Histoy Paper Coursework - 275 Words

Histoy Paper Coursework (Coursework Sample) Content: HISTORY PAPERSTUDENT NAMEINSTITUTIONAbstractLetà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s Give Up on the constitution, an essay written by one of the widely read American constitutional law scholars, Louis Michael Seidman. Known for his widely accepted contributions to constitutional legal theories, Seidman is J.D. holder from the Harvard Law School.To Americans Constitutional disobedience is nothing new since most of Americaà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s greatest leaders Lincoln, Wilson, Jefferson, and Roosevelts disobeyed the constitution when need arose. In this paper Seidman calls for politicians and judges to embrace" constitutional disobedience.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ History PaperLetà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s Give Up on the constitution, an argumentative essay written by Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University of law. On Constitutional disobedience (2012 work) Seidman challenges validity of political decisions made about the United States constitution. Seidman has contributed widely to consti tutional theory through his bestselling book à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"Our Unsettled Constitution: A new Defence of Constitutionalism and Judicial Review à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"(Yale 2001). Drawing heavily from critical legal studies indeterminacy thesis, Seidman supports constitutional disobedience and judicial review because that because the constitution cannot solve political issues in America. Controversies in constitutional law caused by legal review gives an unfair advantage to the losing side to make a different constitutional argument.Seidman suggests that the basic constitutional rights such as equal protection, freedom of speech and religion, equal protection, and embracing due process "remain important, whether embodied in the agreement or not" and says,"we should continue to preserve and uphold those values as essential but not as an obligation, "because political authority is readier to violate such values, often with reference to the majority vote and the idiosyncratic constitution. If t his is not comfortable to embrace "We the people" ruled country will remain a mere dream. As a result,we would be forced to give up our fought fortune of self-governing people who can successfully solve disagreements through intelligent and tolerant way. Before letting our claim go, our pride of people ruling people, we should ignore the hard constitutional bondage so as to give reality and freedom a chance.*2 Seidman reason for bias is the insistence on constitutional obedience with some of the constitutional provisions being idiosyncratic. Successfully, this position is defended by citing relevant examples dating back to United States independence where the constitution has been ignored and goes on to propose that it would be better we recognize the derision for the constitution. Seidman strongly advocates against these ideas on the basis of the limitation of reason and repurcations of using popular majority in determining fundamental policies.*3 there are two ways why the consti tution should be scrapped, first the constitutional disobedience is usually viewed as a radical act, but actually the present constitution was build through constitutional discourse.E.g., In 1728 when George Washington and other framers went to Philaphedia they were to suggest amendments to the articles of confederation, however, they ignored the articles and wrote another covenant. Many of the leaders have always violated the constitution with no consequences, for example, John Adams used the Alien and Sedition acts which were against the first amendment provision for freedom of speech and expression while Thomas Jefferson argued that the constitution should expire after every generation.Before the American civil war 1861,antislavery activists such as Wendell Phillips and William Lloyd Garrisson were of the view that the constitution protected slave trade and dismissed it as a pact with Lucifer. Abraham Lincoln justified emancipation proclamation justifying it a necessity under his constitutional power as the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States forces. He freed slaves terming it as a war avoidance tool; although everyone other leader including legislators conceded that the federal government had no constitutional power to abolish the slave trade.Secondly, even on the day the constitution was promulgated in 1937, constitutional disobedience was evident when Franklin D. Roosevelt speech,consisted more of aspirations than obligations. From such speech it was evident that he was ready to extend his presidential powers beyond the constitution. It was a good gesture that even the United States leaders did not actually profess such document.Reknown Justice Robert H. Jackson was quoted saying that he was voting it for moral and political reasons since he thought it had no relevance in the present United States.An agreement with Seidman argument, embracing Living constitutionalism is the only way out of this archaic constitution. The constituti on should be interpreted in light of changing societal demands rather interpreting it through framerà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s spirit. The present problems are brought up by the constitution since many Americans have not recognized or accepted it. Stephen Siegel, a constitutional law professor DePaul Universityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬s, argues that there exists a reputable series of critical academic works about the United States Constitution how judicial rulings on pertinent issues are skewed toward majority opinion and judges' ideological views. Further, he argues that debates have existed about which constitutional ideals can be compatible with the dynamic world we are living in. Like Seidman's, he heavily criticizes and dismiss the constitution as18th-century covenant with no bearing modern Americans lives and concludes that such constitution cannot assist the nation in the creation of effective policies and laws compatible the dynamic society. Siegel gives an excellent example in 2005, during the infamou s John Roberts confirmation hearings in the federal Supreme Court, where the judges to roman empires by calling them balls and strikes. Siegel says many scholars shun off from arguing the same as they would be laughed off as lectern.Seidman's radical approach, which calls for a review whether Constitution is realistic and whether it should be obeyed, actually goes beyond. If Seidman's argument should be dismissed as unrealistic and unripe to be acted upon, Siegel argues that it should neither be shrugged off as if from the universe. Seidman, he states, "very senior, very establis...