CBS Anti-Constitution Network

Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman on "Give Up on the Constitution"By Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com   

This past Sunday, CBS ran an op-ed segment on its morning show called, “Let’s give up on the Constitution.”   It was written and delivered by Georgetown law professor Louis Michael Seidman.  Professor Seidman gave a longer version of this in print at the end of 2012 in the New York Times.  There, he said, “As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is.”  Really, it took 40 years to see the light?  On the CBS version, Seidman said, “I’ve got a simple idea: Let’s give up on the Constitution.  I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not.”  Really?  It’s not a radical idea when the President of the United States just swore an oath to “uphold the Constitution” in his second term inauguration?  (Click here for the CBS version of Seidman’s op-ed.)  (Click here for the NYT version.) 

I don’t question professor Seidman’s knowledge of constitutional law.  What I question is his timing and his new awakening after a “40 year” haze.  I also question the decision CBS made to put this op-ed on the air.  Not because of what was said, but because CBS put this on without any rebuttal.  I wholeheartedly disagree with Seidman’s view, but I am steadfastly in favor of the First Amendment.   To me, CBS is the anti-Constitution network for allowing a radical one-sided view to go unchecked!  After all, it’s not “Freedom of Spin.”   This is how a group of outdated TV stations takes care of the public trust?  

As far as professor Seidman, he should be “ashamed” for the sham of being a constitutional scholar for  decades who doesn’t believe in his field of study.  In Seidman’s CBS op-ed, he says he’s “eager to talk with people” about gun control, but if he had his wish, the conversation would start with people having no right to have a gun.  Let’s talk—yeah, right. 

Seidman also contends, “This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.”  Really, the government will take care of our freedoms out of “respect”?  Why isn’t the good professor doing an op-ed about the gutting of the due process clause of the 4th Amendment?  The President can imprison anyone indefinitely and kill U.S. citizens without charge or trial.  (The President ordered execution via drone strikes of three U.S. born citizens suspected of helping al-Qaeda in 2011.)  I guess if you are giving up on the Constitution, those kinds of things are no longer an “obligation” and don’t interest you any longer.  Hey, and nothing is stopping CBS from allowing op-ed pieces or real reporting on any of those subjects either.  Instead, we get “Let’s give up on the Constitution.”   

Professor Seidman makes his main point by saying, “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.”  I guess, in Seidman’s 40 years of constitutional study, he just forgot the U. S. Constitution has been amended (or changed) 27 times.   It also appears Seidman doesn’t know much about “. . . our country as it exists today,” either.  Enormous fraud by bankers has gone completely unprosecuted.   There is the $800 trillion LIBOR rate rigging fraud, money laundering for Mexican drug cartels and terrorists, securities fraud, and foreclosure fraud.  Most recently, big banks paid an 8.5 billion fine for illegally foreclosing on millions of homes.  If that’s not a form of tyranny, I don’t know what is.  What world are you living in, professor Seidman?  Crime and fraud destroy confidence and trust in the financial system.  At some point, it will melt down again.  Where are the op-ed pieces for massive fraud and totally unprosecuted crime, CBS and professor Seidman?  

Our Founding Fathers knew one thing when they penned the Constitution, and that is human nature does not change.  It hasn’t changed since the days of Jefferson and Adams or Adam and Eve.  Human nature is constant, and that is why the Founding Fathers put “Freedom of Speech” and “The Right to Bear Arms” number one and two in the U.S. Constitution.  Lastly, if CBS and professor Seidman had their way, a new document for governing the nation would probably start with the words “The government says” instead of “We the People.”

Comments
  1. Scott

    I’m so glad I stopped watching CBS years ago, as well as all the other mainstream propaganda networks. The Germans had a Constitution as well, before Hitler dismantled it; and look how wonderful that turned out. Thanks to the Patriot Act, FISA, NDAA, etc, and several executive orders there’s virtually nothing left of the Bill of Rights that still protects us from tyranny. Interesting, that CBS never addresses any of that.

    We now live in a country that tolerates illegal wars of aggression, torture, warrantless surveillance, illegal searches, targeted killings under executive order, etc, and now the military can be used to arrest people without charges or due process and detain them indefinitely (thanks to the NDAA). Banking criminals are given free reign to loot the wealth of a nation and are completely above the law… I used to wonder how the German people allowed Fascism to take over their country. I naively never thought it would happen here; but I guess history repeats itself. CBS uses jerks like Seidman to steer people into willfully accepting the idea that the Constitution is just an unnecessary and outdated document written by men who died 200 years ago.

    • Greg

      Thank you Scott for adding your voice to this post. All Americans should be outraged and I know you are!
      Greg

      • Scott

        Thank you Greg for being a voice of reason, and keeping us updated on the most important current topics. You’re awesome!

        • Greg

          Thank you Scott for your support.
          Greg

    • droidX-G

      Todays education system is no different than the Hitler youth or Stalin or Mao’s youth educational framework

  2. justin king

    This is a great example of Liberalism being caught-up in the moment of victory./// Granted, the MSM is pragmatically liberal; on the other hand,the Conservative Entertainment Complex clings to the religious, anti-academic crowd like it’s mommy’s leg. They are a laughingstock. FOX “Fair & balanced”- PLEASE. // CONCLUSION = I don’t trust either one. Give me Max Keiser,Greg Hunter, and alternative news every time.

    • Greg

      Justin King,
      Thank you for your comment and for your high regard of the work being done here!!
      Greg

  3. justin king

    A great way to fight the BI-PARTISAN ELITE is to challenge the financial corruption of the John Corzine MF Global case and the anti-constitutional aspects of the PATRIOT ACT.- These 2 “gorillas in the room” are the worst offenders to the Republic.

  4. Johann

    Lets give up on the MSM, the American Constitution is the last link to sanity in an insane world. When America dismisses its Constitution as irrelevant what hope is there for the people of Europe? We will be enslaved with you. Please be the guiding light on the hill. Maintain the integrity of your Constitution at all costs.

    • Greg

      Johann,
      Well said from across the pond. Thank you for adding your European perspective.
      Greg

  5. Sean S

    Well said Greg.

    I like the way his dreadful piece(the NYT version) begins as he tries to set the scene:

    “AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions”.

    Nothing but absolute nonsense. So the real cause of all the economic and financial problems is really the US Constitution. Oh well I am glad we now know thanks to the professor who has shown us all the light.

