The Constitution was designed to institutionalize, and therefore limit, power struggles. As an alternative, we can think about another revolution going on just a little later than ours and be grateful that deviations from the actual Constitutional have been rather short lived.

In fact, the national government is not functional because it’s being made to bear weights that should be distributed among the states and local governments.

Dear Louis: the reason why we can’t all get out of our financial difficulties by setting up a printing press in the back room and churning out currency is quite simple (apart from it being illegal) – if you just issue coloured pieces of paper willy-nilly, then your currency becomes worth only as much as coloured pieces of paper.

In other words, you have to pay your bills somehow with something that is really of value or worth. Blaming the Constitution for not letting the President, or Congress, or Joe from No. 46 print more pieces of paper to ‘solve’ the problem of the bills coming due and having to be paid is not making any sense.

All that hornswoggle about dead, rich white men is just so much hoo-ha. Suppose “the president or one of the party leaders in Congress” reached “a considered judgment” that you should be dragged out, stood up against a wall, and shot; I rather imagine you would be very happy if someone, anyone, would rush into the room waving a 200-year old document written by dead white rich dudes which said “You can’t do that!”

What else would you expect from an anarchist?

FW KEN
The Feds aren’t being “made” to bear those weights…they do I by choice. Early on last century they talked the states into giving up the programs & promised they could be more efficient. Then they told the states “we’re taking this over, and you’re gonna pay for it”.
The first was under a ruse called “Revenue Sharing”.
The Feds won’t even consider letting the states take anything back…like Education.

Let’s see, if you don’t like what the Constitution says you can, well I don’t know… hmmmm what’s the word???? AMEND IT YOU DUMB-A$$!!!

Instead of making their intent clear by making the Constitution what they think it should say, they re-interpret it out of existence making it only a shadow of its former self and hiding their true intent.

What else would you expect from a Professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown? Yes gppp, I’m being redundant.

I believe the medical term for this is Progressive myopia.

Maxine -

I don’T disagree, but was speaking in structural terms. This country was designed to work a certain way and we have allowed it to become top heavy.

Not sure how it works there, but up here once the writ is dropped legislatures are basically out of a job. Is this last sessions Congress & Senate or the new ones?

Bear in mind that Obama is not constitutionally qualified to run for president, being the alleged son of a foreign national and the adoptive son of another foreign national who attended college as a foreign national (sponsored by foreign nationals)…never mind that his ideologies are foreign (Islamist/Marxist)

Steve, tomorrow is the magic day, any legislation that was not sent to the Prez and signed disappears into never-never land (Jan 3 of odd # years).

Whitestone, the proposition that a “born” citizen must have two citizen parents is not settled law; to the contrary.

J. Stuart Little, that raises the question of whether Obama (who probably agrees with this “constitutional” law prof) signed the tax bill before departing for Hawaii again. I think he has several days, though, even after Congress has adjourned, so signing it on his return to Washington should be sufficient.

Progressives have contempt for the Constitution because it prevents them from just taking stuff (money, guns, etc.) from the citizenry.

It is ironic that a lot of Constitutional Law “professors” don’t like the Constitution. Things would be ever so much better if we just had a dictator, don’t you know?

After 40 years teaching about it and collecting a generous salary and benefits, he suddenly sees the light. I can’t even imagine how difficult it must be for him to be collecting his pension. What a nightmare he is living.

Hah! Obama “signed” the bill by auto pen, after reviewing a copy in Hawaii. If he reviewed it, that’s more than any of the legislators who passed it did.

Off-topic, Christopher, but I saw a link over on T:19 about the new bishop of New Hampshire.

And maybe it’s just me, but this article sort of struck me as him practically tripping over himself to say “I’m not like the last guy!”

Straight, white, married with three kids guy who emphasises “I’m quieter; I’m an introvert. Gene (Robinson) is off-the-charts extrovert,”, “described himself as contemplative” and “He said he’s more likely to write a prayer than issue a press release. And he won’t endorse political candidates, something Robinson did last year when he endorsed Barack Obama for re-election.”

Goodness, it’s almost like the good people of New Hampshire weren’t all that thrilled after all with the results of the First Out Gay Bishop. Don’t worry, though; the new incumbent manages to uphold the fine old tradition of irritating the socks off cranky old-fashioned Papists like me by quoting Archbishop Oscar Romero. Dear nice liberal Protestants, stop appropriating our clergy and/or saints for handy soundbites for social justice causes! Er, okay, except the ones who are already so progressive as to be all but Episcopalian already. You can have those guys and gals.

