Let's throw away the Constitution! Mike Seidman at TEDxGeorgetown

Professor Louis Mike Seidman is the Carmack Waterhouse professor of Constitutional law at Georgetown University. Seidman has served as a law clerk for J. Skelly Wright of the D.C. Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. His most recent books are 'On Constitutional Disobedience' and 'Silence and Freedom'. In a 2012 New York Times op-ed, Professor Seidman called for politicians and judges to engage in "constitutional disobedience."
Check out Professor Seidman's book, 'On Constitutional Disobedience' here: www.amzn.com/0199898278
www.tedxgeorgetown.com
/ tedxgeorgetown
/ tedxgeorgetown
About: In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[@andyzehner3347]

The key to his message is this: "Saying that we don't have an obligation to obey the Constitution doesn't mean we should automatically do the opposite of everything that's in the Constitution." Too many people assert that the only alternative to the existing Constitution is chaos or corruption. But, clearly, it would be possible to adopt a new national constitution based on moral and ethical and practical and scientific grounds.

[@The_Texan_American]

Would we? Who’s doing the rewriting? Or rather “revising”...

[@andyzehner3347]

@@The_Texan_American Thanks for asking. Changes to the Constitution should be accomplished by a slow, calm, broad-based process. Probably it should take not less than 5 years and include participation by literally millions of citizens. I'm not suggesting any one person or any one group should prevail.

[@andyzehner3347]

Many nations around the world maintain civil rights, social order, and economic vitality without the US constitution. It's contrary to fact to claim that fascism is the only possible alternative.

[@andyzehner3347]

@@vtrandalWhat i said was "If every decision were based on moral and ethical and practical and scientific grounds . . . " You are on thin ice declaring that this would "likely [lead to] a fascist regime." Do you really believe that fascism is moral and ethical and scientific? (I don't.)

[@snoopygirl7741]

Your opinion, alot of people who feel the opposite of you

[@Industrial_Druidic_Society]

People here can't cope with someone with a different opinion

[@rustyshackleton5952]

Its a battle of ideas capitalism is our current system but now communist have infiltrated America with the green new deal lockdown

[@Spiritfba]

@@rustyshackleton5952 Oh damn, when did Green New Deal pass? Also, I would wager a million dollars that you cannot even give a correct definition of communism without looking it up first.

[@yourdedcat-qr7ln]

Why should I give up my way to connect with God

[@Libbydoh]

Capitalism is not democracy. Please read some farking books. Like the ones written by the Founding Farking Fathers. (Fed/Anti-Fed Papers = a good start.

[@Industrial_Druidic_Society]

@@Libbydoh lmao never said I agreed with him just that people need to cope

[@ahnohnyehmoss6813]

Let's throw away Louis Seidman and Georgetown University.

[@Andyhoffman98]

Lots of snowflakes in the comments who cry at any critique of how outdated the constitution is

[@defoperator7993]

200 years ago isn’t that long ago at all in the scheme of things it’s 2 healthy lifetimes.

[@mrbearder6373]

@@defoperator7993 Doesn’t exactly mean it shouldn’t be modernised.

[@kerryp7014]

@@defoperator7993 Wow, uneducated statement. Closer to 250. And the world has evolved more in the last 250 years than it has in the 10,000 years before it.

[@juliocast3326]

No one claimed that the constitution was perfect.

[@allygoldstone7294]

You are missing the point

[@kerryp7014]

Seems most people do everyday.

[@socialdeer5882]

The Founding Father's understood that times will change and innovation would come even if they didn't understand or know of it was for the best, they weren't perfect but they gave us our right to free speech, or right to defend that right

[@allygoldstone7294]

You see this. It is the point. You have clearly missed it.

[@fsirjyy147]

The idea was to limit government with the 3 branches of government the Bill of Rights came later. They also wanted people to systematically think things though before doing them and they knew that would take time to do and something wouldn’t get passed. But in no way were they limiting the county to 1789 laws. Consent of the govern. Powerful but limited government, limited popular opinion but the people ultimately have the final say. Free speech/ religion are things you have as an individual by birth simply because you can do it so the idea was if the government was limited and the people never voted or allowed their government/ politicians to pass laws based off those things by election or by taking up arms if absolutely necessary then it would all you retained your civil rights. If the people do nothing or they keep voting for the same bad people and the people are nit good to each other in society then it doesn’t matter because laws and ideas mean nothing without action behind them. All that being said we could have a limited government and have less freedom if we wanted too. Limited only by the will of the people but not liberty. But in America we were built on limited government to protect liberty and our personal freedoms.

[@FosterBaba]

Just because you call the straw man “people” doesn’t make it any less of a straw man argument

[@juliocast3326]

The reason we are not a pure democracy is because the struggle would always be between the majority and the minority. With the minority always losing. The system we have now, is the fairest. But even I can recognize that it isn’t perfect, if the topic at hand is the electoral college, then I would abolish the winner take all system for each state. Once a candidate wins a states majority votes from the electoral college they get all the votes from that state. That is not fair, if a member of the electoral college wants to vote against the majority his vote should count towards which ever candidate he/she views is the best choice. I could agree that that is the part of the electoral college that is actually unfair.

