1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

NYT OP-ED "Let's Give Up on the Constitution"

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by SuperNaut, Dec 31, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SuperNaut

    SuperNaut Member

    Jun 19, 2006
    SLC, Utah
    Welp, there ya have it. I don't even know what to say about the NYT printing this, especially now. I wish comments were open to see what kind of support it is generating.

    Let's Give Up on the Constitution

    ETA: I just realized that this isn't exactly directly related to Firearm issues as per the Sticky on this forum and is therefore OT, mods please delete at will.
  2. wacki

    wacki Member

    Sep 16, 2006
    Reminiscing the Rockies
    No this is firearms related. It explains why Heller was a 5-4 decision.

    At least this guy is honest about it.
  3. wojownik

    wojownik Member

    May 15, 2009
    The immediate article is OT, but the underlying philosophy is not. The line of thinking is an essential read for those looking to further understand how the anti's will get around to attacking the Second Amendment.

    The op ed author is Louis Seidman is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown University's Law School, and a gentleman I have had the displeasure to converse with.

    Seidman as a professor of con law is as bizarre as Dan Gross (Brady Campaign) becoming head of the NRA. He is brilliant, but his - and others like him - have such radical philosophies that are virtually irreconciliable with mainstream moderates, never mind the conservative/right (by the way, he's so left that he very prominently opposed the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

    His distain for the constitution is palpable. His brand of thinking is dangerous when applied against any hot-button topic protected under the Constitution (i.e. the Second Amendment). With his brand of constitutional irrelevancy, think about how easily fundamental rights could be swept away, either because they were controversial, or "bothered" a majority or outspoken majority. I never got the feeling he truly ever understood the Constitution's attempt to protect against both the tyranny of the minority and the tyranny of the majority.

    His introduction to the op ed piece is completely disingenuous - that it had never occurred to him to abandon the constitution. This is flat out b.s. - this line of thinking has long been an underpinning of his writings and teaching.

    He has argued that constitutional law cannot settle fundamental political issues - rather these are just "temporary" resolutions. In other words, a decision like Heller can be seen to be merely a temporary resolution of a controversy ...
  4. yokel

    yokel Member

    Apr 29, 2007
    Detestable constitutional "scholars" such as Louis Michael Seidman are almost always insufferably full of themselves. It sort of goes with the territory. After all, if you believe that we have to throw the parts of the Constitution you disagree with into the dustheap based primarily on your "feeling" that they're antiquated or no longer necessary, then you almost certainly must have an ego the size of a small planet!
  5. Apachedriver

    Apachedriver Member

    Jul 24, 2007
    Central Texas
    You know, without that pesky US Constitution, It'd be a lot easier to shut him up. I wonder if he's ever thought about that point.
  6. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Oct 29, 2010
    Lakewood, Washington
    I think he's right on the text I quoted. There is no reason why a different court can't go back later and change something. I disagree that the Constitution is the reason for our problems in modern society. The Constitution itself serves to protect the citizens of the US by keeping the government in check, and it keeps the government in check by forcing it to slow down and check itself. That's why there are checks and balances within each branch and between branches.

    Personally, I think some things could be rewritten (i.e. "In order to act as a discouragement to tyranny, for personal protection, and for recreational uses as seen fit by the citizen, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, restricted, regulated, or removed."), but overall the Constitution does its job.

    The problem is when the people in the government are too focused on being in power that they stop thinking about what their job is: to serve the American people.
  7. CharlieDeltaJuliet

    CharlieDeltaJuliet Member

    Apr 10, 2012
    North Carolinian
    Hmmm.....without the Constitution, there would be no freedom of speech and press... Wonder where the New York Times would be then...
  8. jmace57

    jmace57 Member

    Apr 9, 2011
    Always remember that a "successful" editorial (as far as the newspaper is concerned), is one that is controversial. The more mail/email/comments received, the better.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page