– Douglas V. Gibbs
As my nephew reviewed his history book, he became excited when he noticed an entire chapter of the text book was dedicated to the United States Constitution. Like his Uncle Doug, Branden loves history, and has studied extensively the various Founding Fathers, and the Constitutional Convention.
The opportunity to discuss the law of the land in class was more than he ever expected. Branden waited patiently through the school year as the class marched through the textbook, chapter by chapter. When it finally came time for the chapter on the Constitution, the teacher skipped it, and went on to the following chapter in the book.
Branden, disappointed that the chapter he had been waiting for all school year was hurdled over and forgotten, asked his teacher for an explanation. The teacher told him, “We only have so much time to get through this book, so we will have to skip the less important chapters.”
The Constitution unimportant?
Stunned by the teacher’s answer, Branden went to his principal regarding his concerns.The answer from the principal of the school was the same.
A whole generation of students are being taught that the Constitution is unimportant, and if anything, a hindrance.
At the New York Times, Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, and the author of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience,” believes we should give up on the Constitution.
In his New York Times article, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” Professor Seidman calls the document archaic, idiosyncratic, and downright “evil.”
Reading the article, and his credentials, two things became abundantly clear to me. First, Professor Seidman supports the concept of Constitutional Law, a.k.a. case law. In other words, the Constitution does not necessarily mean what it says. The text of the Constitution means what judges say it means.
Second, Professor Seidman abhors originalism. In other words, he has disdain for those that believe in defining the Constitution as it was originally intended by the Founding Fathers involved in crafting the document.
After completing reading his article, one other thing came to mind that startled me, when considering that this gentleman is a teacher in one of our fine collegiate institutions. . .
Professor Seidman is completely ignorant of the Constitution. He believes it to be a living document based on an ever-changing society, and the court’s view of the constitution based on their rulings.
For more of the article go to: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/52167