In the article, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution” Louis Michael Seidman states that our government should disregard the constitution. He believes that the “American system of government is broken” because of our total trust and stubborn insistence on the constitution and would be better off without it. There is some credit to give to his 40 years experience in teaching the constitutional law and his overall deep knowledge on government and history. However, he presents his opinion with true but narrow-visioned examples that doesn’t do justice to the reasons why those “archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions” were created in the first place.

He starts with a point that many would agree on; our congress has achieved virtually nothing in the last four years. Then, he mentions a specific incident when a Senate republican, on the basis of the constitution (which requires the House to suggest measures on revenues), denied a plan suggested by a senate democrat. This particular issue was about extending tax cuts on households making $250,000 or less, which relates to the sour argument on tax cuts between the republican and democrats. Although Seidman is correct in saying that the matter of who suggests a plan is insignificant, he forgets the reason why such a law exists in the constitution in the first place and why the congress has two bodies. Among other reasons, the congress holds two bodies that have distinct differences in their power and rights because the founders deemed it necessary to not split the powers. This law in the constitution (that says that only House can suggest on plan concerning revenue), is frustrating and seems insignificant on this occasion today, but it was established by the founders who wanted to maintain the idea of splitting power. The founders of our country had experienced the dictatorship of the British king so they made sure not to give too much power to one body or person. So while I agree with Seidman that our congress is unproductive, I still believe that the constitution plays an important role in checking the powers of our various government facilities.
Also, Seidman forgets that a productive congress has existed before. That productive congress respected the same constitution as our current congress. This suggests that the problem exists in the people of the congress and how they manipulate the constitution to their selfish benefits, rather than the constitution itself. He is oblivious to the fact that past governments have valued and kept the constitution because it works!

He also states, “Our sometimes flagrant disregard of the Constitution has not produced chaos or totalitarianism; on the contrary, it has helped us to grow and prosper.” He is referring to Roosevelt's New Deal, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and other times when breaking a law in the Constitution led to equality and justice. No one would disagree on the point that those events were positive. But “chaos” and “prosperity” are relative terms. I would say that the civil war was “chaos” and white propertied men did not gain prosperity from the emancipation of slaves.

Also later on, as he suggests his idea and plan to disregard the constitution but still keep our basic structure, he says, “What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy.” Then he gives an example, the president should be able to control military actions against Iran, not because he is a commander in chief but because it is a reasonable thing to do. He also suggests that a “debate” should also take place before the president makes a decision. Again, he forgets that the president is not just a random person, but a person who was chosen by the citizens of the United States. The votes the president earned represents his gain of trust from his citizens. Us, the citizens, trust our president, as least to some extent, to make wise decisions. I believe this alone gives the president the right to send troops to Iran.

In conclusion, Seidman presents an unreasonable and distorted case that our constitution is holding us back from moving forward. The constitution is the basis on which our government was formed and it should be valued and maintained.