[@Okidata29]

ok.. @9:14 I shut this off because we now know what this is all about. "ABSOLUTE POWER"

[@patrickchilds2987]

I found the talk quite interesting. I should point out to start that I am not an American nor am I advocating any position on this topic as this is an American domestic issue. I would say that I think Americans could update their Constitution without changing its intent. Constitutions by their nature certainly outside America are updated all the time as their countries and societies change . I don’t think this is something to fear but a natural progression of a country. Certainly the United States has changed dramatically since it was written in i believe 1778. It had a population of around 3 million, it was a post revolutionary society, which bears little resemblance to today, you now have global trade, our society’s have developed, our education has changed. This isn’t a bad thing. Again I am not advocating what Americans should do , but you shouldn’t be afraid to update it. Constitutions are governing documents they are not sacred and should not be seen as such. Countries around the world change theirs for the better I would argue. Having said that , I imagine the current polarised politics in the United States would probably make this impossible in any case.

[@jarrhoo]

We have changed it...33 times(33 amendments). For example, Senators used to be selected by the legislatures of each state, NOT elected!(17th amendment, 1912)...now the big complaint is Senators who've been there for 40-50 years and the cry for "term limits"... In its original structure there would be no need for term limits because, as attitudes change locally, so would states Legislative bodies, and therefore who they'd choose to send to DC. A lot of our issues could be fixed if we, the people, were better educated on the why's behind the constitution. For example, of course slavery is wrong! However, in 1776 slavery was a globally accepted industry, not unique to newly forming USA. It was globally understood, at the time, that slaves were property. And, the newly forming USA we're drafting a constitution based on personal property rights(having just fought off a tyrannical government that could seize any and all property of yours on a whim)...it's unfortunate that slaves were viewed as property, but how could the framers state you have a right to your property and then claim portions of your property(slaves)...this particular example was hotly debated at the time. It continued to be debated for 75 years and we fought a civil war to finally settle it...striving to fulfill the "more perfect union" aspect of the constitution....resulting in the 13th amendment, 1865.

[@lilab.stevenson7609]

Some things that you said made a lot of sense. And some things that you said didn't. But you know this is how it's been in my opinion, government politicians Democrat and Republican they all seem to have the answers, but yet how ironic, they never have the solution . someone makes a statement and then turns around and asked a hundred people for their opinion Will 50 of them will agree and the other 50 will disagree it's always going to be that way. Not everybody in the world is going to agree on the same thing it's impossible and you know it. Okay a couple gets married (man or women) then they were given a document for the marriage but neither one of them has to live by.that document only because it was made up maybe 500 years ago. Nobody has to obey laws only because that document was made-up Maybe 1000 years ago. . you might say ... Oh that's not what I meant,..... Then I'll say. really..... I disagree.

[@juliocast3326]

I agree with your statement about the emancipation proclamation.

[@JH-tc7wb]

Disagreed... sort of. Having a clearly written set of foundational values is important because it gives us something to refer to when things get complicated. That doesn't mean that those values are all right and constitutional disobedience has its place, but it's still important to have. Also, because a document is old doesn't make it irrelevant, or inapplicable to modern times: see the bible, the Richest Man in Babylon by Clason, 1984 and Animal Farm by Orwell, Meditations by Aurelius, the Emancipation Proclamation and so on. Granted, we have to contextualize said documents, but they're valuable all the same.

[@kerryp7014]

That's basically what he was saying. It's a foundation, but should be shaped and molded over time. Watch the video again.

[@im-that-guy-pal]

Its crazy to think thousands people sighned up.. then lined up to die for a new government that only wealthy land owners had the right to vote for. I mean what was the point in fighting to remove 1 dictator thousands of miles away for hundreds of dictators one mile away.

[@jordanhales3271]

What is partisan meltdown and the term theologian in terms of the video?

[@nozgotdaheat344]

Lmao I'm here looking for the same answer for Reynold's class

[@jordanhales3271]

NoZgotDaheat that’s exactly who it was for lol

[@tyrannyresponseteam9534]

This guy is sooooo much smarter than our Founding Fathers. Lol 😊

[@Ghosta085]

Can't tell if that's sarcasm...

[@kerryp7014]

Not sarcasm. It's true.

[@tyrannyresponseteam9534]

A guy referring to a Constitutional Republic as a Democracy is the real jewel of wisdom. A Constitutional Republic can't work in an immoral country. Let's change "We the People" first, then maybe visit tweeting the Constitution. The principles of the constitution are timeless when mixed with moral people. Communism would work well tho, but he wouldn't be talking about changing Communism, he'd be hung. Ooooo and about he guns, the wolves would have eaten him a long time ago.