But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

Hahahahahaha…. when was the last time anyone in DC obeyed the Constitution!?!? That was a good one, tell us another perfesser!

Maybe instead of teaching it for 40 years, he should have spent some time learning about it.

Here’s a good example of what Seidman would want to see instead of that pesky Constitution:

“Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich” (Gesetz zur Behebung der Not von Volk und Reich) (Enabling Act of 1933)

The Reichstag has enacted the following law, which is hereby proclaimed with the assent of the Reichsrat, it having been established that the requirements for a constitutional amendment have been fulfilled:

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.

Article 4
Treaties of the Reich with foreign states, which relate to matters of Reich legislation shall for the duration of the validity of these laws not require the consent of the Reichstag. The national government shall adopt the necessary legislation to implement these agreements.”

Voila, problem solved!

Jim,
We already have legislation that fits the criteria, it uses “as the secretary shall direct” and is misnamed The Affordable Care Act. It will be used to insure that people who don’t fit criteria die from some medical need.

The constitution and the respect for this document is the only thing that has prevented us, thus far, from sliding into tyranny. Without a codified system of checks and limits on the power of government, the slide to tyranny is inevitable. To the extent to which we are willing to concede power to the government is the extent to which we are willing to concede to tyranny. To choose to ignore this document or to disrespect this document is to place oneself under tyranny.

Seidman seems think that it is the Constitution that is at fault and not the people who use it. During the Civil War Lincoln voided the writ of habeas corpus, defied the First Amendment and unconstitutionally created a state (West Virginia.) We all know how Franklin Roosevelt expanded the commerce clause way beyond any sensible reading and it still is offending the citizenry to this very day. Roosevelt also totally ignored the Constitution in interring US citizens. The point is that there are a ton of things done to our Constitution that would make any self-respecting liberal scream in agony. Now, can you imagine how they would scream if there were no Constitution as we currently know it? They already howl in constitutional rights agony anytime the government does anything in the interest of protecting us from islamic terrorism. How about if the government could string together some “wise men” who said that racial profiling were a better way to protect us than considering as terrorists everyone from newborns to aged Norwegian grandmothers?

Jim from Wisconsin,
Why worry about the writ as we effectively no longer have it (Bill Clinton I think).
The First Amendment refers to CONGRESS not the Prez.
Interesting thing about western Virginia, if Virginia had actually succeeded it is legal if they had not it was not. The way the states were treated post ware I don’t know an argument could be made either way.

Anarchist, indeed. If the Supreme Law of the Land can be torn, shredded, burned and flushed down the toilet by government fiat, then no one should have to obey any subordinate law, regulation or rule. Nothing at all has a claim to be binding law.

JM:

Nothing at all has a claim to be binding law.

Don’t be silly. All the laws are based on the same claim as in any dictatorship: ‘I got a gun and you ain’t.’

Why else do you think Mr. Obama is so determined to make sure that the second half of that sentence comes true?

J. Stuart:
Lincoln authorized the destruction of newspapers that showed any sympathy to the Confederacy. By “destruction” I mean just that. He sent folks in to destroy the presses and the building. He also jailed or forcibly deported folks in border states who expressed sympathy to the Confederacy; while some folks got off with a good tar-and-feathering. Generally he denied a huge chunk of folks their first amendment rights.

West Virginia is interesting as it displays the dualism of Lincoln’s view. He consistently denied that secession was legal and constitutional and never referred to the Confederacy as anything but states in rebellion. But in so doing he would have to say that US military invaded the USA and committed acts of war against their fellow citizens. So, when it suited his purpose he treated them as member states of the USA and when it suited his purpose he treated them as a foreign power. West Virginia’s secession was one example: If he agreed that Virginia had left the USA then an argument could be made for West Virginia’s accession to the USA. But since he never recognized secession as a legitimate right of the states, then West Virginia could not legally become part of the USA because of Article IV, Sec. 4 of the constitution. I put it this way: They are a state created out of a circular argument.

Jim,
What does the following mean to you “Congress shall make no law”? If you are fighting to defend the Constitution a good understanding of the words goes a long way.

What happened during the war was sad, but was brought on by the fact that we deleted a clause that was originally in the Declaration. If it had not been deleted SC would have seen to it that we all spoke Limey.

