NYT op-ed: Abandon ‘archaic and evil’ Constitution; Yglesias, libs agree
http://twitter.com/#!/baseballcrank/status/285776271055679490
Wait, what?
You have to hit rock bottom to be a professor of con law and actually advocate the abandonment of our founding document.
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
That must be something from The Onion, right? Nope.
It took me a while to realize this is not a parody.Op-ed touting “constitutional disobedience.” mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi…
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) December 31, 2012
No really, this professor says we should ignore/abandon the Constitution: nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi…
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
In another case of self-parody, an op-ed published in The New York Times calls for the abandoning of The Constitution of the United States.
Con Law PROFESSOR says we should abandon “archaic” and “evil” Constitution: nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi… #tcot
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
I mean really, what was this professor smoking when he had his “revelation” that GASP: there should be limits on majoritarian oppression!
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
From the appalling op-ed, penned by Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, and titled “Let’s give up on the Constitution“:
But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.
It goes on to mock our “obsession” with The Constitution.
“Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system” LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN NYT
— Jennifer Glynn (@jenniferglynn) December 31, 2012
Silly rubes, “obsessed” with our founding document and the rights delineated therein! The evil and archaic provisions?
@dylanmatt @mattyglesias Yeah, those dumb “white dudes” & all their “free speech” this & “free press” that. So annoying
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
When you’ve lost Glenn Greenwald …
Oh wow… RT @ggreenwald Just in under the wire, a clear winner for dumbest and most incoherent NYT Op-ed of 2012:is.gd/DCMMbp
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
This. RT @kurtschlichter When I agree with @ggreenwald over an editorial, you know the NYT is talking crazy. #caring
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
There is no clearer barometer than that, is there?
@mattie96 beyond the pale… #FURIOUS
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
Indeed. The shake fisty is strong with this one, even though it shouldn’t be surprising.
@seanhackbarth you’re right. He’s taking American leftist legal theory to its eventual conclusion. The Constitution Be Damned
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
Leftists don’t like the Constitution. So it’s no wonder one of them now calls for America to “give up” on it in NYT. nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi…
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) December 31, 2012
Obama’s next Supreme Court nominee? ow.ly/grVyi “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution” by Prof. Louis Michael Seidman (3 names)
— Ron Meyer (@RonMeyerJr) December 31, 2012
Alas, liberals really are embracing the article. Seriously.
RT @ggreenwald There seems to be a “Progressives against the Bill of Rights” group rapidly emerging on Twitter: exciting!
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
@rbpundit #tcot check out @ggreenwald‘s timeline. Iglesias is nodding his head at the article.
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
That’s right, including the always inane Slate’s Matt Yglesias, who starts mumbling about “some bad stuff” in the Constitution. Stuff and things! And it’s super old or something.
. @ggreenwald calls it the “dumbest and most incoherent NYT op-ed of 2012.” I think it’s pretty good: nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi…
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) December 31, 2012
And Glenn Greenwald is giving him, and others, the business.
Every once in a while, @ggreenwald argues with anti-speech/anti-constitution idiots on his side, and it’s always glorious.
— KilroyFSU (@KilroyFSU) December 31, 2012
Here he goes.
@davidrcrowe Nobody thinks the Constitution is perfect- that’s why there’s an amendment process – that’s different than “ignore it”
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mattyglesias Without the Constitution, how would all those rights he likes (speech, religion, etc) be protected from majoritarian assault?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@dylanmatt @mattyglesias Yeah, those dumb “white dudes” & all their “free speech” this & “free press” that. So annoying
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@dylanmatt @mattyglesias You guys should start “Progressives against the Bill of Rights” group – good candor.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mattyglesias You have obviously never worked at a UK newspaper if you think that. Or been prosecuted for prohibited ideas in the UK.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mattyglesias @dylanmatt YEs, that’s why it has an amendment process – to change what is bad, not just self-arrogate the right to violate
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jbouie @dylanmatt @mattyglesias How would rights against majoritairan oppression exist if you get to ignore the Constitution?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mattyglesias That’s what the Op-Ed you like is saying: NOT “amend some parts of the Constitution” – but rather: ignore it at will; it’s old
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mattyglesias If one advocates for specific amendments, one is comporting with the Constitution, not arguing it be ignored.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jbouie @dylanmatt @mattyglesias There are countless people who have their rights protected every only because of the Constitution
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mattyglesias That’s what that Op-Ed you endorsed is saying – that’s ignore- rather than amend – the Constitution means.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jgreendc that’s the whole point of the op-ed – did you read it?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jbouie @dylanmatt @mattyglesias No – Jim Crow festered because white majorities supported it – the Constitution helped end it: eg Brown
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jbouie @dylanmatt @mattyglesias Without the Constitution, there is zero basis to deny any majoritarian sentiment.
