We have been discussing Democratic leaders and activists who have been calling for revolutionary change and a rejection of the foundation of the American constitutional system. The latest is Human Rights Campaign president Kelley Robinson, who spoke at the National Democratic Convention. In an earlier speech, Robinson rejected what she referred to as the Founders’ “little piece of paper” and called for the reimagining of our constitutional system.
The voices calling for radical change have been growing for years, including among law professors and legal commentators.
Viewers now get a steady diet of figures like MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal who called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should simply just dump it.
In a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks went on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” to lash out at Americans becoming “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
I was recently called for a response to Robinson’s call. Yet, it is not clear if Robinson is speaking about the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution as that “little piece of paper.” However, she insists that “[i]n this moment, we’ve got to reimagine it with people that look and love like us at the center.”
Robinson added:
“And I think for us right now is about reimagining freedom and this American story in a way that is more revolutionary than what our Founders actually put down on that little piece of paper, but instead is the type of democracy that is by and for all of the people in this country. That’s the opportunity that we have.”
Her comments did include positive views of the progress made under the current system:
“The story of America is the story of progress towards freedom. In just a few generations, my family went from being enslaved in Mississippi to the first free Black family in Muscatine, Iowa, to preparing to elect President Kamala Harris. Progress is happening my friends!”
As someone who has supported LGBT rights for over four decades, I have nothing but admiration for those who fight for equal rights for everyone to be able to live their lives according to their own values and associations.
However, a radical “reimagining” of our constitutional system is a popular and growing call on the left. It is often left vague in terms of what such a reimagination would entail, but suggests structural, not just policy, changes.
It is that “little piece of paper” that has secured the equal rights for members of this community.
Assuming that the “little piece of paper” is a reference to the Madisonian constitution, it is a “type of democracy” that has proven the oldest and most successful constitutional system in the history of the world. It has survived precisely because it was designed for the most pluralistic nation in the world. It allows for tremendous social and political changes but does so within a framework that protects individual rights.
Before we start “reimagining” our way out of the most stable constitutional system in history, we may want to consider how the alternatives have been faring around the world.
It is that “little piece of paper” that introduced a revolutionary concept of governance that permits a nation of rivaling factions and values to govern as one. That does not mean that we do not have deep and at times bitter divisions. However, we are joined in a common article of faith in the Constitution.
While he spoke more about democracy in general, Churchill’s famous comment could as easily refer to the Madisonian system: it may be “the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
If this Robinson person does not like our government and nation; the easiest solution is to reject/eject her rather than our constitution – problem solved.
Here’s what this attempt to destroy the Constitution turns on – it’s the Left’s perception that they are now and forevermore in control…and nothing else.
The Constitution, at its essence, has two related counter-positionals that work to decrease the power of faction and insure the sovereignty of the individual. They are: 1) The Separation of Powers and 2) Prevention of the Tyrannical Majority.
The Left, or perhaps more properly the Uniparty, has destroyed the former. There is no longer a structural counter to the Establishment. It’s now just One Party. The Constitution has become in this respect, “mere paper.”*
All that now stands in their way, all that remains, is this. The sovereign individual. The Bill of Rights. And this too must be destroyed. These rights of the Constitution are particularly hateful to them. That an individual can assert his rights against the entirety of the mob and prevail is to us a precondition of freedom but to them it is a block to the completion of their power. So…welcome to our dystopian end.
“It must be destroyed!”
—-
*Because patriots didn’t love it enough to protect it.
I challenge these “reimagineers” to compose a replacement document for the US Constitution that they so deeply abhor, and let its utility and validity be debated, and compared and contrasted to the current US Constitution. Have they not done so, because they can’t?
“. . . a replacement document . . .”
The Communist Manifesto.
“. . . let its utility and validity be debated . . .”
It’ll work this time because “joy” and “neighborliness.”
It is simpler than that. It is time for the divided states of America.
