Georgetown Law professor: Scrap ‘archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil’ Constitution
He belongs through his education and profession certainly not to the group of people who are not favorably abused by governments like the mental sick. He rather belongs to the people who want to make the abuses more open and legal.
From this article:
“As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are
reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is
broken,” Seidman wrote. “But almost no one blames the culprit: our
insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic,
idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”
Comment:
The Law professor is not actually searching for the culprit for Americas political problems,he wants to take advantage out of the situation. The constitution is made to protect the people against government abuses. To speak in favor of scraping it means to speak for legalising abuses. I rather see it as partly the culprit of Americas problems that nearly all take all the time just advantage out of any situation.
By the way America does not obey the constitution.
How about electronic harassment? Not regulated and happening all the time for many years in America but also elsewhere. Americans like to boost about their human rights and shitting on them the same time in enjoying the abuses of electronic harassment.
Such behavior looks pretty much as being American Standard.
The professor uses the word archaic related to the constitution. Well, ancient wisdom is often superior to modern science. Being old does not tell anything about quality.
He uses the term idiosyncratic. Being also an individual is also a feature of every human being.
The professor seems to yet to be that far. He probably represents the interests of the ruling towards the people which includes to make people behaving in desired controllable ways. Individual interests are in the way of such. So this is seen negative, while it is good for the people. He seems to represent the interests of a totalitarian rule, which is by the way the goal of the democrats.
But individual behavior may even be the urgent need for an individual.
For instance psychiatry is not a mental health institution, it is rather a terror organisation. It just is the establishment institution for the mental sick. If you really want help with your problems you must not turn to this institution.
You have to find your way yourself. You have to act individual.
The professor says that the constitution provides downright evil provisions.
For him it is probably evil when the elite cannot enjoy all the abuses openly
which it could if the constitution was scrapped.
From the article:
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,” he added. “Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the
Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary,
it has helped us to grow and prosper.”
comment:
Yes, the abuses have helped you prosper. For instance stealing all useful information including copyright material from the minds of victims of Mind Control technology has helped you prosper.
Let's see it clear, the professor wants to make crimes legal wants to enrich the elite while abusing the poor and minorities.
From the article:
If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled
by ‘We the people’ is impossibly utopian,” he concluded. “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.”
comment:
the approach democracy, we the people rule still has to be developed. For me it has not failed, it is just not yet there. It has failed up to now. But to develop against power and money interests, those who want dictatorship is difficult, but it should be done. The deficiencies have to be located and tackled. I do not think it is the constitution, there is other stuff.
For instance Power and money interests keep people form debating mature and tolerant, isn't it.
I won't exclude that acting according the institution may be problematic and it should be
discussed but the goal of it to protect citizens from government power should not be touched. If it is touched the kind of freedom arrives which includes the right of the rich and powerful to abuse the ordinary people and minorities.
