28 AM

Well said, Dr Ward, but in what way would you update the Constitution for the 21st century? Would you trust anyone at this point with this sort of task?

January 18, 2013 8:37 AM

That's a really good question, Brother John. Other than making the commerce clause a lot narrower explicitly and giving senatorial appointments back to the states, I can't think of anything to improve.

January 18, 2013 3:36 PM

Actually, I have compiled several ideas over time. Some of these amendments include:

- returning senatorial appointments, as you point out;
- expanding the house of representatives to about 7 or 8,000 members, and limiting the time they are permitted to meet to about 5 days a month;
- forbidding any regulatory agency from imposing any fee, fine, tax, or penalty of any kind, as these are not things created by elected representatives
- and abolishing any cabinet-level department that did not exist prior to 1900.

January 18, 2013 7:10 PM

Interesting, Bro. J. I remember someplace on Scragged somebody saying lawyers ought to be allowed to serve in legislators. Conflict of interest.

How about adding education to the list of things the feds can't do?

January 18, 2013 7:41 PM

Right twice ... I may have said that here, I know I've said it elsewhere. One my (tongue-in-cheek) amendments reads that no one who has sat for the bar, clerked for a judge, or so much as swept the floor in a law office faces a lifetime ban on elective office. Conflict of interest, indeed.

Also, in abolishing every cabinet level department created after 1900, that takes out Education. My list is more exhaustive ;)

January 18, 2013 9:07 PM

What about anybody who takes government money in any form - employee, contractor, pensioner, welfare - can't vote at that level? Or maybe at all?

Town employees can't vote in town elections, but could they vote in state elections? No, because states give money to towns and feds give money to states. So no government beneficiary can vote in any government election.

Are campaign contributions bribes?

January 18, 2013 9:25 PM

Brother John,

I had intended to reply earlier. My problem is I write from afar and am cautious about criticizing without a better grasp of US history and politics. You query is indeed valid. Who would I trust? Or who could I trust? In short, no-one. The situation has declined to the extent where I'm almost compelled to follow the backhanded quote of Bertoldt Brecht:" The people have lost the confidence of the government; the government has decided to dissolve the people, and to appoint another one."

January 19, 2013 5:58 AM

Exactly so, Dr Ward: The government has dissolved the people and elected another, beginning in earnest with the Immigration act 1965.

As such, I wouldn't trust anyone to write amendments any longer. The ones I shared (with others) are all explicitly designed to hog-tie the federal government, since government action is at the center of every last problem we experience today. Were anyone else writing Amendments, we would end up with "The government shall have the power to..." and concern itself with matters like killing and eating one's young, lots of idiotic talk about meaningless concepts like "diversity," and the like. That would be the end of any sort of freedom.

January 19, 2013 8:45 AM
Add Your Comment...
4000 characters remaining
Loading question...