Close window  |  View original article

Things to Come 13 - Goodbye, Constitution

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

By Petrarch  |  January 17, 2013

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.