CBS Anti-Constitution Network

Sean S 01/30/2013  •

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.

jc davis 01/30/2013  •

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.

Diane Carol Mark 01/30/2013  •

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

prestodo 01/30/2013  •

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.

Timothy 01/30/2013  •

Preach it Brother Greg! Bring it on home now!

Robert E. Salt 01/30/2013  •

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.

Warren R 01/30/2013  •

Seidman sounds like an Ashkenazi name.

It is time for some plain speaking.

Askjel 01/30/2013  •

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.

jc davis 01/30/2013  •

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.

Mike R 01/30/2013  •

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.

Liquid Motion 01/31/2013  •

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.

RMJA 02/01/2013  •

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

robert heartland 02/03/2013  •

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!