    The good professor may well be a good academic lawyer but his understanding of how Government and the Fed have mismanaged the economy for decades is quite clearly lacking. Perhaps he should not stray into areas where he has zero competence.

    One could write a long rebuttal to many of his other comments and hollow arguments in his diatribe.

    I am surprised anyone would bother to publish this nonsense. It verges on the extreme but of course there is no doubt a wider agenda running here and perhaps we shall see others jumping on the bandwagon now.

    • Greg

      Sean S.
      The professor toned it down for CBS. That’s why I included both the NYT version and the video CBS version. Thank you for adding your spot on analysis to the post!!
      Greg

      • Nathan Hale

        Greg, I don’t watch tv anymore so I don’t know what this guy looks like, is this the same professor who used to play on “Gilligan’s Island”?

        • jc davis

          God love you Nathan hale…my kinda people.

  6. Wilfong

    That guy should have his citizenship revoked.

  7. Wild Bill

    Greg,
    Just read on another website that the FDIC is no longer insuring deposits as of 12/31/12. Is this true? The site says $114B has been taken out so far while we were being distracted by the fiscal cliff.

  8. frosty

    Greg,

    Regarding the idea of giving up the Constitution, the good professor says “I know, it sounds radical, but it’s really not.”

    It is apparent that, even after 40 years of teaching constitutional law, the professor still doesn’t understand that the fundamental purpose of our Constitution is to provide a single, legal source of authority for the existence of a federal government. Thus, by “giving up” the Constitution, we would simultaneously extinguish all legal authority for the government body it created.

    If the professor doesn’t consider this idea to be radical, he needs to immediately stop professing and go check in at the Ha-Ha Hilton.

    • Greg

      Frosty,
      Boom!!!! Love the comment.
      Greg

  9. art barnes

    Greg, being a professor or any other endeavor doesn’t mean you continued to learn, its just a minimum benchmark to start a career and hopefully then to continue learning in that disciplined. The “learned” professor as well as many more have no real understanding of our society, mostly protected by tenure salaried with pension and an ivory tower. After 40 years of campus isolation he could have lost his ability for rational thought. Whatever happened its CBS’s trial balloon, the puppet master if you will who let that bumbling idiot have a forum is the real man behind the mask. That communist rant could never gone unanswered in my fathers day, thanks for making it here. Its plain to see that in order to control the masses our Constitution must be set aside and CBS is leading the charge.

    • Greg

      Thank you Art for the comment.
      Greg

  10. Cathy

    Missed your video today. Really learn from your video’s, one of the very, very few truth site. Thanks again.

    • Greg

      Cathy,
      Today’s post was a written one with no YouTube video posting. Sometimes I do that. Thank you for your loyalty and support.
      Greg

  11. Doug Ferguson

    Signs of the times my friend. Methinks the great republic’s days are numbered. A storm is coming and we should start looking for a safe port to ride her out in. I have read the beginning and {most importantly} the end of the Great Book, and it doesn’t end well for one side of those people mentioned in the end.

    Choose you this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house, we will serve Yahweh.

    Shalom~

  12. Mike K

    I would be extremely interested in finding out who professor Seidman thinks should determine what parts of the Constitution should be kept and what should be culled. Does he believe the American people should be the final arbiters? Does one really want a revamped Constitution decided by a mass of individuals who typically care more about who is going to win the Super Bowl than who is going to be the new head of the Federal Reserve? I don’t know the exact figures, but it wouldn’t surprise me to find out that most Americans don’t know who their Representative in Congress is.
    Perhaps, the good professor recommends that the decision should be left to a subset of the population. In which case, who determines the subset and what would be the nature of the individuals who will comprise that set? Will it be politicians making the choices? I sure don’t want the same individuals who created the NDAA, the Patriot Act, the Affordable Health care Act, and the Financial Reform Act crafting a new Constitution. And if they did, it would probably exceed 15,000 pages and contain a hidden clause stating they reserve the right to modify the document without notice or consultation with the American people. Undoubtedly, the new Constitution (small c?) would require a vote on it before anyone could find out what was really in it (ala Nancy Pelosi).
    I have a much simpler idea. Let’s rewrite the phrase: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others and apply it to the document. One has to admit, its much simpler, covers all the angles, and gets us (the American people) directly where the pigs (politicians, financial elite, and certain law professors) want US to be.

    • Greg

      Mike K,
      I’ll bet the Second Amendment would be nixed just like the Fourth is already. Good point my friend.
      Greg

      • frosty

        Greg

        I have noticed that you seem to think that the 2nd amendment grants the People a right to keep and bear arms, but this is not so. Please consider the following:

        All animals have a natural right defend themselves the best way they can and that right preexists the creation of any human governments. Our 2nd amendment simply recognizes this preexisting right to be armed and explicitly directs the federal government not to infringe the right. Thus the People’s right to keep and bear arms exists regardless of the 2nd amendment’s instructions to the government.

        Of the Bill of Rights, SC Justice William Brennan said : ” …they were added to the Constitution to operate solely against Federal power” Barron vs. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, at 247 (1833).

        Properly understood, neither our Bill of Rights nor our Constitution grants the People any rights whatsoever. The founders of our nation understood that natural human rights, like the one to self defense and others, are bestowed by the power that created humanity itself. They are not things that can be granted by one mortal being to another.

        • Kevin

          I would note here that the founders did indeed see rights in the way you intone, as natural and granted by God. The Bill of Rights doesn’t grant the rights it protects the people from having those rights usurped by an overreaching Government. We protect the Bill of rights as best we can because it protects us. Its not some superior Government made up of superior people with more intellect than the rest that makes the US special, its that we have a Constitution shielding the people from that government and limiting the power of said government. Seidman fails to see this distinction, all he sees is an arcane document in the President’s way. (Which is where it should be)

  13. jc davis

    Greg: Seidman is where I was 15 yrs ago. I was ignorant before I started seeing the constitution removal. It seems to take time for it to soak in ( without a republic constitution for all equally we the people will be / have become a republic controlled by a oligarchy. Glad to see you speaking up for the constitution as it / we are under attack.

