Imbecilic Leftist Law Professor Calls Constitution ‘Imbecilic’

Joseph Klein is a Harvard-trained lawyer and the author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom and Lethal Engagement: Barack Hussein Obama, the United Nations & Radical Islam.


Pages: 1 2

In his New York Times op-ed article on May 29th titled “Our Imbecilic Constitution,” a law professor named Sanford Levinson demonstrated wacky, imbecilic progressivism in action.

Professor Levinson believes that our Constitution itself is the source of what he characterizes as the “dysfunctional, even pathological” American political system. The learned professor would do away with our system of “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” altogether.  It’s just too darned difficult, he believes, to allow legislative and judicial interference to an omniscient president whose superior wisdom we should just learn to accept, unless of course a future president happens to be conservative.

Levinson would “permit each newly elected president to appoint 50 members of the House and 10 members of the Senate, all to serve four-year terms until the next presidential election.”  I wonder if Russian President Vladimir Putin is listening.

The Senate, according to Levinson, is too unrepresentative to be accorded equal weight with House of Representatives’ majority rule. The rights of the minority, be damned – unless it involves groups anointed with favored minority status by patronizing progressives.

Levinson also mentions the idea of having Congress override Supreme Court decisions it doesn’t like and requiring “seven of the nine Supreme Court justices…to overturn national legislation.”

Finally, Levinson complains that it is far too difficult to change the Constitution through the amendment process set forth in Article V. In another piece he wrote several years ago attacking the legitimacy of the Constitution, he claimed:

Because it is so difficult to amend the Constitution — it seems almost utopian to suggest the possibility, with regard to anything that is truly important — citizens are encouraged to believe that change is almost never desirable, let alone necessary.

Our Founding Fathers provided a framework for government that purposely made it difficult to allow the passions of the moment to override reasoned debate and prudent action. They tried to find a balance between an unchangeable document cast in stone for all time and an overly malleable document that could be sacrificed to transient whims.  As James Madison described the amendment process in Federalist 43:

It guards equally against that extreme facility, which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty, which might perpetuate its discovered faults. It, moreover, equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other.

There are currently twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution.  The first ten, the Bill of Rights, confirm the protection of our basic liberties.  Other amendments have expanded the reach of these liberties. However, if Professor Levinson had his way and constitutional amendments were as easy to pass as legislation, Obamacare would be a constitutional amendment enshrining the made-up “right” to universal health care on terms dictated by the government. Amnesty would be granted to all illegal immigrants in some sort of made-up open-borders human rights amendment. And so on.

Pages: 1 2

  • Stephan

    "… citizens are encouraged to believe that change is almost never desirable, let alone necessary."

    Always saying "I would like to have justice/equality/change …" but leaving out the "… like in the Soviet Union" part.

  • Aliko

    The only 'liberty' missing in the constitution for these 'liberals' is freedom of treason.

    This is the only meaning of stretching freedom of speech to slender and defamation and making sure you can't protect yourself by removing the second amendment. Add the liberty to use drugs, kill babies and freely import voters through free immigration and you'll get 'liberal' utopia that would make hell seem like a welcomed vacation spot.

  • Ken

    These are the people who want to destroy the country from within!!

  • oldtimer

    Q: What's the difference between God and a lawyer?
    A: God doesn't think He's a lawyer..

  • mrstarry76

    Love it or leave it. Why don't these professors go somewhere else & spew their filth. Why do they get paid for treason?

  • RonaldCarnine

    The very fact that the "learned" professor doesn't like the Constitution and thinks it too hard to change it shows the brilliance of the document. The "professor" might think he is intelligent and well educated but he couldn't hold a candle to the likes of Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and Washington (and so on). Here is a little man spewing forth "big" ideas that aren't worth a piddle. Thank God that fellas like him were not among the Founders. He is getting way to much press. Little man, little brain, little exposure.

    • Looking4Sanity

      Amen, Ronald!

      "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" – James Madison

  • John C. Davidson

    Every day we learn more about this administration and their attempts to radicalize our country. The more we can help inform the population about their attempts to enslave, the sooner we will be able to return to a country based on a moral code it was founded upon that was a shining light for all people who wanted to live freely amongst each other.

