We have been discussing a slew of books and interviews by academics denouncing the Constitution or individual rights as a threat to democracy. The latest is Brown University Political Science Professor Corey Brettschneider who is warning about the “dangers of the Constitution.”
Moreover, he is correct that abusive presidents have avoided impeachment and the Court has historically failed to protect individual rights. We both criticize those failures, particularly by the Court. Ultimately, however, the Court did embrace more robust views of individual rights and has repeatedly blocked the overreach of presidents.
Brettschneider describes what he calls “constitutional constituencies” in their struggle against such abuses.
“These constitutional constituencies, the citizens readers of the Constitution who played a critical role in defending and furthering our democracy, therefore disrupt a standard story told by constitutional law scholars and political scientists – experts who declare that checks on the president come mainly from Congress or the Supreme Court, or locate the foundation of our democracy with the writers of the Constitution in 1787.”
He adds “If history is any guide, today’s crisis makes this a time ripe for constitutional recovery. In that sense, this book offers hope for current citizens seeking to restore democracy.”
While the book is about historical abuses by presidents and the struggle against them, the book’s pitch pushes all of the anxiety buttons: “Imagine an American president who imprisoned critics, promoted white supremacy, and sought to undermine the law to commit crimes without consequence.” (The book addresses five prior presidents and the pitch does not make direct reference to Trump).
I have no objection to those who speak out against Trump or his conduct. That is part of a worthy national debate in this election year. However, more professors and pundits are suggesting that it is not just Trump but our Constitution that is threatening our democracy. While others have called the Constitution “trash” in their books, Brettschneider is a bit more circumspect in his interview and reportedly calls the Constitution a “dangerous document.”
The remarks of Professor Brettschneider is part of a growing library of books and interviews attacking the Constitution. As discussed earlier, law professors have led this effort. For example, 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.”
Other professors have called for amending the First Amendment and have attacked free speech as a danger.
The United States Constitution is the oldest and most successful Constitution in history. It has survived crises that have destroyed other nations. Yet, we are a people who have not experienced true tyranny. We can lose our appreciation for how fortunate we are to have this system and the stability that it has afforded this country.
In challenging constitutional values like the system of checks and balances, these academics are seeking to strip away the very elements that have forced compromise and moderation throughout our history. It is the very genius of James Madison that allowed the most pluralistic nation on Earth to govern as one.
The post-constitutional world that some professors describe is no doubt attractive to many. It promises more immediate gains from raw political power. However, it would endanger all rights by reducing the guardrails that have served us so well for centuries.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
These stories never end. I see them everywhere, the threats to free speech. How did this get started? And why is it so prevalent?
“Yet, we are a people who have not experienced true tyranny.”
How do you define a “true tyranny”?
What is necessary for the US to have turned the key to totalitarianism, as William Binney warned we were “this close” to ten years or so ago?
Perhaps we are at the quiet, Machiavellian end? D’Toqueville noted that a republic would be lost quietly to tyranny as people were softened.
Corey Brettschneider is right. The Constitution is as much a threat to Democracy as Trump is. Freedom, liberty, and prosperity are relics from the past and must be replaced by authoritarianism, brutalitarianism, and communism under an all-powerful Dunceocrat-RINO Deep State run by marxist autocrats and billionaires who love authoritarianism, brutalitarianism, and communism. Corey Brettschneider and Ray Epps in 2028!
The lack of self awareness in this article is classic Turley. He is supporting for president someone who actively tried to destroy our constitution. And supports people who have destroyed parts of our constitution. He has even written posts advocating destroying our constitution.
But all this is typical of Republican authoritarians.
Everyone has moved on, dipshit. Get a life.
Incorrect. The MAGAs never cared. The rest of us still care. We will move on when Trump is in prison for his crimes.
Commies unite!
What crimes would that be Sambo? Hold your breath and see how fast the 34 counts evaporate on appeal. Jack Smith, LOL!