  14. By Design, Over Time

    Greg:

    At the risk of sounding sophomoric, you are my hero. You’ve put up a tremendous amount of coherent interviews and have endeavored to wake this country to the ruses and malfeasance that occurs at every level of government. You are suggesting that people prepare and protect themselves against what is inevitably coming–and soon; an economic collapse initiated by a dollar collapse. War follows; it always does as politicians seek to place blame at the feet of others while they favor their friends through nepotism. The idiocy of it is that they never learn and human nature never changes, as you suggest in your counterpoint to Seidman.

    Nothing occurs in a vacuum and all things are interconnected–especially in politics.

    The post on eliminating the Constitution was terrifying as much for its content as from its origination and the employer of the author.

    The US Constitution has been a beacon of light for millions of people over the past 237 years or so. Millions have died in defense of its basic concepts.

    At best, it is a road map for liberty, and it’s very best it is a guiding light to help a country and its people remain free and retain values and morality. At it’s core are the true values of liberty and the people’s right to defend themselves and those liberties against all tyrants–domestic and foreign.

    This moron who suggested that it is not relevant today demonstrates his own irrelevancy and insecurity.

    Your responses to Mr. Seidman’s main arguments need no further elucidation. They were accurate, to the point, and passionate.

    I almost went through the roof when I first saw this editorial on a program that otherwise has a good deal of quality within its contents. That they would allow such a piece to be inserted leaves me with no other conclusion that they are in bed with the power elite to dumb down the masses; just as with the slanted bias on gun control and its enforcement in parallel to its corresponding attack on the second amendment. This piece also further enhances the position that the state knows best, is omnipotent, and we don’t need no stinkin’ (sic) document to tell us how to live.

    I suppose we can also eliminate the debt ceiling and print money to infinity and have no consequence. Other countries have done away with their right to bear arms (England), changed or eliminated their Constitutions, debased their currencies, and have “dumbed down” their populations (Rome). I wonder how that worked out for them?

    It is up to each and every one of us to realize that we achieve the government we choose—and support or ignore. All politics are local so try to get involved on some level.

    By design, and over time the power elite and the central planners have taken us down this road of “cradle to the grave” control so they control and have the power. The power elite may have the power, but that does not make them elite. Everything that has happened over the last 20 years from Enron, to the foreclosure crisis, to the Wall Street crime has been deliberately allowed to unfold to undermine the power of this once great Nation. What most people do not understand is that the origin of these machinations of destruction are coming not from within, but from without our country by entities that yearn for the dissolution of the US in favor of a one world government.They are the ones pulling the strings and at first blush it would appear that Mr. Seidman may be one of those puppets.

    Remember this in closing. Back in 2008, we had the TARP fiasco that was supposed to be a total of $750 billion dollars. It morphed into a 16 Trillion dollar fiasco. The government chose Wall Street over Main Street. That 16 trillion dollars could have paid off the bills of every American taxpayer in the country. Our National debt is not 16 Trillion but more like $200 Trillion. We are supposed to shoulder that debt but more importantly future generations will support it–our children will support it. But history tells us this money will never be repaid because they will obfuscate the truth with Hollywood personalities acting as mouthpieces for the government. They will use every spin and “slick willie” known to man to hide the truth.

    The reason we have these enormous problems of debt, foreclosures, exported job, rising taxes, immigration and open borders, is because the Constitution is not being followed or is being ignored. Now they have the right to kill American citizens and put a bag over our heads and accuse us of being terrorists because they desecrated the fourth amendment. Does anyone see a pattern here, a connection? This editorial by Mr. Seidman is part of a well orchestrated plan to slowly, by design and over time, water down and then eliminate the US Constitution.It should not happen on our watch. The Grey Brigade knows better. The “Boomers” know better there is honor in the majority of that group.

    In essence, we have already unconstitutionally eliminated the US Constitution because the debt and wars were not approved by Congress.

    If Mr Seidman wishes to eliminate the US Constitution, then he does so at his own peril and the peril of all Americans. He should be first in line to suffer the consequences of his rhetoric. In the interim, I for one also say “give me liberty or give me death”.

    By Design, Over Time

    • Greg

      By Design, Over Time,
      I am greatly honored by your comment and support. Thank you for adding your perspective and analysis to this post!!!
      Greg

  15. Diane Carol Mark

    Hi Greg,
    Well, not only was this negative concept of The Constitution aired on CBS, but another key U.S. Constitutional Lawyer, in fact one of our Chief Justices of the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia, stated that The Constitution is “dead” here: http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/29/justice-scalia-constitution-is-dead/

    It’s disappointing that we need to navigate through this content. It’s especially disappointing that these folks in leadership positions are being heard without an article or a rebuttal right next to them so we could immediately experience a positive point of view on The Constitution.

    Thanks for reporting on this important news.

    :) Diane

    • Greg

      Diane Carol Mark,
      I saw that from Judge Scalia but there was no real context for the quote. I wish he said more to explain what he meant, but it sounds constitutionally negative to me too. Thank you for the comment.
      Greg

      • Edward Ulysses Cate

        Just a comment to Diane Carol Mark comments.
        I was in the audience in Warrensburg Missouri March 4, 2008 during Justice Scalia’s one-man show, and heard the audience’s nervous laughter when Scalia said:
        “…I don’t mean to suggest that in the bad old days judges never distorted the Constitution. Of course they did. You’re going to have willful judges with you until the end of time. But in the good old days they had to distort the Constitution the good old fashioned honest way. They lied about it [laughter]…”
        I wouldn’t buy a car from THAT guy.

  16. BoruBrian

    Why does this guy get a platform?

    The problem with his position is that of course, he gets to choose which parts of the constitution that get to stay. He also fails to carry his thought all the way through, if we rewrite the document today, how long does it stay in force, what happens to current law based on a document you now call useless?

    So, do we need to debate all the amendments again? If we rewrite, what happens to the court decisions based on the “useless” document…Roe vs Wade, Voting Rights, 13th, Brown vs Board of Ed, Income Tax, Executive Privledge (was Nixon really right all along) ObamaCare come to mind.

    Do we set a term limit for how long the current court rulings stay in effect and then declare a redo. Does the left really want the Commerce Clause rewritten? That one clause as led to the greatest expansion of the Federal Government in history.

    Do we paralyze our economy by stating that every 10 years (or is it 20, or 30, what is the magic trigger to rewrite for Seidman) we need to review every decision against a new constitution? THe current constitutional law professor in the White House was just told he did not know the constitution when he placed his political buddies on the NLRB.