  • Ain't No Dhimmi

    "America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold.

    Its patriotism,

    Its morality, and

    Its spiritual life.

    If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. Joseph Stalin

  • StephenD

    What the professor advocates had been tried and has failed miserably everywhere. We see recent resurgence of it in some quarters but even there it will fail…so why do people keep trying to impose it? I'd say the lust for power for the few elites is all it takes. There is no more an oppressive system than to have a few that "know better and are doing things for our own good" dictate every aspect of another’s life. Apparently the draw is too great to resist for some but for those living under such a system, well, just yesterday a Disney cruise ship picked up a Cuban family out at sea ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE from Cuba (where many of late tell us how wonderful life is under such a system), and left them in the Cayman Islands. I’d bet against the professor wanting to take this family’s place in Cuba regardless of what he spews.

  • Zinnia2

    What do professors do? make comments, theorize, teach ideologies, test students and by doing so, Control them – they've likely never had a job outside of that realm, never run a business, never been in gov't – it's all in their heads – so it's Not Reality… So giving so much credence to some of these peoples' actual knowledge value is close to worthless, plus it shows it's dangerous…

    • fiddler

      Solution. Take your business elsewhere. Then abolish the NEA.

  • truckwork

    What these liberal progressive, ivory tower, intellectuals don't realize is that once that system is put into place those in power will take them to a place that will eventually lead to their deaths. Most communist or socialist leaders know that these individuals represent the biggest threat to their continued existance and they will round up these useful idiots, along with the gays, lesbian, transgender crowd, the undesirables, the mentally insane and those with disabilities, and put them in re-education camps where they will eventually die, either at the business end of a gun or from starvation or exposure.

    While the Constitution isn't perfect it's the best system in the world right now for allowing those who live here to be successful. It provides the freedom of opportunity for all, depending upon the effort one is willing to put into whatever they choose to pursue. It provides equal opportunity not equal outcomes.

  • tagalog

    What school is this guy Levinson a law professor in? My advice as an practicing attorney for 35 years is avoid that one, or take your Con Law course somewhere else.

    Oh, the University of Texas at Austin. I stand by my advice.

  • SoCalMike

    Levinson is just another brainwashed government-worshiping robot conditioned to love and adore his god.
    He most likely gets paid directly from taxpayers.

    • fiddler

      Becoming tenured means they have a need to still feel relevant.

  • Tascman

    “dysfunctional, even pathological” ???
    Only if you want unbridled power. To those who love Liberty, we have no better document than the Constitution.

    I would like to further clarify, the "Bill of Rights" does not give us rights. It further restricts governments desire to usurp our God Given Rights that belong to the people. The USA is a created entity bestowed with certain powers that were sharply defined and enumerated. The people bestow certain rights to their federal head, and they can also recall them. The USA was not created to be another dictatorship bestowing rights and privilege, that was what the States fought a war to end.

    The Bill of Rights did not list rights of the people, but further defined the limitations of federal power. The Amendments are part of a document that includes a preamble. Rarely is the preamble of the Amendments read. The preamble is the most important part of the amendments of the Constitution. It is essential to give clarity to everything that follows.

    The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New-York, on
    Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

    RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

    ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

    Then lastly, the Declaration best describes the rights of the people in relationship to their government. This is a universal principle. But never in history was it applied better than the USA. From the Declaration:

    ….
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    ….

    We have inherited an incredible heritage. God give us the wisdom to apply it today.

  • AntiSharia

    This is nothing new, the progressives have been at this for more than a century. If they had there way we'd live in a version of Plato's Republic ruled by an all powerful philosopher king. We're expected to be grateful for the privilege of living under their benevolent rule, and they can't understand why the peasants would want a say in the matter.

  • Howard

    The learned Perfesser Levinson's argument boils down to this: The Constitution makes it too hard for me and my political cohort to get our way because it requires that I first convince a large segment of the nations people and their representatives to agree with me and give their consent in changing the constitution. It would be much easier if I only had to convince a smaller political class made up of the wise and the good. Or the corrupt and the banal.