“[T]hat little piece of paper” is a brilliant political document. It established that which did not exist anywhere for the prior two centuries: Liberty.
It created a stunningly original system of government to protect individual liberty: A system of checks and balances.
That is what the Left detests about “that little piece of paper.” The Left rejects individual liberty, in favor of mob rule. Balances thwart its desire for mob rule. (See its unrelenting smears of and attempts to gut the Supreme Court.) Checks hinder the Left’s push for totalitarian control.
“The Left rejects individual liberty, in favor of mob rule.” Actually, individual Leftists do view their own Liberty as Sacred. It’s just ‘other peoples’ Liberty that must not be permitted, as in, “Liberty for me. Not for Thee.” Their own complete lack of self-awareness is what’s astonishing and missing from their daily fits of anguish and resentment, Sam. Really, it’s nothing more than that. There is good news, however…they tend to turn against each other faster (and more often) than those who ignore them from the start.
Oops:
“two centuries” = two millennia
Old Guy says it well. History is the guide here. Whenever a government that has been stable for decades or centuries falls there does tend to be chaos. Even the English Civil War teaches that as well as the other governmental changes. It started as a revolt against the King, the king lost both his crown and head and then you ended up with a dictatorial parliament and Oliver Cromwell who was a dictator in name and practice and even worse discrimination against other religious groups. And they went back to a shrunken king.
It’s not simply rewriting a constitution and expecting it to run. Mexico and its constitution of 1824 was even more liberal than the US and outlawed slavery. Yet nobody paid attention to it or practiced by it and governments rose and fell with Santa Anna periodically dropping in and being a dictator then being driven off or getting bored and leaving. The result was a nation so weakened that it lost territory to the US and then was occupied by France while the US was engaged in a Civil War. The flag that flew over the Alamo was the Mexican Flag with 1824 emblazoned on it. They were revolting against Santa Anna’s dictatorship and wanted a return to a constitutional republic. Often forgotten is that many Mexican Provinces also revolted against Santa Anna but it was the Texans that won.
South America is even more a lesson. Virtually a whole continent revolted against Spain (except Brazil) and all spoke Spanish but it all fragmented into warring states and 1 1/2 centuries of instability.
These progressives are insane. They have no concept with what they would loose upon the land. The instability and breakup would eventually involve Mexico and Canada and god knows where it would end. Law and precedence would be lost, contracts invalidated, communications disrupted and the supply system would fragment.
Remember slavery itself, for all the moral wrong it was, prompted the Civil War, our bloodiest war.
From a military point of view the progressives are centered along the coastal cities and certain large cities in the interior. The vast mass of the interior is red and armed. The cities and progressive elite survive on the largess of the rest of the country. They fail to see we need each other.
* you say these progressives have no idea what they’re doing? All they know is a political, Economic and religious system didn’t work for them.
They don’t care what replaces it. It must be destroyed as the enemy. They believe its that system that’s evil and not themselves.
White men are evil, Christians and Jewish are evil, police are evil and all they need is the money and power and it’ll be alright.
They have new principles. The principle of theft, principle of drugs, principle of adultery in all its forms, socialism and you work for me.
Of course it doesn’t work but nothing they ever did actually worked for them.
–reminds me of that wonderful member of Congress, Ilhan Omar, dismissing 9/11 as “some people did something…” remember that?
There is no “reimagining” the obvious pitfalls of a very limited education. And, if you want to broadcast your ignorance, open your mouth and speak about something of which you clearly have no understanding. From the article regarding the Declaration of Independence and/or the Constitution:
“…we’ve got to reimagine it with people that look and love like us at the center.”
“And I think for us right now is about reimagining freedom and this American story in a way that is more revolutionary than what our Founders actually put down on that little piece of paper, but instead is the type of democracy that is by and for all of the people in this country. That’s the opportunity that we have.”
BTW, Kelley, the opportunity to change (presumably that means “reimagine”) the Constitution has always been there. All you have to do is provide specifics and follow the methods detailed in the document.