  17. prestodo

    Greg,the reality is that the U.S. Constitution is only as good so long as it is obeyed. Even then, the U.S. Constitution has a considerable amount of problems. First, it originally allowed slavery, and depending on what you think about the 13th Amendment, it now allows the Federal Government to enslave everybody in the U.S. Second, it originally allowed women’s voices to go unheard, denying them and minorities the right to vote. Third, it did not and still does not forbid Congress from borrowing money to fund the Federal Government. Fourth, it did not and still does not prevent the creation of a Central Bank, (after all, the Fed is the third central bank the U.S. has had while the Constitution has been around). Fifth, it establishes a Congress, a group of men who are supposed to represent the people, but in reality only represent corporations and their own interests. Sixth, it establishes a Congress, a group of men with the exclusive power to change laws at any given time for any given reason. Seventh, it does not forbid the Executive branch, the President, from issuing executive orders or using signing statements. Eighth, it does not forbid the Executive branch and Congress from forming multiple alphabet agencies to strip the rights of the people in practice. Ninth, it is not followed as law via the Federal Government today because of the Bankruptcy of 1933, instead we now have U.S. Code under Commercial law. Tenth, it is supposed to start out “We the States” instead of “We the People” since it was the states that put it together, not the people. Eleventh, it does nothing to prevent the U.S. from going into bankruptcy (remember that the U.S. Constitution was formed in response to the first bankruptcy of the U.S. and subsequent hyperinflation of the Continental under the Articles of Confederation, then why would a bankruptcy not be able to subdue the Constitution any less than the Articles?)Twelfth, it allows amendments to be made to it past the original Bill of Rights, essentially stating that it is not a perfect document and that the Constitution is subject to change and alteration itself. Thirteenth, it establishes a “Government” not a “Self-Sustained Protectorate” as the central authority of the state, and no matter how much limiting of a “Government” takes place, eventually it ends up governing or ruling with absolute authority. I am sure there are other flaws that are in the document that I cannot think of at this time, this is just off the top of my head.

    Case in point. I do not know why any reasonable person could ever willingly swear an oath (and according to scripture we’re not supposed to swear at all) to uphold and defend a document made by men that has so many gross errors in it. There are good things about the U.S. Constitution, such as the Bill of Rights to include the Second Amendment specifically, and I am glad that those parts exist. But there are plenty of failings as well. Its these failings that have been perpetually exploited by elitists since the inception of the Constitution that has led to the current state of affairs in our country.

    I am no fan of Commercial law, likewise I am no fan of Common law; both have their good points and their bad points. However, the main problem with both types of law is that both are changeable, alterable, by those that have more money, power, and influence than the rest of society. If law is to be law, then let it be like natural law, UNCHANGEABLE, UNALTERABLE, and ETERNAL, just like God.

    I personally advocate that we replace the U.S. Constitution and replace it with a new document under the auspices of a new commonly held law that combines the good principles of both common and commercial laws with common sense, and disregards the bad parts of common and commercial laws. The structure of the central authority of the state would need to be altered as well into a permanent structure of a Self-Sustaining Protectorate where the inherent rights of the people are protected and no law shall be changed, altered, or fashioned in any way to violate the natural God given rights of the people.

    Obviously there are those that want to abolish the Constitution and replace it with something worse. I want to abolish it and replace it with something better, something that will make the elitists cringe and that will forever shut them up and shut them out of the affairs of our country.

    • Greg

      prestodo,
      First of all I would like to see a real name on a comment like this. The problem with this “New Constitution” is who would be responsible for what it covers. I totally disagree with you on most of your points as the current Constitution is the framework used to change things like slavery and women’s rights. Would “something better include due process that has been gutted from our current Constitution”? How about the “Right to Bear Arms”? Is the First Amendment going to be improved? In today’s environment, I find it hard to believe we would get a better deal from those “elitists.” I appreciate your ideals but the elitists want to destroy the current Constitution to gain control. In today’s lawless environment the last thing the “elitists” want is a Constitution that grants individual rights to our sovereign citizens. If you answer this I want a real verifiable name for me to put up your comment.
      Greg

      • prestodo

        The name “prestodo” is my internet handle as I frequent liberty and news sites. I am an Independent and have no affiliation with any, and I mean any, political party or platform. There’s good and bad in all of them.

        Your first question of who would be responsible for what it covers is a good one. Obviously it would need to be some outstandingly moral people to put it together, and in today’s society, we would be hard pressed to find such people, but it’s not impossible.
        The current Constitution under the 13th Amendment makes every person in the U.S. a citizen, not a sovereign. There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen, that’s an oxymoron. Either you are a sovereign in control of the state, or a citizen with the state in control of you.
        This “New Constitution” as you’ve termed it will of course contain the current bill of rights. In no way, shape or form should we allow any elitist or their cohorts to make any decision in the formation of a New Constitution. Obviously due process would be reinstated and would actually be one of the pillars of the “New Constitution”. A Self-Sustained Protectorate, unlike a Government, can only be a Repulic, not a repulic, democracy, anarchy, oligarchy, or monarchy. This means that the rule of law is held above all, and at the center of this is a court system that upholds the law, not tries to determine if the law is valid. No congress means there will be no changes or alterations in the law, because if the law itself is written right the first time, no alterations are necessary. Furthermore it would be written into law that the Federal Protectorate could only be funded via tariffs on imported goods and nothing else, not able to borrow money. Individual State Protectorates should only be allowed to collect funds via sales taxes as well as Local Protectorates. No income, corporate, or property taxes whatsoever to deprive people of their property and labor.

        • Greg

          Prestodo,
          I yield on putting your thoughts up without a real name for now, but when it’s this granular I really like real names and background. That said, did you see the part of my post about how lawless the economy is? We are very close to another even bigger meltdown. Now is NOT the time to scrap the current Constitution. This is the plan by the elite to strip America of it’s last remaining rights, and most importantly, the 2nd Amendment. In a perfect world your plan would probably work. In the current lawless fragile about to crash world we are currently in now there is not a snowballs chance in hell. Thank you for your spirit and comment. Good men can disagree.