    A imbecile with a PhD is like a jackass with a embroidered saddle. You just keep braying there, Doc.

  • Schlomotion

    I just read five of Mr. Levinson's essays on the Constitution including the linked one and the man does not come off sounding like an anti-Constitutionalist. If anything, he holds back whatever opinions he has about correct and incorrect interpretations of the Constitution and its Amendments. There is no way to stand on this man's head and grandstand about leftists and the anti-Constitutional movement. Mr. Levinson simply reopens the debate over Constitutional structure using analytical thinking and examination. He is no Fareed Zakaria, saying the Constitution is outdated and inconvenient to the political Jet Set. He is no Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying that South Africa is better than the United States. He is no Adam Liptak calling the Constitution "terse and old." Finally, he is no Dubya saying "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a godda**ed piece of paper!"

    • pagegl

      So, you're saying that using the man's words as any sort of argument to judge his attitude about the Constitution is invalid.

      • Schlomotion

        No, just Mr. Klein's current attempt.

        Mr. Levinson's words and attitude don't substantiate Mr. Klein's tirade. If he had chosen a bona fide anti-Constitutionalist with demonstrably anti-Constitutional statements, then he could have possibly written a good rebuttal.

        • Jospeh Klein

          "Imbecilic Constitution" is the phrase Levinson used, trying to turn the words of the Founding Fathers regarding the failed Articles of Confederation against them. You don't think that referring to the Constitution as "imbecilic" is not evidence of a progressive anti-Constitution bias? Bringing up the canard of slavery as part of his critique of the Constitution today is another example of his bias. I could go on, but hopefully you get the point.

          • Schlomotion

            I think it could be evidence of that. More likely, it is an attention-grabbing headline, as is internet tradition nowadays. He doesn't continue on describing the Constitution as imbecilic. I think he just used fighting words as a lead in.

          • Stephen_Brady

            The MSM doesn't use "attention-grabbing" headlines, Schlo? Only on the internet?

          • Schlomotion

            Oh, I'm sorry. Everything has to be fastidiously even, because if the mainstream media does something stupid (which is routine) then that makes it OK for the internet media to do it? Really? Are you clinging to that piece of rotten wood, that somehow yellow journalism on the internet is better than the yellow journalism at MSNBC? That's your solace?

          • Stephen_Brady

            And you're still clinging the grossly-outdated notion that the MSM is composed of noble warriors for absolute truth? They're completely unbaised? Or if they're biased, they never allow these biases to affect their judgment on any story?

            If so, I have a bridge in Brookklyn that …

          • Schlomotion

            No. I don't ever recall defending any media outlets.

          • Stephen_Brady

            Goody. I shall pick one for you:

            CBS

            The individual biases of the reporters and talking heads on CBS never get past the editors, who … of course … never have an agenda. Right or wrong?

        • reader

          Really? And that comes from a troll using a fake quote as an argument and looking more and more as a troll with every passing day, when it's already nearly impossible to top:

          http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/bush-the-constit

          • Schlomotion

            All that fact checker site does is claim that it's unlikely.

          • reader

            Right. "Extremely unlikely", to be precise. It also says, "the odds that the report is accurate hover near zero," which is exactly what makes it useful for "intellectuals" as yourself.

          • Schlomotion

            "It says." It did not make itself into my morning coffee. It did not power up when I turned my key in it. It did not learn new words and phrases today. It did not affect the weather. It has no innate beauty. It is not even attributable to a person of demonstrable sense and wit. Therefore, I do not care what it says.

          • reader

            "I do not care what it says"

            This I could use regarding your every post, troll.

  • RoguePatriot6

    You see, we can't get rid of the COTUS just yet. So, now the next best thing for lib/progs to do is to discredit it and to also villainize and alienate people who believe in it. If you noticed we are starting to see more and more the effects of liberalized education. Alot of kids and young adults are starting to believe that the COTUS was written with ideas of "racism" embedded in it. Or the 2nd most popular method is to say "it's obsolete it was written for that time and age of colonialism." We even had an incident where Jesse Jackson Jr. proposed indefinitely suspending the COTUS. What blows my mind are the people elected into office that came up with the term "constitutionalist" for the people who actually believe in it. I never realized until a few years ago that it was an option for elected government officials to believe in this document. After all, they did take an oath to "defend" and "uphold" it. I would think that it would be fitting for those who swear to do this to actually believe in what this document says.