Were they able to suspend or annul the Constitution, it would create the very conditions under which they and their kind could be crushed and eliminated. Little do they understand that it is only the protections provided by the Constitution that allow them to continue to exist and disseminate their anti-American bile. They believe that if they are in power, they will control the military, because they have captured the loyalty of a few spineless toady careerist star officers. In reality it is the thinnest veneer of an illusion of control. Behind every general stands a flock of colonels waiting for him to be gone, and willing to participate in making that happen. And for every officer in all of the services, there are scores if not hundreds of enlisted ranks who will not take up arms against their fellow citizens to overthrow the very Constitution they have sworn to uphold on the word of some fat old general with a chest full of participation medals sitting behind a desk in Virginia. For the Left, success in removing the Constitution would mean their certain demise. The clean-up afterward would be surprisingly brief, the Constitution swiftly reaffirmed.
“Were they able to suspend or annul the Constitution, it would create the very conditions under which they and their kind could be crushed and eliminated.”
Yep. So far as I am concerned, they should feel free to attempt to change or eliminate the Constitution. All they need is affirmation of their specific proposed text by 290 members of the House, and 67 members of the Senate, followed by approval by the legislatures of 38 states within a reasonable period of time. Of course, that would take some actual effort to accomplish, with no guarantee of success, and the stupid and indolent fools making these proposals have very little idea what hard work is about, let alone understand the concept of risk vs. reward. Like the three-year-old toddlers they resemble emotionally, they would rather stomp their feet and hold their breaths until they turn blue to try to make some virtual tooth fairy grant their idiotic wishes. Actually I would prefer to see them hold their breaths permanently. The rest of us would be far better off if those lunatics voluntarily shuffled off this mortal coil, the sooner, the better.
Ragnar D,
Well said and I agree.
If they follow the rules as set up in our constitution, most of the mindless drones who reimagined this drivel would have moved on to another existence or nonexistence before it would pass, if ever.
For 236 years a “piece of paper” has created the most successful nation on earth, not always perfect but always successful, oh yes created by some white guys for everyone. Along come malcontents, hater’s, those who are jealous of others, those living off the worker bee = Marxist and it’s time to “reimagine” that old piece of paper. Have you noticed every one of their reimagining ends Puckedup? If they have their way blogs like this may disappear by claiming it’s dangerous to the reimagining or some other BS. Can we hope to end this in November or will the ignorant push the nation into a hole that it will never be able to climb out of?
Margot,
Well said.
They want to reimagine the Constitution to put them in charge, permanently, to benefit them, permanently, at the expense of all others rights.
The Democrats are so shortsighted that as the tell us that they want to eliminate the filibuster to pack the Court the fail to even consider the possibility that the Republicans have at least a 50-50 chance of taking the WH AND the Senate and therefore could do the very same thing.
HullBobby,
Shortsighted is right. But they never think ahead. Like three-year olds, they only think of what they want, now. Take a look at the failed state of CA. They just pass laws without considering the unintended consequences which many times to us sane, normal people would be common sense like making it a misdemeanor for theft up to $950 will actually increase crime, cause billions of dollars lost in theft, the closure of stores in a given area, massive economic downturn in that given area, job and tax loss. The failed state of CA is the perfect example of what the Democrats want to turn the rest of America into. A lawless h3llscape.
Upstate, and now they want to make a CA liberal president and a CA wannabe from MN the VP.
As far as shortsighted we don’t have to go back further that Harry Reid and the removal of judicial filibusters and how that blew up in their faces.
“Reimagining our constitutional system” sounds to be a call for a revolution. As such, those in favor ought to let history be their guide. One might consider how changing the judical filibuster for Federal judges eventually changed the composition of the Supreme Court. If they want and get a revolution, they might want to also consider what they could get when things don’t go their way.
There are plenty of us proud of “that silly piece of paper” and will stand to protect our Republic. All we can say is, “Be careful what you ask for.”
