CBS Segment Called, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

Comments Off on CBS Segment Called, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

From an opt-ed segment on CBS’s 60 Minutes program. Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman wants to Give Up Constitution. (His opinion article in the New York Times)  Boy the media is really pouring it on, they just hate that pesky ole Constitution that just keeps getting in the way.  There’s is nothing wrong with our Constitution, it’s the people that are sworn to uphold it that have a problem with it. It’s amazing how this professor rationalizes his perspective on the Constitution in attempt to convince you to see it his way.  In his opinion it’s outdated and not important to us over 200 years down the road. Well I have news for him, if we didn’t have this Constitution, then you’d see how important and relevent it is today.  He asks foolish questions like, “Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what?”….If he had truly studied the Founding Father’s reasons for these things, he’d understand it was for the best for the country that they did these things.

Michael Savage’s rebuttal of this “Law Professor” …Michael Savage Radio Segment Aired on January 22, 2013

In his own words Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman says: “I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution. I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie. For example, most of our greatest Presidents — Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts — had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

To be clear, I don’t think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn’t a natural-born citizen. So what? Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control. I understand, though, that’s not everyone’s view, and I’m eager to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago. Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one’s commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today. If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.”

Advertisements

Mike Slater: Should HIllary Clinton win the Nobel Peace Price?

1 Comment

Obama: Change Coming to NFL to Reduce ‘Violence’

Comments Off on Obama: Change Coming to NFL to Reduce ‘Violence’

So the President is going to start telling us what kind of sports we can watch now?

President Barack Obama said if he had a son, he would have to think “long and hard” before he let him play football and suggested he–along with other football fans–watches football against his conscience.

“I’m a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football,” Obama said.

In an interview with the left-of-center New Republic, Obama said football will “probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence” and that may allow fans to not have to “examine our consciences quite as much” while watching the game.

“And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence,” Obama said. “In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.”

He added he was more worried about college players and suggested the NCAA “think about” taking action to make the game safer, but did not get more specific.

“You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on,” Obama said. “That’s something that I’d like to see the NCAA think about.”

Obama was asked: “Sticking with the culture of violence, but on a much less dramatic scale: I’m wondering if you, as a fan, take less pleasure in watching football, knowing the impact that the game takes on its players.”

He answered:

I’m a big football fan, but I have to tell you if I had a son, I’d have to think long and hard before I let him play football. And I think that those of us who love the sport are going to have to wrestle with the fact that it will probably change gradually to try to reduce some of the violence. In some cases, that may make it a little bit less exciting, but it will be a whole lot better for the players, and those of us who are fans maybe won’t have to examine our consciences quite as much.

I tend to be more worried about college players than NFL players in the sense that the NFL players have a union, they’re grown men, they can make some of these decisions on their own, and most of them are well-compensated for the violence they do to their bodies. You read some of these stories about college players who undergo some of these same problems with concussions and so forth and then have nothing to fall back on. That’s something that I’d like to see the NCAA think about.

Breitbart

Some comments were;

Showing 80 of 215 comments

  • syvyn11

    So the IMERIAL PRESIDENT-KING will order us into what sports we can watch and like.

    Spoken like a true Marxist.

  • MudTurtle

    The almighty amateur has all the answers.  Let us follow him to Utopia.

    thereeledeele

    I’m glad the journalist didn’t ask a ridiculously unimportant question like ‘Where are the jobs’? or ‘Why not reduce spending’? or ‘Are the civilian deaths from your drone strikes collateral damage’? Lets stick to all important entertainment

    Note to Obama: Personally, I would rather you concentrate on solving our debt crisis.

    syvyn11

    Considering what he has already done to ‘solve’ the debt crisis, I’d rather have him working on football.