  • StarTripper

    Since you get less of what you tax I suggest a tax on law degrees.

    • SCREW SOCIALISM

      Better a cap on what lawyers can charge their customers. Eliminate the 30% skim from what their clients win.

      • Oleg

        Already done in Canada, loser pays, lawyers are not allowed to work on commission, only on retainer, and in most provinces they are not allowed to advertise. Also personal damages (not property damages) are capped at $2 million dollars. It's one of the few things they have right in Canada, the criminal justice side, on the other hand, is fataly flawed.

    • Looking4Sanity

      That sounds like a novely excellent idea!

  • tagalog

    Let's see: the imbeciles who wrote the Constitution intended to limit governmental intrusion into the liberty of the people, and further expressly provided that all people are to receive equal protection under the law. In their stupidity, they made it difficult for those rules to be changed.

    The really smart people, like Mr. Levinson and Mayor Bloomberg of New York City, say that government should be so powerful and all-intrusive that government can regulate how big a serving size of soda pop people are allowed to buy.

    And the imbeciles are the guys who wrote the Constitution. What's wrong with this picture?

  • Looking4Sanity

    "Sooner or later, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave."

    Captain "Mal" Reynolds, from the movie, Serenity

  • Looking4Sanity

    I delight in the ability of our Founders, dead now some 200+ years, to stymie and confound the freedom haters of America!

    It's almost as impressive a feat as that of Jesus' ability to set atheist's hair on fire 2000 years after His crucifixion!

    • Beth

      "Jesus' ability to set atheist's hair on fire" lols (I am also impressed with the wisdom of our founders)

      There are plenty of other nations for Levinson to move to. I would be more than happy in contributing to his ticket…so long as it is a one-way ticket.

      • Looking4Sanity

        Some folks might count you as cruel for wanting to inflict this putz on their culture. I, however, echo your sentiment…and I'm glad I could bring a smile to your day!

  • crypticguise

    The sooner the NYTimes ceases publishing the better. Why would anyone want to print the ravings of a lunatic left-wing nut job, even if he is a "professor" of law.

    The response or lack of response to the NYTimes is a result of the mainly liberal, ill educated readers of the paper not understanding the Constitution or our history.

    • Vermont Yid

      Now, now, let's not be too hard on the NYT. It's not as though the NYT is useless. It's the perfect thing for paper-training a puppy or for the bottom of a bird cage.

  • pagegl

    And I wonder why they haven't been impeached yet.

    • RoguePatriot6

      Because Obama is picking those he knows would push his policies regardless of how unethical or unconstitutional they are.
      We have alot of cleaning up to do. Beathing Obama this Novemember is just the start of a long and painful war against the damage that lib/progs have done. Allen West was only half right when he called the majority of Congress a bunch of communists. They are also treasonists because the simply neglect to do their jobs of keeping Obama in check with the nonsense he's doing. They are a open gate to our country being transformed into a Socialist Republic, regardless of whether the American citizens desire it or not.

      We have alot of in house cleaning to do and we are going to need some industrial strength bleach.

    • RoguePatriot6

      I have a question.
      Do we have a new administrator because apparently I can hardly print "I dislike….." without my comment needing approval from the administrator.

  • UCSPanther

    Only a fool would mess with the US constitution and not expect to provoke a civil war.

  • geopeyton

    People like Levinson are sick. They should have the guts to admit they simply want a dictatorship with someone they favor in charge, but of course they know no one would go for that.

  • Ghostwriter

    I think Professor Levinson is the only imbecile here. I don't think this guy studied the Constitution enough.