Of course if a state is in rebellion against the Constitution (US) is there a state government to be consulted? I assume that to be “readmitted” VA would have had to accept the division making it a moot point.

Lincoln took his view towards the South because he wanted the post war to be as gentle on the south as he could make it. Mr Booth took care of that however. Had Lincoln been able to complete his second term he would have been the one impeached.

J. Stuart
Just to make sure that I’m correctly understanding you, Congress shall make not law abridging freedom of speech, assembly, or establishment of religion; bu the president is free to do whatever he damn well pleases in those areas. So, the president could by executive order establish (in the case of our current prez)that Islam is the official religion of the USA just as long as the congress doesn’t do it? The president with an executive order could destroy any news media that he considers unfavorable to him but the Congress is forbidden to do so? The president could order that there be no gatherings consisting of more than conservatives but the Congress can not pass a long in that regard? I hope that isn’t what your saying as it sure sounds like an imperial presidency to me. It seems what you’re saying is that any government, state or federal, or any part of the Executive Branch is free to deny anyone First Amendment rights, establish religions, etc. and that only the US Congress is prohibited from doing so. Is that actually what you are trying to say? If so, there is a ton of US Supreme Court decisions that contradict that.

As for Virginia, by definition a state in rebellion is still a state. But Art. 4 Sec.4 of the Constitution does not provide for an exception. Now, if Virginia had legally seceded, something that Lincoln never accepted, and West Virginia had broke off from former state Virginia and had asked to be admitted as a US state, that would be fine. Except that Lincoln never agreed that Virginia had left the US only that it was in “rebellion” which would still make it a US state and West Virginia as an unconstitutional entity. So, you see the double-talk that Lincoln did? How he tried to have it both ways? Another interesting fact of history is the states of the former confederacy are not now part of the USA of their own free will. They legally seceded (I’ll grant that some disagree), were invaded by the USA, defeated by the USA, subjugated and made to do penance for 30 years. But they never by their own free will once again became part of the USA. They are conquered territory. True, it is a moot point now. But it’s always interesting to play around with some of the facts of history.

Jim from Wisc.,
As to your first 1/6/13 question.

No, I was trying to say that you accused LINCOLN of violating an article of the Constitution that did not apply to him.

When someone sets out to defend the Constitution they need to accept it as written, and not misuse it as those who don’t wish to obey it.

Barry O does not have the right to call any religion the official religion. Why? Because it is not one of the powers given him under the Constitution.

Jim from Wisc.,
As to your second 1/6/13 question.

Help your logic a bit, West Virginia was the loyal part of Virginia. When Virginia was “readmitted” they accepted that West Virgina – because they had remand loyal to the United States – was entitled to statehood.

You are right, when the treasonous states aligned to engage in war against the United States Lincoln should have brought charges of Treason against those involved. When they were captured they should have been tried and executed. I am certain that a court in Philly would have convicted them. That would have saved the United States a ton of money on POW camps.

Virginia’s duly elected Representatives and Senators should have challenged the bill in Congress.

Acts of war were committed in any state where the property of the United States was seized.

Thank you I now believe that WV SHOULD have been given statehood, something I didn’t believe 4 days ago. Maybe I should stop calling it Western Virginia.

One other minor point mayhaps you should drop your hatred of Lincoln, the South would have suffered far more under some of the other Northerners – witness what happened after Lincoln was assassinated. Please refer to his second Inaugural Speech
“With malice toward none, with charity for all”

J. Stuart: There is no exception allowed in the constitution to a state to be “readmitted” or for a segment of that state to be broken off as a state, something which is expressly barred in the constitution. The USA in general and Lincoln in particular NEVER stated that those states had seceded. How then could they then say that they had be “readmitted” when they had never exited.

If as you say that the First Amendment does not apply to the executive branch but only to Congress, then there is no legal way to prevent a private citizen from being charged for a violation of the First Amendment. Indeed, any part of government except for Congress can do that without prohibition. Further, everyone and every private and public entity criminally charged for civil rights violations under, say, the establishment clause of the First Amendment should be able to point out that that amendment only applies to the US congress. However, I don’t recall that legal tactic being used successfully. Why? And if you say that there are laws against it, then those laws must be unconstitutional, right?

I don’t dislike Lincoln nor do I revere him as anything but just another president. Just as with all of the other presidents we need to put whatever greatness that they had into the context of the wrong that they did. Lincoln sought vengeance against those that disagreed with him, wished to deport blacks to Africa, and, since he didn’t recognize secession as a right of a state, invaded his own nation and subjugated his own citizens. Roosevelt interned minorities and attempted to force the US Supreme Court to bend to his will.