[@whatever3563]

1A: freedom of Speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, right to petition the government 2A: the reason we’re a nation is because citizens had weapons 3A: the right to not have a soldier forcibly housed in your home 4A: protection against unreasonable searches, protection against warrants without reason 5A: the right to remain silent basically 6A: quick trial, right to witnesses, right to legal counsel and right to be informed of charges 7A: right to jury 8A: protests against excessive bail,fine or cruel and unusual punishment 9A: more amendments can be passed but can’t contradict past ones 10A: powers not granted to the government by the constitution are up to the individual states the individual states control what really effects your life The rest are added the only of the 10 with controversy is the 2nd amendment so how is this outdated

[@k999ford]

Idk bro there was absolutely no substance there-no one supports policy solely because its in the constitution. Constitutionality is just a supporting detail. Also, the reason we like it is it’s the best structure for government in human history.

[@dashrirprock]

So much ignorance here. Unforutnately, there are people who solely believe things because of the Constitution (or because they think it's in the Constitution). As for the US Constitution being hte "best structure for government in human history" -- well, you might want to get out more. Or take a comparative government class.

[@americanrealist2975]

I want to hear your opinions..I want to keep our constitution on the tip of our tongues..follow me on twitch! American_Realist

[@Swift30x]

E pluribus unum

[@juliocast3326]

This guys is hilarious, it’s almost like he doesn’t know why we have the House of Representatives. Differences in populations is exactly why we a bicameral system of the of the legislative branch of government. Because states with larger populations would feel underrepresented if we only had the senate. Wyoming had 62 state legislators that are split with 60 House of Representatives members and 2 senate members. California has 55 state legislators 53 House of Representatives members and 2 senate members.

[@chad3292]

The CA state government shot down a proposal to split CA up into 3 states. This would have provided CA with 4 more US Senators but also would have prevented the Democratic Party from controlling all 55 electoral college votes in the Presidential election as well as creating a situation where a red state in southern CA and a purple state in northern CA would be created.

[@Libbydoh]

And this system is working so well. 🙄

[@Travilss]

This is straight propaganda

[@twn5858]

No that is the CONstituion that you love and worship.

[@89nac]

Travilss Yes it is, complete with internet shills and all. This is the result of a government that is drunk on power, and begging its citizens to bow down.... or hang them all in the street.

[@nikitachirich7985]

Yeah conservative dipshits oooooh look I’m a government shill oooooh lol jackasses.

[@tamaravalenzuela1442]

The framers didn't get it wrong. You are getting it wrong. Trying to defame founding fathers a reason to not follow the constitution is a weak argument at best. Wow, I'm very disappointed with this talk.

[@scytale6]

If you support the U.S. constitution you're a gay marriage supporter and a gun rights supporter at the same time.

[@chelseacasarrubias2729]

what ?

[@riceboi2079]

Yea what?

[@Sivels]

Hey look everyone, a marxist intellectual who wants unlimited government.

[@twn5858]

Did you even listen to what this guy had to say? While I don't agree with everything he had to say he did have some points. Why should I be bound by a contract that I never agreed to? It's funny you say he wants a unlimited government because the constitution is doing such a great job limiting the government isn't it?

[@Sivels]

twn5858 Why should I be bound by a contract that I never agreed to? Yeah, that's pretty much what government is. I'm a philosophical anarchist, I reject the abstraction called government, but the principles in the constitution are quite reasonable. You're right when you say that constitution the constitution as a legal document is utterly useless, but the ideas in it are still embraced by many americans and that's what he really sees as the problem.

[@twn5858]

Sivels Where did you get that from? The government doesn't have any principles and everything it does is unreasonable. The only reason it is seen as being reasonable is because people have been indoctrinated into believing this crap.

[@Sivels]

twn5858 I meant the principles in the constitution. -_-

[@TheArabsolga]

+Sivels Please don't group this man in the same category as "Intellectuals". He's quite the opposite. I'm an intellectual and I hold the Constitution at a higher importance than any other document on the earth...

[@H110orWin296]

I'm thinking this guys idea of the perfect country is very much along the lines of Kim Jung Un's.

[@josephsmith8833]

He should move to Britain so he can enjoy a life with out a Constitution .

[@jimmccandless4307]

Move to Russia and China

[@likesanddislikesetc]

This guy is a joke.

[@Andyhoffman98]

Nah you are bro.

[@kerryp7014]

And you're a brainwashed id*ot.

[@josephsmith8833]

He is a clown

[@Lmr6973]

Not a very bright individual.

[@edacskywalker8465]

Isn't it ironic though that for a country that calls themselves free, we keep having to bind ourselves to a document written in very different times?

[@Lmr6973]

@@edacskywalker8465 our freedoms comes from our creator. The constitution is in place as a restraint on the government. I would say some things transcends times. Always remember the constitution has built in it a way to change it in anyway the people want.

[@kerryp7014]

@@edacskywalker8465 Good point. Handcuffed to an outdated document.

[@juliocast3326]

His first statement is wrong, the burden of proof is on you sir. We do share this burden of proof because we want to conserve the constitution. You place the burden of proof on us because there is no good argument for abolishing the constitution.