🚀 go-pugleaf

Charles Osgood, the host of CBS Sunday Morning, shocked many 
viewers when he introduced a segment that called for the 
abolishment of the U.S. Constitution.

�Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the reverence in which 
most Americans hold it,� Osgood asked his viewers.

He then introduced Georgetown University Professor Louis Michael 
Seidman � who launched into a lengthy essay bashing the Founding 
Fathers and the Constitution.

�I�ve got a simple idea: Let�s give up on the Constitution,� he 
said.

Seidman is a professor of Constitutional Law at Georgetown. He 
said Constitutional disobedience is �as American as apple pie.�

�If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making 
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and 
outdated document,� he said.

The segment ended without any objections from Osgood.

(CBS News) Is the U.S. Constitution truly worthy of the 
reverence in which most Americans hold it? A view on that from 
Louis Michael Seidman, Professor of Constitutional Law at 
Georgetown University:

I�ve got a simple idea: Let�s give up on the Constitution.

I know, it sounds radical, but it�s really not. Constitutional 
disobedience is as American as apple pie.

For example, most of our greatest Presidents � Jefferson, 
Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts � had doubts about the 
Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their 
way.

To be clear, I don�t think we should give up on everything in 
the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and 
inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are 
important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are 
now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions 
that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a 
presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the 
American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama 
really wasn�t a natural-born citizen. So what?

Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our 
political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. 
None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical 
of most forms of gun control.

I understand, though, that�s not everyone�s view, and I�m eager 
to talk with people who disagree.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then 
we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it 
what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control 
makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of 
it two centuries ago.

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional 
obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political 
discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which 
reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one�s 
commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America 
itself.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the 
kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the 
United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people 
who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country 
as it exists today.

If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making 
decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and 
outdated document.

http://nation.foxnews.com/cbs-news/2013/01/28/political-
corruption-cbs-news

--
Are you obligated as an armed civilian, to defend unarmed 
liberals while you are both under fire by foreign agents of the 
outlaw Obama administration?

No.  Shoot the liberals immediately so they can't stab you in 
the back while you are defending yourself, then return a 
controlled rate of aimed fire.  ��

��