WTC,9/11,NY Times:Let's Give Up on U.S.Constitution and Praise Israeli Chertoff Patriot Act

WTC,9/11,NY Times:Let's Give Up on U.S.Constitution and Praise Israeli Chertoff Patriot Act

''As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?'' - Louis  Michael Seidman 

SEIDMAN

Based upon the above the Israeli agent sabateur Louis  Michael Seidman should have his license to practice law in America revoked.lIsrael that has no Constitution will be glad to have such a scumbag in their racist religiously bigoted court system.

Why doesn't Israel have a constitution?

General Reference (not clearly pro or con)

Daniel J. Elazar, JD, the late Professor of Political Science at Temple University, Philadelphia, in a 1990 Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JPCA) essay titled "Israel as a Jewish State," wrote: "The Jewish political tradition... emphasizes the ordering of the polity through a written constitution. Here Israel has had to confront a basic conflict, unresolvable under contemporary conditions. That is, whether the Torah as the traditional constitution of the Jewish people must serve as the basis for the state's basic law or whether Israel is to adopt a modern civil (or secular) constitution. Israel shares that [Jewish political] tradition and is committed to the adoption of a formal written constitution and first tried to write one in 1949. The first Knesset was actually elected as a constituent assembly. But this basic disagreement [Torah based vs. secular based constitution] prevents the comprehensive consummation of this commitment...  Even the right wing nut pro offshore money launderers of National Review take offence at the fellow far right Zionist's anti-U.S.Constitution stance.: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336655/inew-york-timesi-oped-decries-constitution-wesley-j-smith# 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.... “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... No thanks. I like liberty and the Constitution is its bulwark. What would replace ordered liberty?.... 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....... John Fembup • a day ago I like the Constitution because I think it's intended to protect people like me, from people like Seidman. .......................... Israel is composed mainly of racist religiously delusion white people of European origen whose founders allied themselves with Adolf Hitler the Rothschilds and the Nazis and the 'Zi' in Nazi may very well mean Zionist because it certainly doesn't pertain to any other word in the German vocabulary that can it explain it otherwise.No doubt the lying white pervert Louis  Michael Seiman who would erroneously have us believe he is a 'Semite' with direct lineage to and from the mad man Semite Abraham who hallucinated 'g-d' telling him to kill his son and then when he recovered from that hallucination went off and raped and got his wife's maid pregnant - well all I can say is that while white people can't be related to Abraham in any way as Seidman's  religious mafiosi claims to be,he is such a perv I would not doubt he'd he'd abuse his son and rape his maid if he could get away with it.And no Seidman the majority don't wish to replace the U.S.Constitution with your fellow Israeli criminal Michael Chertoff's Israeli Patriot Act otr the Torah much less the hateful Talmud !

Israel Needs Constitution, Not Basic Law – Forward.com

forward.com/articles/155768/israel-needs-constitution-not-basic-law/

7 May 2012 – Israel needs a Constitution, not a 'Basic Law.' It should live up to the commitment to the rule of law that is enshrined in the independence ...

...............................

What could be sleazier than the Zionist war criminals and money launderers of the NY Times publishing an editorial by a Jewish Zionist who should be residing in Israel under the  government he represents rather than like Israeli Zionist scum Wolf Blitzer and so many more aiding and covering up the criminal activities of Israelis and Zionists in America along with our infiltrated and corrupted  'intelligence' agencies.We would be far better off without right wing international elitist controlled digital rags like The New York Times that both covered up Israeli involvement in 9/11/01 and lied us into invading Iraq with untold numbers of U.S.citizens killed and permanently crippled all so BP and Rothschild Royal Dutch Shell,et.al. could dominate the Middle East oil flow.Dick Cheney's Haliburton even refused to put a meter on the flow of Basara oil after taking control at huge American looses both in manpower and in dollars so these oil trafficking ijsiders could traffick oil and launder the money into their offshore accounts all on the blood andcmoney of America's former middle class.Those who run the NY Times and their cronies were and are far more dangerous to us than Saddam Hussein ever was.The NY Times never took responsibilty and punishment for the damages caused by lying us into Iraq,etc.,including the big lie about WMDs in Iraq !

The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times - Salon.com

www.salon.com/2007/07/09/hoyt/

9 Jul 2007 – The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times ... Times editors clearly were mindful of the W.M.D. coverage as they pursued the ...