          Greg

          • prestodo

            I couldn’t agree with you more on that Greg. I wish things were better, and you’re right about the timing issue. My fear is that the elite have already made so many end runs around the current constitution that even if it stays and is not replaced by the elitists ideas, we will still end up where we’re going. Eventually the constitution will have to be replaced for this very reason (all the end runs made around it), but not now. When it is replaced, I hope it will be made by the people and not by the elitists, and I hope it will be an improvement over the current constitution. I appreciate your work and all the interviews with John Williams.

  18. Willard Ferch

    Right on! The Founders may not have taken into account our tremendous toys of technology, but they definitely understood human nature. Technologically we’ve leaped to the stars, yet psychologically we aren’t a hair’s breadth from a club. Fiddlin

  19. Timothy

    Preach it Brother Greg! Bring it on home now!

    • Greg

      Amen to you Timothy.
      Greg

  20. mark long

    we are not arming ourselves to go hunting

  21. Charles H.

    Dear Jim,

    Ever walk on thin ice? First you hear the sound of cracking, then it extends further and more ominously; finally you get the message that you are in real trouble. The Constitution is THE foundational document that establishes the form and function of this Nation: to change the document is to change the nation. This is a Pandora’s Box – once it is opened, there is no turning back. I don’t care what education or qualifications this professor may have: he is a Fool. What he is trying to do is supposedly in moderation: but those who follow will perform in excess. If he wants a nation that is changed from America: let him buy an island. This mentality, and the boldness to display it – bodes ill for us all.

  22. MGV

    Hey Greg -

    I think there is a typo in your article. The correct spelling is See-BS, not CBS. ;)

    In all seriousness, great article.

    • Greg

      MGV,
      I am laughing out loud. Really!! Thank you for the humor!!!
      Greg

  23. Robert E. Salt

    Professor Seidman thinks he’s being protected by supporting the cabal. I have some bad news for him. The cabal has a history of double crossing anyone and everyone when it comes to achieving their goals including world leaders who have played ball with them.

  24. yugosno

    The constitution as well as the book from which it was taken Gods letter to us is held in utter contempt by our governments local state and federal.here in mississippi especially. Public funds were used to erect a beef plant which failed within 90 days eating up many millions of our tax dollars.The contractors were tried and convicted of bribeing the Governor.However the bribes were treated as campaign contributions and no one even yawned. that governor just so happens to be a member of the judicial branch of our government and since out of office has teemed up with the attorney general of our state to fleece the tobacco companys.This is the same attorney general who refused to prosecute judicial bribes involving a US senator who offered bribes to circuit judges for favorable treatment involving the senators brother in law.the circuit judge was offered a federal judgeship for his favorable ruling.the poor circuit judge wound up a scape goat and is being held in federal prison with the beef plant contractors. when our attorney general was questioned by the media as to why he refused to prosecute the judicial bribe, stated it would be like prosecuting FAMILY. the senator involved shortly after re-election decided to retire to his law practice. The judicial branch is in complete control as was quite evident in the supreme courts recent handling of Obamacare, actually legislating from the bench to get the law passed. What do you think would be the outcome if we the people brought a lawsuit against our government for breach of contract. after all the constitution is a contract we the people have with our government.All the talk about to big to fail doesnt hold a candle to to big to prosecute.we have literally allowed our government to get away with murder at the governments seige on the church in waco. Janet reno took full responsibility for that massacre why wasnt she tried for murder? The thing that seperates banana republics from honest governments is contempt for the rule of law. Wake up folks the constitution has long been toilet paper for our elected Hoodlums. the judicial branch of our government could successfully be prosecuted under the rico statutes as the are indeed a family, organized,powerfull and corrupt.

  25. Warren R

    Seidman sounds like an Ashkenazi name.

    It is time for some plain speaking.

    • Greg

      Warren R,
      Don’t even think about starting this kind of anti-Semitic crap here. Go somewhere else! How’s that for some plain speaking.
      Greg

      • George

        Greg, I guess his post is just another example of the lack of mental health care in the US.

    • Spanky

      Greg. sorry for this inappropriate comment. You have a right to censor your own site as you deem necessary. You are a fine journalist and add a lot to the public conversation. anyway please delete it with the other stupid comments I inadvertently made tonight. keep up the good work

  26. Ambrose

    Greg,

    I don’t know if Professor Seidman really wants to abolish the Constitution. May be he was being sarcastic when he was on the CBS show?

    I watched the CBS video and read the NY Times article several times. I agree with Professor Seidman that the Constitution is not a perfect document. Our Founding Fathers would never foresee the strong influence of lobbyists and big bankers in our government. All three branches of government are broken. The President executes orders for his own legacy, the Congress makes law to benefit the two parties, and the Supreme Court loses its judgments to special interests.

    I don’t know why Seidman didn’t bring up the due process of the 4th Amendment, the killing drones, and the infinite imprisonment of U.S. citizens without charge or trail. But Obama did all these after he sworn four years ago, didn’t he? Yes, Obama just sworn to uphold the Constitution again. Should we believe him this time? There is little we can do with how the President interprets the Constitution and how he adjusts it to his liking.

    It reminds me of the quotes from George Orwell:

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

    “Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ”

    Just like holding a Bible in your hand and start killing people. Some people call it murder but you can call it a justified Holy War. (Forget about “Thou Shall Not Kill.”) To many Americans, the Constitution is an important document from our Founding Fathers. For politicians, the Constitution is only a tool (which is subject to change with or without notice). As less and less children are taught about the Constitution, there will be less and less people to protect its existence in the future.

    Ambrose

    • Greg

      Ambrose,
      The good professor conveniently leaves out the enormous amount of case law that surrounds the U.S. Constitution. This is why the Constitution is called a “living document.” Case law is continually interpreting it and updating it. Seidman was not being sarcastic. Thank you for weighing in.
      Greg

  27. Askjel

    Obviously the current administration wants to ignore this, because it doesn’t fit their political agenda. By law, they can’t ignore this.
    Perhaps Mr. Michael should check this out

    LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG RECORD: LINK: http://lccn.loc.gov/96190993

    DICK ACT of 1902
    … CAN’T BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) – Protection Against Tyrannical Government

    CAN NOT BE REPEALED (GUN CONTROL FORBIDDEN) The Trump Card Enacted by the Congress Further Asserting the Second Amendment as Untouchable. The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.

    The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army. The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy. The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders. The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion). These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard. Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, the Organized Militia (the National Guard) cannot be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States.