  • Oleg

    I can think of at least three flaws in the U.S constitution that should be amended right off, but I don't think it should be junked.
    The first would be the interstate commerce clause, that open ended P.O.S has been used as the "advance to go and collect $200" card by statists for over a century. It should be amended to limit it's application to goods or services that actually do cross a state line, not someone growing potatoes in their back yard rather then buying them from the store.
    The second would be an amendment limiting the growth of the federal government, and government borrowing, to a percentage of GDP outside of a declaration of total war, a la WW2 for example. This is already being worked on by some in the U.S congress.
    The third flaw is the lifetime appointment of Judges to the U.S supreme court, 200 years ago when the average lifespan was 42 years old this wasn't an issue, now the average is over 70 or better. So someone could conceivably be appointed at 40 and sit on the court for 30+ years, why should a future generation be sadled with the judicial legacy of a president that left office several decades before? Appoint them to ten year terms with a possibilty of renewell.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Article VI needs to be amended, so that our sovereignty cannot be throw away by means of an international treaty, like the LOST.

  • 10mm AUTO

    Congress shall make no law concerning Means of Production of Production nor the Free Exercise thereof.

  • Choi

    "Conservative" Talk Radio Host Michael Medved actually gave this seditionist radio time today.

    • Stephen_Brady

      Michael is not a conservative, as the constant presence of David Frum makes obvious. I'd like to see Frum get away with the things he says on Rush's show …

  • Willy Rho

    The POTUS should be allowed to select 435 house and 100 Senate. Then he would have absolute Power. We already know he is absolutely corrupt minded. And that would satisfy his pathological Narcissism and Psychopathic personality.

  • Beth

    In reply to Whitehunter: "they simply IGNORE our founding document and do whatever they want"

    they took their formal oaths to uphold the constitution only for gaining the positions they now have.

    It's treason. No more – no less.

  • Tanstaafl jw

    Nothing should prevent our Fearless Leader from crushing the running dog lackeys! Not even the outdated and silly Constitution,

  • Juris Prudence

    It took the poor bastard until the 4th paragraph from the end to get to his real point … i.e. the Libs fear the Supremes will knock down B.O.'s singular accomplishment. So, … something/somebodies MUST be at fault for attacking these Liberal Ideals. What 'could' be done to stop those Wascally Wepublicans from blocking the Messiah's agenda?

  • tagalog

    One of Levinson's central dissatisfactions with the U.S. Constitution is that it lends itself to the "gridlock" of the federal government. He thinks gridlock at the federal level is a bad thing. Some of us thank God daily for federal governmental gridlock. How would we get along without it?

    Our Founding Fathers considered direct democracy, and, like the Classical philosophers before them and the French philosophes who were their contemporaries, considered direct democracy inherently anti-liberty and anti-equality, "mobocracy" as some of them called it.

    Our government, although believing that we're so stupid we need government to tell us how large a container of soda pop we can buy, still thinks we're smart enough to participate in voting for our leaders. At the same time, the federal government has become so wasteful of money that is is now vulnerable to destruction via an economic attack in the form of a lowering of taxes. The time calls for us to take a stand, folks; how about it?

  • http://%URL% Nila

    This paragraph offers clear idea for the new visitors of blogging, that in fact how to
    do running a blog.

  • http://%URL% concert backstage pass

    I’m now not sure where you are getting your information, however good topic. I needs to spend a while learning more or working out more. Thanks for fantastic information I used to be searching for this information for my mission.

  • http://%URL% stormbmp.com

    I almost never drop remarks, however after reading
    a great deal of responses on Imbecilic Leftist Law Professor Calls
    Constitution

  • http://%URL% Kerri

    This is a really good tip especially to those fresh to the blogosphere.

    Brief but very precise info… Thank you for sharing this one.
    A must read post!

  • http://%URL% concert backstage pass

    We stumbled over here different website and thought I might as
    well check things out. I like what I see so now i’m following you. Look forward to looking into your web page for a second time.

  • http://www.gamevision-cs.com/users/JaredFinn Corey

    hello there and thank you for your info – I’ve certainly picked up something new from right here. I did however expertise some technical points using this web site, since I experienced to reload the web site many times previous to I could get it to load correctly. I had been wondering if your web hosting is OK? Not that I am complaining, but sluggish loading instances times will very frequently affect your placement in google and could damage your quality score if ads and marketing with Adwords. Anyway I am adding this RSS to my e-mail and can look out for a lot more of your respective exciting content. Make sure you update this again very soon.