As regards reconstruction, that was a time of the wholesale denial of rights to a citizenry that was supposed to be full and complete citizens. You were guilty simply because you were a citizen of a southern state. I wonder what the ACLU would have done if they had been around back then?

It is also quite interesting to note that Jefferson Davis (who as a US Senator had warned his fellow southerners not to secede because he knew that it would mean a war) had made several attempts to negotiate with Lincoln to end the war. Lincoln refused because, by contemporary northern accounts, it would have meant recognition of the right of secession, something that he was loathe to do. It is also interesting to note that during the war while not recognizing southerners as a people of a foreign nation (and thus US citizens) that the federal government took private citizens land without due compensation. Note that it wasn’t until many, many years after the war, and only after several lawsuits, the Lee family was compensated for the taking of what is now the Arlington Cemetery. The government quietly paid a paltry sum, far lower than the market value in 1861. Many families never received even that for land taken or destroyed by the US government. “With malice towards none and charity towards all”. Yup!

1. Lincoln was elected chief executive of the US and Commander in Chief.
as such he was REQUIRED to defend the US and its’ assets.
2. US forts and other property were attacked and captured by those in rebellion/seceded or whatever.
this property had been purchased and developed by the US Government. (The one in DC/Philly/NYC).
3. As chief executive he attacked the offending State/Country or whatever.
4. If the South was still a part of the country the treasonous should have been tried and executed.

As to WV. The only legitimate, US recognized VA government was in WV. By requesting statehood as the only US recognized VA government they had approved the split.

I would have never thought I would be arguing for WV. What is worse, I think I’ve convinced myself.

If you’ve never been to WV you must go there. It is a wonderful, scenic place filled with very warm and hospitable people who would do anything to make you feel at home.

We haven’t settled these issues and never will sharper legal minds than ours still debate these points. My ancestors fought and died for the Confederacy and their beloved Virginia. None of them was any richer than dirt poor could get them. I take tremendous pride in them and how they gave their lives to protect their home from an invading army. In addition to reading many of the great books on the Civil War I’ve read just about anything that I can get my hands on that tells the story of the war from a Southern perspective. The winner gets to write the history, but that doesn’t mean its always correct. As the legend of Lincoln grows and grows it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the man from the myth. No one wants to hear how the man many times knowingly ignored the constitution and also either bullied, manipulated, or flat-out ignored Congress. Then there are the many contradictions regarding the man and the war. Sometime do some reading about the life of Jefferson Davis, a man who never wanted to be the president of the Confederacy, as a US Senator he begged southern states to not secede, and how he was perhaps held in greater esteem by his fellow Senators than any others (kind of the Teddy Kennedy of his day, only far more pious.) He and Varina also adopted a former slave youth who lived with them even in the Confederate White House. Lincoln on the other hand was, by all reports, very uneasy about blacks and avoided them whenever possible. It’s contradictions like that which keeps folks scratching their heads when it comes to the Civil War. It is an event in history that staunchly refuses to be cubbyholed. And don’t get me started on the causes of the war. It was economic, cultural, and, to be sure, about slavery but not to the extent that many think. Reconstruction is still an emotion-filled subject in the South. One part of the Reconstruction saga that I find almost hilarious was how many abolitionists backslid when it became clear that blacks would now actually be free; and not only that, have all of the rights that they have–even to live next door to them. The racism of the North was exposed in Reconstruction. “We freed you, just don’t think that you can move here” was the general tone of the North during that time. Many former slaves headed north only to return because, in their own accounts, they could not deal with the blatant racism they encountered in places such as New York, Boston, Philly.

Kind of crazy stuff, our history!

Been to WV, and every one of the contagious states. Enjoyed the Cass Scenic (before they went down the other side of the mountain) as a child. Even applied for a job there, until the US Gov tried an underhanded, illegal way to avoid paying for the move. Of course they couldn’t afford to pay for supplies either so …. please ignore the fact that we were financed by user fees.

Forgot to mention one other thing. My great-great grandfather rode with the 1st Wis. Cav. during the war. If it weren’t for Custer and his monstrous ego, the 1st Wis. was designated to capture Jeff Davis. Totally without orders Custer charged in and captured Davis. So, relatives on both sides and both of them probably hated Custer.