    The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached. During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada. The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

    The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states. Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold .Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states: The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States.

    In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it.

    This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose. Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power.

    The Honorable William Gordon More Info With over 300 Million guns in the United States, the federal CORPORATE government (federal gov’t defined as corporation under 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (15) and the states are subdivisions of the corporation, 28 U.S.C. Section 3002 (10), cannot ban arms or stop people from defending themselves against a tyrannical government. I read somewhere that just the State of North Carolina can call up 20-30 divisions of unorganized militia (would be about 200,000-300,000 armed North Carolinians) on a moment’s notice.

    Imagine the State of Texas or Oklahoma if that’s the case? Amazingly, even if the US tries to ban all arms through backdoor measures like domestic violence laws (Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 922 (g)) or through an unconstitutional U.N. declaration adopted by our current Marxist unconstitutional Congress, no treaty can supersede the Constitution: “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg. 17. This case involved the question: Does the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (treaty) supersede the U.S. Constitution?

    Keep reading. The Reid Court (U.S. Supreme Court) held in their Opinion that, “… No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or any other branch of government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Article VI, the Supremacy clause of the Constitution declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all the Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land…”

    There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification which even suggest such a result…”It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power UNDER an international agreement, without observing constitutional prohibitions. (See: Elliot’s Debates 1836 ed. pgs. 500-519).”In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.

    The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and Senate combined. Did you understand what the Supreme Court said here? No Executive Order, Presidential Directive, Executive Agreement, no NAFTA, GATT/WTO agreement/treaty, passed by ANYONE, can supersede the Constitution. FACT. No question!

    At this point the Court paused to quote from another of their Opinions; 7Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258 at pg. 267 where the Court held at that time that, “The treaty power as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the government, or a change in the character of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter without its consent.”

    Assessing the GATT/WTO parasitic organism in light of this part of the Opinion, we see that it cannot attach itself to its host (our Republic or States) in the fashion the traitors in our government wish, without our acquiescing to it. The Reid Court continues with its Opinion: “This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which MUST comply with the Constitution, is on full parity with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict, renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.”

    The U.S. Supreme court could not have made it more clear : TREATIES DO NOT OVERRIDE THE CONSTITUTION, AND CANNOT, IN ANY FASHION, AMEND IT!!! CASE CLOSED.

  28. jim H

    “Enormous fraud by bankers has gone completely unprosecuted. There is the $800 trillion LIBOR rate rigging fraud, money laundering for Mexican drug cartels and terrorists, securities fraud, and foreclosure fraud. Most recently, big banks paid an 8.5 billion fine for illegally foreclosing on millions of homes. If that’s not a form of tyranny, I don’t know what is”.
    Boy that Greg Hunter sounds like a broken record. Doesn’t he know he’s supposed to write those words on page 96Z so he can say he covered it if anyone ask and move on to the business of further dumbing down the population. Besides, we all know it’s the fault of those people who should have never borrowed money they didn’t have. Hell Greg, you act like there was something in place like, well let’s call it credit checks for lack of better words. Next thing you know Greg will even start saying the bankers made out on the bad loans and the foreclosures.
    Talk about tin foil hat potential.
    Great report again Greg. Shout it from the roof tops until we can all recite it!

  29. jc davis

    Imagine Ron and Rand president, and vise. Supreme judges like Napolitano , Jones, Mack, Hunter. A congress of informed usawatchdogs that live to learn, and follow there God above there own special interest. A federal reserve lead by the likes of Williams, and Mannarino.
    This would be only a few good starts.

    • Greg

      Wow JC Davis. Thank you for putting me with those folks!!
      Greg

      • jc davis

        Respect is not given, its earned… standing.. is earning it.yxpusy just don’t know what there doing.

  30. shawn

    he doesnt own this country because he lives here. if anyone doesnt like our laws they should get the hell out

  31. Mike R

    It’s really a poor choice by CBS, but seriously does anyone actually watch that network anymore ? Or any of the main networks ? I’d bet less than 2 millions viewers actually saw the episode, and we have more than 300 million in this country.

    The major networks have rendered themselves irrelevant by showing crap just like this buffoon prof spewed. Look at it this way… Would you pay attention to channel 6 in my city of residence with a population of 140,000, where the city council is debating whether or not to approve more parking garages ? I seriously doubt you care, or would watch it.

    Just like the very best medicine is to simply ignore CBS, don’t watch any of their programming and seriously reconsider even commenting at all about it here at your website, bc you are really only giving the goon far more “airtime” than he deserves.

    • Greg

      Mike R.
      Shows like 60 Minutes still draw more the 10 million viewers. The Sunday morning show is the one of the networks most popular. This is still a big platform and that is why I went after CBS. Not for what was said because I believe in the 1st Amendment but because it was said without rebuttal. Thank you for your comment and support my friend.
      Greg

      • jc davis

        See why I said judge hunter.

        • Greg

          JC Davis,
          You are very kind.
          Greg

  32. Jan

    Good to see you writing again, although I enjoy the video interviews as well. I am afraid for our Constitution, so many young people have not been exposed to history and certainly not the Constitution. Thier ignorance could cost all of us.

    We must teach our children so they too will appreciate our form of government, warts and all.

    • Greg

      Thank you Jan,
      I wait until I get an issue I am passionate about to post a written piece. I am very passionate about this countries constitutional rights. The Constitution is what makes America special.
      Thank you for your comment and support.
      Greg

  33. Liquid Motion

    Greg,

    Very fine article indeed.

    I make the observation from the esteemed Professor’s proposition being paraded by MSM in the form of CBS.. that….this is the epitome of the madness of the media when it wishes to make a point. Seek out an authoritative figure and have them espouse the virtues of centralisation (the ultimate theme)….ipso facto by eliminating the Constitution.

    The wise Professor should be well aware via his 4 decades of study, that the Constitution allows for the President to have executive power and Office. IN other words without the constitution …there is NO PRESIDENT. IN a strange twist of fate or maybe just ironically…there would exist no Constitution without the President (who is under oath) to protect, preserve and defend the very same.

    When ” we ” criticise the good professor / MSM for their blights…we need to ensure that we hold them fully accountable. You do a credible job in that sir. But further we must go.

