RSS

Mike Church

Official Talk Show Host News, History & Opinion For The Liberty-MindedHeard Daily on SiriusXM's Patriot ch 125, 6-9 am

Topic: face the nation

Constitution of US COOL banner

Monday, January 28th, 2013

Give Up On The Constitution? Should We Give Up On Everything Over 200 Years Old Mr. Seidman?

Contains Exclusive: Audio, Video Topics: , , , , , ,

Mandeville, LA - Exclusive Video and Audio - Georgetown "Constitutional Law" Professor Michael Seidman believes that we should just give up on the Constitution because it was written over 200 years ago by a bunch of guys who were basically out of touch with how our country is run today. Well, what if we were to just give up on everything that was over 200 years old? There would certainly be no major religions left in the world and many of our own elite colleges (including you….Continue

Audio Preview

Want The Full Version?

Become A Founders Pass Member

  • Benefits Include:
  • The Full Version Of This File! For Liberty's Sake, Instant Access Guaranteed
  • Forever Discount 15% Discount On All MikeChurch.com Products
  • 600+ Premium Video & Audio Files With More Added Weekly
  • Exclusive Video Chats With Mike Discuss Elections, Issues & More
  • There's More: Take A Tour Of Members Only Benefits

Join (less than .17 cents a day)

Members Only Access The Founders Pass

Exclusive Content & Discounts For Members Only

Benjamin Franklin Would

See All The Benefits That Await Take The Quick Tour Join

"It may seem to many readers that as I have elaborated my initial hypothesis I have step by step deprived myself of very nearly all possible argumentative allies. But is not just this required by the hypothesis itself? For if the hypothesis is true, it will necessarily appear implausible, since one way of stating part of the hypothesis is precisely to assert that we are in a condition which almost nobody recognizes and which perhaps nobody at all can recognize fully. If my hypothesis appeared initially plausible. it would certainly be false. And at least if even to entertain this hypothesis puts me into an antagonistic stance. it is a very different antagonistic stance from that of, for example, modern radicalism. For the modern radical is as confident in the moral expression of his stances and consequently in the assertive uses of the rhetoric of morality as any conservative has ever been. Whatever else he denounces in our culture he is certain that it still possesses the moral resources which he requires in order to denounce it. Everything else may be, in his eyes, in disorder; but the language of morality is in order. just as it is. That he too may be being betrayed by the very language he uses is not a thought available to him."  - Alastair MacIntyre

The Following Headlines Provided by NewsMax.com

Visit The Founders Tradin' Post