“If they want and get a revolution, they might want to also consider what they could get when things don’t go their way.”
If it came to literal revolution, “they” also might want to consider the fact that they, for the most part, have renounced firearms, while a very substantial fraction of those who would oppose them, own at least one. If “they” think about consequences at all, they probably assume that police and the National Guard would rescue them form any difficulty. While those entities would n doubt be involved if such a turn of events came to pass, any assumptions about who would be defended and whose side taken would most likely be very prone to error.
Ragnar D,
Well said.
Reality is not something they participate in. They never think beyond wishful thinking. Kinda like a few years ago when a pro-police group in Oakland CA held a pro-police rally, and a bunch of antifa soy boys, obviously not from Oakland, they were white soy boys, showed up to counter protest. Things got heated, and if it were not for the fact the POLICE were there, the soy boys would of got their beeotch a$$ kicked.
Steve Sweet,
Well said.
I have often said that a civil war or revolution in this case, must be avoided at all costs as millions would die without being within the sound of a shot taken in anger, aka failure of access to much needed Rx drugs.
“a civil war or revolution in this case, must be avoided at all costs ”
Avoidance is vastly preferable to most of the alternatives, but I differ somewhat with your “at all costs” qualification. If a clear choice should materialize between subjecting myself and my family to a long-term totalitarian state, and a revolution, I would have little difficulty choosing.
Ragnar D,
I hear what you are saying, but I think of my elderly neighbors whom are highly dependent on Rx drugs. How long could they last if a revolution broke out and they could not get access to their Rx? I also think of those in nursing homes who would suffer and worse if those nurses could not or out of fear would not go to work. My mother was a nurse. The week AFTER she retired, the nursing home called to see if she would be willing to pick up a shift.
“I think of my elderly neighbors whom are highly dependent on Rx drugs. How long could they last if a revolution broke out and they could not get access to their Rx?”
I understand, but how long do you think those same elderly neighbors might last if we permit a Soros-sponsored authoritarian regime to take full control here? Don’t forget that the ranks of supporters of the wokist nonsense being foisted upon us include a great many green Nazis who would very much like to reduce the “burden” of humanity on the planet by radically reducing the population. Do you think those jerks would stop at tactics of passive attrition? I do not. If I am correct about that, who do you think would get the “privilege”of being at the head of the line to sacrifice their lives to save the Earth? Certainly not themselves. I’m not young myself, and while I may not be as dependent on my prescriptions as your neighbors, I do have drugs that I am supposed to take daily. If push truly comes to shove, I’d prefer to take my chances by joining people who refuse to submit, than allow fascists of the kind who have recently been on the ascent to dictate to me how I run my life.
“They think that government may vary like modes of dress, and with as little as ill effect; that there needs no principle of attachment, except a sense of present convenience, to any constitution of the state.” Edmund Burke
The dead white guys who wrote the Constitution, unlike today’s ‘activists’ or all colors & genders, believed that human beings were imperfect creatures prone to all manner of mischief, a belief confirmed by their reading of history, from the Greeks and Romans to the 18th century. So they sought to design a system that would make mischief more difficult, whether by individuals, ‘majorities,’ or institutions. The current crop of progressives have little knowledge of history, which they prefer to rewrite rather than study, so they have learned nothing from the past and have no clue as how to act in the present. The United States is the oldest democratic republic not because of its constitution but because successive generations of Americans have accepted it as the fundamental law of the country. That can change, and if anyone is curious about what follows such a change, I would recommend they read French history from 1789 to 1870, Russian history from 1917 to 1993, Yugoslav history from 1918 to 1995, Germany history from 1918 to 1945, and the histories of the Greek city states and the Roman polity from 100 BC to 100 AD. Ignorance may be bliss, but ignorance of the past all but guarantees chaos in the present.
Professor Turley, you are a Liberal, I am a Conservative – but I have great respect for your views and even-handedness. On the other hand, I have major problems with the un-American left-wing fringe nuts that you cite here, as well the real right-wing extremists (as opposed to normal conservatives that MSNBC seems to hate). The extremists on both ends get an outsized amount of media coverage based on actual size, and frankly need to be crushed.
Mark Levin, in his book “Liberty & Tyranny” made the brilliant point (paraphrase) that “All of the people agitating for change or dismissal of the Constitution never seem to consider that if they are not bound by the Constitution today, why would they expect anyone else to be bound by their replacement of it in the future?”
It has been my experience that the hard-left hates the Constitution when it fails to deliver their favored political outcome. They are delusional, however, if they think they have the numbers and power to force not only a dismissal of the Constitution, but a replacement more to their liking. It is FAR more likely that any replacement would result in their having much less power and freedom than they currently enjoy.
Don’t forget what usually happens to the losers. Firing squads or guillotines, if they are not a crazed mob. If they are a crazed mob, ‘Katy bar the door’, they just may tear you to pieces.
Old Guy, I would just amend your comment to make it the Greek-Roman states from 400 BC to 100AD. The Dems would have been giving Socrates the hemlock 300 years before the chopped off Cicero’s head.
“. . . Greek-Roman states from 400 BC . . .”
If I may: Start at 500 BC. Focus on the Golden Age of Athens, especially under Pericles. Read in particular his “Funeral Oration” — a rousing tribute to the greatness of Athens. Then, if you can stomach it, compare that unabashed pride to our leaders’ anti-Americanism.
Since the theme is — learning from history: It is no accident that Homer had a great influence on Athenian education and drama.
Right you are Sam. I should have started 100 years earlier to make sure that the Golden Age of Pericles was included.
I like to say that Cicero was one of history’s great orators and thinkers and it is unbelievable how low we have sunk and debased ourselves with the current crop of politicians.
Today’s partisan hacks want to put Biden on Mt Rushmore with Lincoln and I think that says it all.
Genius, Old Guy. Thanks
Alas, I fear Hegel’s assessment was correct: “The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.”
An Old Guy,
Great comment!
Like the frog in the pot of water that gets hotter and hotter, the frog doesn’t jump out because the changes are so slow, before he’s dead and cooked. This is the perfect analogy to what’s happening in America. The cultural institutions have been taken over by Marxists: academia, the news media, Government and our cultural institutions.
It’s a slow burn until we’re all cooked. The left is organized, Strategic and militarized. The concert are not by nature. They are, by nature, independent and will eventually be cooked.
The rewrite or reimagine of the US Constitution has always been the number one point of the progressives all along. If Kamala wins big, i.e. plus Congress, you can bet it’s on. Plus a packed SCOTUS, plus unrealized capital gains taxes, plus universal health care, plus poor education, plus universal basic income, plus totally US greening, plus open borders, double plus unpunished crime everywhere, plus a nuclear Middle East.
Washington DC will be meaning DC = Diversity before Competence. China will be loving it.
Gov. Walz, in the loony land of Minnesota, has decreed that beginning in 2025, teachers will have to affirm transgenderism and declare there more than two genders. Who is next? Doctors? Lawyers? Where does it end? Where’s First Liberty in all of this? Minnesota is truly a taste of the beginning of the end of America if he and Kamaleon get into power. If they do, and the GOP loses the House and fails to take the Senate, the end will be nigh.
I love reading your thoughts on so many legal things, way to go!
The USC, now that the slavery bits are gone, seems pretty even handed and the rights protected from government interference are timeless. If anything we need less government sprawl. What exactly do the complainers think is wrong with it?
It allows for opposition.
Glad to see this organization out itself as an enemy of the United States.
Rosa Brooks – “people who look and love like us”. The Supreme Court itself is partly responsible for this kind of lunacy. When it legalized gay marriage, it opened the door to sexualization of our politics by deeply disturbed and unhappy people.