    Taking the proposed withdrawal of the Constitution to its inevitable conclusion (notwithstanding the blood to be spilt in getting there) …one has to wonder how the new system of government functions and moreover what freedoms will cease to exist. It would not be improbable to assume that “freedom of speech” would NOT be available to all and sundry as it exists at present…the opinions of the MSM and the “Good Professor” are suddenly not permissable by law. In my humble opinion the professor needs to keep his extraordinary wide mouth SHUT (having his freedom today implies it is lost forever tomorrow)…..!!!! for his own benefit, lest we all revert to the harsh reality that is the solitary confines of TOTALITARIANISM where we can all look forward to sharing a drink with the anti-christ.

    This needs to find its way into the MSM as did Mr Seidman’s op-ed. It requires the utmost attention of all political figures including the President. The Constitution is there for the very reasons humanity has continuation. Without it we end in chaos and an uncivilised world. Those that constructed it had the presence of mind and the wealth of experience to understand the frailties of mankind. A USA without a constitution is a World without order. Critical decisions will revert to even fewer individuals. It doesnt take an Einstein to work out the multitude of permutations of probable outcomes.

    • Greg

      LM,
      Thank you for your adding perspective and analysis.
      Greg

  34. Mike S.

    Kudos for getting the word out!
    Several other sites also published this and expressed their outrage.
    I worry that the drones sitting in front of their TVs Sunday mornings will take this drivel as gospel.

    Things are not looking good – ECONOMY IS THE ISSUE.
    This govt throws out constant “distractions” – like a magician performing a trick. Gun control, then immigration, can’t wait to see what is next.
    The alphabet stations are really nothing but govt controlled media.
    And we know what that is used for,
    There is some sort of plan afoot.

    And Clinton skated for gods sake. ARGHHHHHHHHHHHH.

  35. George

    Greg,
    CBS, the new Pravda.
    It is beyond the pale that a scholar of the US Constitution would do a piece about doing away with the protection granted the people by this wonderful document. It protects the people against an over reaching government. Does anyone really believe that the current crop of politicians have any concern about their constituents? They pass laws that apply to EVERYONE but THEMSELVES! Hundreds of years ago, the Nobles were exempt from the law and only the little people need worry about adhering to the law. They had no rights and no protections; Sounds like we are heading back that way. God help us.

    • Greg

      George,
      This quote is priceless “CBS, the new Pravda.” Thank you for posting it here along with the rest of your fine comments!!!
      Greg

  36. dan

    Greg

    Thank you for covering this story.

    As we know, 1913 marked the date of the American “coup de tat”. It’s all been a charade since then.

    It’s just taken 100 years or so for the folks who own the government to feel secure enough to start flaunting it.

    • Greg

      Dan,
      Thank you for supporting this site.
      Greg

  37. DAVE

    Hi Greg
    I know this is off topic but i would like to bring up the latest GDP #s because i find it a bit disturbing and don’t quit understand.GDP was down due to lower govt. spending on defense????Through all the media,no one seems to question this.If any one here can see a huge red flag /please feel free to chime in.I do!!!!Our Military is a product?I wonder whats next.Maybe we should include SSI and Medicare as GDP or do we already?Here’s some other #s that i find fuzzy.The number of people filing for unemployment benefits for the first-time increased to 368,000 in the week ending. Now with this in mind they said we added 165k.They said that this is moderate growth.Now i’m not the brightest but my math is showing this is negative.Maybe someone can help me out because i just don’t see it.I don’t get it!What am i missing?
    comments anyone
    Thanks Dave

    • Greg

      Dave,
      The latest GDP number of >1% is an unqualified disaster in light of the $85 billion a month fed money printing, 0% interest rates and phony accounting since 2009. We are doomed. There is no real recovery. Thank you for making this point.

      Greg

      • Doug

        Dave, you do get it. It’s all a lie. They turn fiction to fact for the idiots. Please don’t become an idiot. It’s corrupt and vile behavior that will not quit. Oops, and the voting masses keep electing them to office. We, the people, have sentenced us to death, but I for one am not joining. My mast has been set to head between the 20 parallels. I suggest you find your refuge. And Greg, thank you for your work. Simply magnificent.

        • Greg

          Thank you Doug for the support and kind words.
          Greg

  38. Ambrose

    Greg,

    You are probably right about professor Seidman. I found out that he just released his new book, “On Constitutional Disobedience (Oxford University Press, 2013). Although the publication date is January 31, 2013 but the book is already on sales early. The CBS show was aired on January 27, 2013. It makes you think that the video could be a promotion for his book and Seidman did a damn good job (not even have to mention his book.) You and many other people (Alex Jones, Rush Limbaugh, MSM) have been doing his free advertising. Seidman is now more famous than ever. Many of us don’t even know his name a week ago.

    I have not read any of his books, But based on the book reviews, the contents of his new book is probably very provocative and controversial. I wonder how many Seidman’s law students learned to disrespect the Constitution, just like their teacher. America doesn’t need any more lawyers who don’t respect the Constitution.

    Ambrose

    • Greg

      Ambrose,
      I had to speak out about this outrageous idea give a free pass by CBS.

  39. jc davis

    http://youtu.be/vSh_6n_haWw
    judge hunter.

  40. KGB

    What is it about Georgetown exactly that it keeps cropping up whenever there’s ‘discussion’ about the Constitution or questions concerning the the legalities (or not) of an incumbent administration actions (and their interpretations of the ‘Law’)?

    • Greg

      KGB,
      A sympathetic ear? I do not know. CBS is a disgrace in my opinion.
      Greg

  41. RMJA

    If you give up on the Constitution, what do you hve left? A kingdom.

    • Greg

      RMJA,
      Bingo. Nice short, sharp analysis!! Thank you.
      Greg

  42. Josecito

    I am a fan of your site. It is one I come to daily. I have agreed with everything you have written. Unlike other sites where there is alot of vulgarity and hatred at our present situation bordering on the levels of a white supremacist site, your site is nice and clean. I like that.

    Though I feel all the above, I’d had to say I agree with the Professor. I feel the Constitution is an outdated document written by men who under current law would be incarcerated for owning slaves. I also agree with the Professor in that we as a nation should not be beholden to a document that was written in a time that could never ever foresee the changes we have had.

    They would have probably thrown up to see the advances we have made in allowing minorities like myself to participate in the economic and democratic processes of our nation. So though I am a fan and will continue to be a fan of your site, I respectfully disagree with your stance on the CBS piece.