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jgreendc It is THE central, overarching argument of the Op-Ed – ignore the Constitution – how can you endorse the Op-Ed without it?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jeremykkessler @jbouie @dylanmatt @mattyglesias It’s incredibly easy – it’s the difference between changing the law & breaking it
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@jgreendc No, it doesn’t – it expresses support for some rights, but no mechanism to enforce them once the Constitution is gone
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@juliosteen How would rights he likes still exist without the Constitution?
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mrlukealexander @mattyglesias “hard-line constitutionalists”: That’s what Bush followers spent years calling us who opposed his power grabs
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mattyglesias I don’t think there’s any way to believe in the Constitution without being hard-line about it: the prohibitions are hard-line
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
@mrlukealexander It advocates exactly that – even the rights he likes should be honored only “out of respect, not obligation”
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 31, 2012
Yes, some of the Constitutuion should remain, if the law professor deems them suitable. Anything that will aid sweet, sweet liberal policy? Still totally awesome and not “archaic.”
EXCLUSIVE: The constitution was designed to protect property, includingownership of human beings, not to defend minority rights.
— Matt Yglesias (@mattyglesias) December 31, 2012
The sane (hint: Not Yglesias) weigh in.
Yglesias = SMRT. RT @mattyglesias: @ggreenwald @ceolaf “The whole point” of the constitution is to protect minority rights? Really?
— Cuffé (@CuffyMeh) December 31, 2012
@steven_swenson The school will claim academic freedom, which is legit. This op ed may have issues with his oath to the Bar.
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
@sarosado Seidman’s implication is a constituion as an innovation in politics was a mistake.
— Sean Hackbarth (@seanhackbarth) December 31, 2012
The Constitution is flawed?! Then we should have an amendment process to fix…. Oh wait.
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
RT @stackiii Shorter Seidman op-ed: Health insurance is mandatory, but the Constitution is optional.
— Samuel (@SARosado) December 31, 2012
.@jeffreygoldberg I wish. He isn’t even calling for “Americans” to ignore the Constitution: just politicians he agrees with.
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) December 31, 2012
Again, not all is evil and archaic. Just the stuff with which he doesn’t agree.
We’re at the point where liberals say the constitution is optional but Obamacare is mandatory. #tcot #p2
— Razor (@hale_razor) December 31, 2012
Louis Michael Seidman wants to live in aworld where laws are bound by men, not the other way round.
— Matthew Hennessey (@MattHennessey) December 31, 2012
Witness this academic’s contempt for the Constitution & our founding fathers, blaming our current predicament on them. nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi…
— David Limbaugh (@DavidLimbaugh) December 31, 2012
Seidman is a product of the Harvard law school. law.georgetown.edu/faculty/seidma…
— Miké (@ThePantau) December 31, 2012
.@andyrnyt Thanks for the dump-the-Constitution op-ed. Nice to see what our opponents think. Still wonder why I’ll never give up my guns?
— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) December 31, 2012
Can’t wait for the next NYT editorial claiming that “tenthers” are radicals. mobile.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi…
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahNRO) December 31, 2012
Proof that being a Const. Law Professor is not evidence that someone understands or cares about the Constitution: nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opi…
— Lee Doren (@LDoren) December 31, 2012
Rules are rules, unless they keep leftists from getting what they want. nyti.ms/12Z4abS
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) December 31, 2012
MT @paxdickinson: The Constitution is a speed bump on the road to our progressive collectivist schemes, it has to go. is.gd/DCMMbp
— Michael Fleischer (@MikeFleischer) December 31, 2012
We’ve gone from the NDAA to calling for the abolition of the Constitution in 366 days. Well done, “liberals.”
— Miké (@ThePantau) December 31, 2012
Just wow. RT @hale_razor: Wow. NYT: Stop all the slavish devotion to the constitution when we should just blow it up.nyti.ms/XazrJv
— David Freddoso (@freddoso) December 31, 2012
Seidman seems basically irritated that House and Senate are preventing Obama from raising taxes. Would dump Constitution to get it done.
— Byron York (@ByronYork) December 31, 2012
Now to submit to the New York Times, an op-ed entitled, “Let’s Give Up on Georgetown Constitutional Law Professor Louis Michael Seidman”
— jimgeraghty (@jimgeraghty) December 31, 2012
Heh. Will the Fishwrap of Record listen? Doubtful.
NYT op-ed page runs hit pieces against black Republicans and now the Constitution. The poor Gray Lady has grown senile.
— Ari Fleischer (@AriFleischer) December 31, 2012
Related:
Repulsive NYT op-ed calls Rep. Tim Scott a ‘cynical token’
Despicable: U. of Chicago professor claims America ‘overvalues’ free speech