Note also The New York or Jew York Times was at the forefront in covering up Zionist NY Judge Alvin Hellerstein's monopoly of all cases related to 9/11 even though his son has lived on occupied Palestinian land since shortly afterv 9/11 insd is employed as an attorney by a UK Rothschild concern and it was also a Rothschild entity that contributed to financing Israeli ICTS International'S PLACEMENT ON U.S. stock market that allowed ICTS Israel to buy Huntleigh airport security company and the contract out on   Logan Airport Boston where according to the official U.S. government story,the planes ,11 and 175,that hit the twin towers, originated from and made certain Zionist billionaires much richer at the same time !

9-11 Judge Hellerstein "Slams" 9-11 Widow Ellen Mariani By - Whale

www.whale.to/b/bollyn6dec.html

6 Dec 2007 – New York, NY (11/16/07)--Ellen Mariani is vowing to appeal a November... At the time her attorney in New Hampshire was a prominent former .......

Note NY Times conflict of interest even at the ruling against Ellen Mariani when she appealed to another court due to Judge Hellerstein's obvious Zionist-Israeli conflicts of interest only to encounter this other court has the same conflicts and some involved in opposing her are NY Times connected !:

9-11 Defendant's Ties to Judge Ignored by - Christopher Bollyn

www.bollyn.com/13715/

12 Jul 2012 – Ellen Mariani, the 9-11 widow who filed the first wrongful death lawsuit ...the Supreme Court and judicial matters for the New York Times.

So just wht does the Israeli prostitute Louis Michael Seiman suggest other than the Constitution being enforced and Zionist Israeli scum such as himself and Alvin Hellerstein and their fellow Zionista Michael Chertoff who wrote the Patriot Act after aiding and abetting  in the cover up of Israeli involvement in 9/11 being removed and prosecuted for subverting it ?

Torture's Truth by scumbag Zionist Israeli Georgetown University prostitute Louis Michael Seidman who would replace U.S. Constition with Chertoff's Israeli Patriot Act

It must be remembered the the 'Cathiolic' Georgetown is rampant with U.S.CIA,NSA and probably Israeli Mossad who have a goal to destroy U.S. civil Liberties or at least the little that haven't been destroyed already.A former Wall Street Journal colleague of Daniel Pearl and disinfo agent for international far right elite named Asra Nomani is jusdt one example.She claims to be a hater of of former Islamic culture because they supposedly killed Daniel Pear and yet has coverup for international stock fraud money launderer and CIA James Woolsey connected Mansoor Ijaz whose advice is what got   Daniel Pearl killed in the first place if he was killed at all.:  

wolfblitzzer0: WTC,9/11:Daniel Pearl,Asra Nomani,Mansoor Ijaz ...

wolfblitzzer0.blogspot.com/.../daniel-pearlasra-nomanimansoor.html

5 Feb 2012 – Daniel Pearl in Pakistan - Asra Nomani and Mansoor Ijaz - as well as NYC .... For instance as a Wall Street reporter and now Georgetown ...

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/562/

..................................

In this Article, I argue that the obstacles to having a serious conversation about torture are exacerbated by a truth that torture teaches us - a truth that we cannot afford fully to know and, so, frantically try to obscure. Law is about respect for commitments and limits, and the existence of torture challenges the possibility of such respect. If we are prepared to torture, then, it would seem, we are prepared to do anything, and the restraint that law purports to impose upon us is a fraud. Torture's truth, then, is that all of our promises to ourselves and to others are ultimately contingent. In related, albeit distinguishable, ways, torture shows us a truth about ourselves as individuals and as a society. In the most direct and literal sense, torture teaches us as individuals that we are slaves to our bodies and that our beliefs, our values, and our moral obligations - in short, all that makes us human - count for nothing when our bodies are at stake. And while this is true literally about the human body, it is also true metaphorically about the body politic. When it comes to it, we as human beings will do whatever it takes to stop the pain, just as we as societies will do whatever it takes to preserve our corporate identity.

To fully understand this truth is to deny that law is possible. Indeed, it is to deny that human life as we generally conceive of it is possible. For just this reason, we cannot know this truth. Yet neither can we fully evade it.- Louis Michael Seidman

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 

NY TIMES:LET'S GIVE UP ON U.S.CONSTITUTION AND PRAISE ISRAELI CHERTOFF PATRIOT ACT

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Let’s Give Up on the Constitution

By LOUIS MICHAEL SEIDMAN

Published: December 30, 2012

• FACEBOOK
• TWITTER
• GOOGLE+
• SAVE
• E-MAIL
• SHARE
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• 

Washington

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow@nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow@andyrNYT.

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.

Consider, for example, the assertion by the Senate minority leader last week that the House could not take up a plan by Senate Democrats to extend tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less because the Constitution requires that revenue measures originate in the lower chamber. Why should anyone care? Why should a lame-duck House, 27 members of which were defeated for re-election, have a stranglehold on our economy? Why does a grotesquely malapportioned Senate get to decide the nation’s fate?

Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.

As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official — say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress — reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?

Constitutional disobedience may seem radical, but it is as old as the Republic. In fact, the Constitution itself was born of constitutional disobedience. When George Washington and the other framers went to Philadelphia in 1787, they were instructed to suggest amendments to the Articles of Confederation, which would have had to be ratified by the legislatures of all 13 states. Instead, in violation of their mandate, they abandoned the Articles, wrote a new Constitution and provided that it would take effect after ratification by only nine states, and by conventions in those states rather than the state legislatures.

No sooner was the Constitution in place than our leaders began ignoring it. John Adams supported the Alien and Sedition Acts, which violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. Thomas Jefferson thought every constitution should expire after a single generation. He believed the most consequential act of his presidency — the purchase of the Louisiana Territory — exceeded his constitutional powers.

Before the Civil War, abolitionists like Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrison conceded that the Constitution protected slavery, but denounced it as a pact with the devil that should be ignored. When Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation — 150 years ago tomorrow — he justified it as a military necessity under his power as commander in chief. Eventually, though, he embraced the freeing of slaves as a central war aim, though nearly everyone conceded that the federal government lacked the constitutional power to disrupt slavery where it already existed. Moreover, when the law finally caught up with the facts on the ground through passage of the 13th Amendment, ratification was achieved in a manner at odds with constitutional requirements. (The Southern states were denied representation in Congress on the theory that they had left the Union, yet their reconstructed legislatures later provided the crucial votes to ratify the amendment.)

In his Constitution Day speech in 1937, Franklin D. Roosevelt professed devotion to the document, but as a statement of aspirations rather than obligations. This reading no doubt contributed to his willingness to extend federal power beyond anything the framers imagined, and to threaten the Supreme Court when it stood in the way of his New Deal legislation. In 1954, when the court decided Brown v. Board of Education, Justice Robert H. Jackson said he was voting for it as a moral and political necessity although he thought it had no basis in the Constitution. The list goes on and on.

The fact that dissenting justices regularly, publicly and vociferously assert that their colleagues have ignored the Constitution — in landmark cases from Miranda v. Arizona to Roe v. Wade to Romer v. Evans to Bush v. Gore — should give us pause. The two main rival interpretive methods, “originalism” (divining the framers’ intent) and “living constitutionalism” (reinterpreting the text in light of modern demands), cannot be reconciled. Some decisions have been grounded in one school of thought, and some in the other. Whichever your philosophy, many of the results — by definition — must be wrong.

IN the face of this long history of disobedience, it is hard to take seriously the claim by the Constitution’s defenders that we would be reduced to a Hobbesian state of nature if we asserted our freedom from this ancient text. Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.

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.

Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president’s term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor. Nor, finally, should we have an all-powerful president free to do whatever he wants. Even without constitutional fealty, the president would still be checked by Congress and by the states. There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy. The president would have to justify military action against Iran solely on the merits, without shutting down the debate with a claim of unchallengeable constitutional power as commander in chief. Congress might well retain the power of the purse, but this power would have to be defended on contemporary policy grounds, not abstruse constitutional doctrine. The Supreme Court could stop pretending that its decisions protecting same-sex intimacy or limiting affirmative action were rooted in constitutional text.

The deep-seated fear that such disobedience would unravel our social fabric is mere superstition. As we have seen, the country has successfully survived numerous examples of constitutional infidelity. And as we see now, the failure of the Congress and the White House to agree has already destabilized the country. Countries like Britain and New Zealand have systems of parliamentary supremacy and no written constitution, but are held together by longstanding traditions, accepted modes of procedure and engaged citizens. We, too, could draw on these resources.

What has preserved our political stability is not a poetic piece of parchment, but entrenched institutions and habits of thought and, most important, the sense that we are one nation and must work out our differences. 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.

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.

Louis Michael Seidman, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, is theauthor of the forthcoming book “On Constitutional Disobedience.”

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on December 31, 2012, on page A19 of the New York edition with the headline: Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.