    We the people are not the people that the Founding Fathers had in mind. They had landowning propertied white males to be the ones in power plus all the other issues that Professor Siedman brought up. We would not crater to pieces if we did away with that archaic outdated document. I do hope my post will appear but understand if you decide not to post it.

    Thanks,

    Josecito

    • Greg

      Josecito,
      Yes all the history is true but you are forgetting 200 years of case law that has allowed the country to evolve. We have a two term black president for goodness sake. I feel the this push for a “new constitution” would strip us of rights. Who would decide what our “rights” would be? You can bet it would not include “The Right to Bare Arms.” That is what the timing of this suggests. Another thing, the Founding Fathers would have never envisioned the lawlessness of bankers that have ripped off the country for trillions of dollars without criminal prosecution. Out current and past governments (Republicans and Democrats) are not enforcing the laws. One of many examples, (as I mentioned in my post) bankers were merely fined for stealing millions of homes from people. The 4th Amendment has been gutted and the Founding Fathers would have never envisioned that either. I am emphatically opposed to the “new Constitution” because the intentions of the people pushing it are to take away rights not give us more of them. Thank you for your comment and kind words. Good men can disagree.
      Greg

      By the way,
      Here’s another example of crime going unpunished:http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/if-a-corporation-bp-pleads-guilty-to-manslaughter-who-goes-to-prison-130201?news=846933 The Constitution protects us all. One lat thing, By the logic of your comment, we should scrap the Bible because it is an old outdated document written by people that could “never ever foresee the changes we have had.” The Constitution has provided the framework for civil rights in this country. A major tenant of the U.S. Constitution is “Equal protection under the Law.” Please tell me you have read the entire Constitution before you wrote you comment.

    • droidX-G

      Thanks to the constitution, you cant be prosecuted retroactively

  43. droidX-G

    The more i think about this, the more it seems like another trial balloon

    • Greg

      DroidX-G,
      You may be right. I think the “powers” think this may be the fastest way to get rid of the Second Amendment and all of the other pesky rights individuals have.
      Greg

  44. jc davis

    See b. s. says change the constitution , but don’t mess with the fake money supply in which thieves thrive. MSM=lies ,and thieves.

  45. robert heartland

    I think I could do a better job of teaching constitutional law and I’m a nobody! But I was willing to die for the Constitution as a US Navy soldier. What was I stupid?! Why did I do that?! Why did I make the sacrifice if my country is ready to say the constitution is no longer useful? If the constitution is no longer of value then military service is no longer worthwhile for if freedom is no longer worth dying for why serve? Yeah give me ten million bucks and I’ll invade Iran! I won’t need any stinking laws! Just give me the money! It’s just as good a reason as any. I’ll kill men women children and babies! Just where is the money! Show me the MONEY! I can be really brave if I get ten million bucks. Who needs right and wrong anymore? All you get is some jerk professor who will argue the point. How depraved this country has become. Soon America will no longer be valid. Might makes right America! Just show me the MONEY! And shut up about right and wrong! The new way is “We do xyz because we can!” “Nobody can challenge us!” Pardon me I think I’ll have a drink!

  46. Roxie

    If Mr Seidman is an American he should give up his citizenship. On second thought he should keep his citizenship and be subject to the same academic, theoretical nonsense that gets passed as laws and enforced on the public. I use to be a very calm person, hopeful but the blinders fell off a long time ago, now I feel the gloves need to come off also. I have never been one to wish ill on anyone but if there is any justice, God has reserved a special place in hell for the people involved over the years implementing policies of destruction of the USA and the innocent people through willful intention, blind ignorance or irresponsible apathy.

    • Greg

      Roxie,
      I feel your outrage!! Thank you for expressing it here!
      Greg

  47. Bob

    Hi Greg,
    You nailed it. Seidman is just another member of the cartel/monopoly legal racket that have turned their collective backs on the constitution in order to enjoy the fruits of their fraudulent deal with the government. Name me one business, service, or profession that could get away with contingency fees of 40% PLUS expenses, or charges of $350 to $500 per hour charged to people to access their rights guaranteed by the constitution. The fact that this moron teaches the future shysters of the country should come as no surprise. This jerk is Exhibit A as to why having a license to practice law should be no more difficult, time consuming, or expensive that getting an insurance, real estate, or securities license. That would certainly demystify the “practice” of law and allow common sense back into our lives. And PS — JURY NULLIFICATION would be a good start to reclaiming our natural and constitutional rights.
    Best regards,
    Bob

    • Greg

      Thank you Bob. I have little respect for professor Seidman’s anti Constitution stance. What would he do with 200 years of case law surrounding the Constitution?
      Greg

  48. Dale Romick

    Greg – I can’t thank you enough for the valuable work you are doing here. You truly are the last bastion of real, honest reporting. You are the news and commentary I trust. Keep up the great work!_ Dale

    • Greg

      Dale,
      You are very kind but there are other very good sites out there to read. Just a few that come to mind are King World News, JSMineset, 321Gold, SGT Report Yraharris.com and Dollarcollapse.com. These are just a few of site I respect and read as well. Thank you for your support!!
      Greg

  49. old man

    I agree with others that Seidman’s views regarding the Constitution are irrelevant.

    Just because I might have studied Shakespeare for decades does not mean that I have the perception, wit, timing, satirical ability or language skills that Shakespeare had.

    By the same token, just because Seidman has studied Constitutional law does not mean that he is someone who would have been considered a rational voice at the founding of this country. He is just an unhappy mosquito buzzing around the heads of the Founding Fathers. His students comment that he uses his class for a soapbox for Socialism. He is nobody.

    Some people, and I include our present POTUS, study the Constitution in order to find ways to defeat it. Seidman hasn’t even been able to that. He just “disagrees” with it, because it was written by some “propertied white men” in a previous century. Hogwash. Sideline Seidman.

  50. George

    Is there any wonder why our “educated” children feel the world owes them something? Government backed student loans warped the costs of education and we have graduates of “Ghost storys”, women’s studies, etc that have little chance of finding a job. The children blame their short comings, not on themselves but on others whom thay expect to pay for their error in judgement.

Leave A Reply

Please Note: All comments are moderated and manually reviewed for spam. In turn, your comment may take up to 24 hours to be posted. USAWatchdog.com also reserves the right to edit comments for grammar and spelling errors.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *