The New York Times has published an op/ed by a law professor decrying the U.S. Constitution as the enemy of freedom, urging we abandon our “obsession” to the rule of law by just disregarding those provisions with which we disagree. From, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” by Louis Michael Seidman:
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.
“Evil provisions?” Of course, Seidman references slavery, but apparently he also considers equal representation in the Senate in that category and the requirement that revenue bills originate in the House.
He claims that we should just ignore those provisions of the Constitution that we don’t like–except those of which he approves:
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.
No thanks. I like liberty and the Constitution is its bulwark.
What would replace ordered liberty?
No one can predict in detail what our system of government would look like if we freed ourselves from the shackles of constitutional obligation, and I harbor no illusions that any of this will happen soon. But even if we can’t kick our constitutional-law addiction, we can soften the habit.
Why should we “shackle” ourselves to the new form of government any more than the Constitution?
I know exactly what the new government order would look like–EU-style rule by “experts” and unaccountable bureaucrats. Indeed, Obamacare has already pointed us in that very direction.