Fascism Speaks

Joseph Goebbels would be proud of this op-ed in the NYTimes by Georgetown constitutional law professor 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.
He opens with that gem and closes with perfect Orwell:
If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by “We the people” is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.
The document that guarentees our freedom is the Constitution of the United States. If one actually reads each sentence one would realize that beyond a shadow of a doubt its intent is to protect our freedoms. Seidman's argument should astonish and terrify. Our political class is in end game mode. Their goal is the destruction of the United States so that they can further their wealth transfer dominance to a global level. All that is in their way is that pesky document because once American freedom and democracy is destroyed, the rest of the world will be a piece of cake....of course as long as in that campaign they don't try to take Stalingrad in the winter.

This is one of the faces of the new America Fascism:


Jonathan F. King said...

You're either hysterical or cynical, I can't tell which. Your rant led me to the original piece, which is entirely reasonable in its general call for bringing the Constitution into better conformance with modern practices and mores. The author also points out several times in our history when the Constitution was run roughshod over or outright ignored by all three branches of government, without lasting damage to the republic. You've characterized it in the shallowest possible way. Who is your audience, anyway?

W.C. Varones said...

Sometimes, cynicism is justified.

without lasting damage to the republic

Warrantless wiretapping, global military empire, multiple undeclared wars, extrajudicial assassination of American citizens, indefinite detention, Congress and the Administration being run by and for crony capitalist predators...

Yeah, things are just fucking great when we ignore the Constitution, aren't they?

Negocios Loucos said...

Rant!?! I'll give you a rant:

Mr. King, first off, besides the 3rd Amendment could you specifically state where the Constitution is not in conformance with modern practices and mores?

In my opinion our government is engaged in much activity that is not stated they are allowed to engage in in the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it give the Federal government the right to do any of what WC stated?

The 4th amendment prohibits warrant-less wiretapping yet the government is doing that. The 5th amendment prohibits indefinite detention. Do you believe that is wrong? Do you wish that a citizen of this country be held without trial or representation?

The basis for our Republic is the Constitution and our Executive and Legislative branches are in direct violation of the Constitution most succinctly stated with the 10th Amendment:


Our current economic mess did not come from the federal government's adherence to the Constitution nor did our current military imperialism. It came from a violation of principles of the Constitution.

See the Federal Government is to be a servant of the states and their populations. It is not right now. That is most criminally exemplified by the Federal governments debasement of it's currency. We've commented here many times that by destroying interest income they are literally casting millions of senior citizens who saved all their lives to upon retirement earn 5% to live off of into poverty. Where in the Constitution does it state that the Federal government can debase it's currency? Yet we half joke that Alpo will be on the menu for millions of elderly because now they are earning less than 1% on their savings while at the same time the actions of the Government and the Federal Reserve (yeah they are separate if you care to understand) are increasing the costs of all that we consume, save iPads and flat screen tvs. But you think we need to change the Constitution that doesn't allow the what the current government does anyway?

The Constitution only protects our freedoms and to state otherwise is a false. Our Federal government has long been outside the jurisdiction of the Constitution and to put a final end of that as the law of the land will put a final end to our Republic where laws and enforcement of laws will be decided on the whim of those in power at the time instead of on a construct that is politically blind as it should be.

Of course it's not dangerous to Liberals because Liberals believe Democrats are holy, purely righteous folk who never do anything wrong, while Republicans are purely evil members of the Dark Side. The question I always ask Liberals regarding their support of say indefinite detention or assassination is: what if GW Bush had instituted those programs? Wouldn't the liberal establishment be outraged? Of course they would and that's childish hypocrisy and religious zealotry both of which destroy democracy.

So who is my audience you ask? Those that are capable of logical thought and capable of looking at details and specifics instead of religious dogma. Those that would evaluate ideas instead of identifying political associations and striking opinions that way. They are few and far between but we've connected with a few here.

How's that for a rant?

Happy Super Tuesday!