“We will move on when Trump is in prison for his crimes”
Right there! He has no sence of his own authoritarian viewpoint. He is what he claims Trump is…..
@Sammy,
I think Turley supports Trump not Biden
-G
“Yet another obscure, pointless piece about a single professor . . .”
Some here have a singular motivation: To smear JT.
In the name of “get JT,” they feel justified in misrepresenting his arguments and in just making stuff up.
“obscure” and “single:”
Brown is not an “obscure” university. It is part of the Ivy League. Its professors teach the next generation of cultural leaders.
Other professors in the “raze the Constitution” gang include professors from: Harvard, Yale, U Michigan, Berkeley (just to name a few). They are all T-1 universities. Pretty sure that many is more than “single.”
Article IV, Section 4, of the US Constitution reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” Please correct me if I am wrong, but if we are a constitutional republic, why is the political language always so very different? America is not a democracy, correct? Democratic process within our republic does not equate to the form of government being a democracy, correct? It appears that an intentional manipulation of the language has some anti-republic undertones, especially within the media, as a means to “silently encroach” upon the vivacity of our republic. Maybe this is due to the dislike of the checks and balances that actually do prevent the will of the majority. Anyway, thanks for such great articles.
The word “democracy” does not appear in either the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. To the extent its referenced in the Federalist Papers, it is to highlight its weaknesses.
Radical pamphleteers began trying to push democracy into the public discourse around the 1820s-30s. But not until after Lincoln centralized power in the federal government by going to war against the states that had seceded did the notion that America was a “democracy” begin to take root. By Republicans.
That is also when collectivist ideology began to take root with publication of Marx and Engles socialist manifesto. Democracy and collectivism compliment each other.
The American Founders established a severely restricted vote republic.
Turnout was 11.6% by design in 1789.
Voter qualifications were, generally by state, male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres, again, by design.
The American Founders required people admitted to become citizens to be “free white person(s),” further and fundamentally controlling and restricting the vote.
America was invaded and conquered.
Abraham Lincoln installed an illegal, unconstitutional, 4-million-man, foreign, standing army on U.S. soil.
LBJ paid that army to vote democratic for the next 200 years.
And so on….
* you aren’t a car either but you drive one…
Ah yes! A constitutional scholar. Please cite the Constitution for any prohibition of secession. Lincoln must have been impeached and convicted for crimes of high office for violation of the Constitution and denial of unprohibited secession. Every subsequent act of Lincoln is equally invalid, illegitimate, illicit, and unconstitutional, with emphasis on the failure to enforce existing immigration law on January 1, 1863, and his and his successors’ “Reconstruction Amendments,” engendered in concept by Karl Marx. America was invaded and conquered. America is all wrong.
* I read this site is up for sale?
Ramy
* Trump is the anti war vote. Vote Trump.
All these professors need to do is look to Russia for a political system without checks and balances. It is called a dictatorship. It is quite ironic that those who accuse Trump of wanting to be a dictator are advocating for a dictatorial system.
Silicon Valley Billionaire capitalist digital overlords who control Google and Apple are behind Kamala 4 years ago in her failed primary run and they’re behind her now. They have dropped the green nonsense because they need more energy to power AI research which they think will make them gods. Literally they believe this, read Ray Kurzweil’s infamous book “Singularity.” Anyhow they are all in on nuclear but all the fossil fuel complaining will go by the wayside
Moreover, they are behind her because they intend to see her win, and they want to avoid regulation of these AI schemes which are as dangerous as nuclear weapons research or gain of function virology schemes. Dont forget the experts who warned us: https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
We do need to regulate AI research. That is a real existential problem, and robotics replacing people will be a big one right behind it
But meanwhile, lets not get nuked. Vote for TRUMP as an ANTIWAR VOTE.
there is NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN AVOIDING GETTING NUKED
Saloth Sar
* Yes, AI is creating a false reality. One might turn it off. It’s packed with lies. What a tragedy the young today will not know that.
I presume your name is an anagram.
Peace
*** Saloth Sar was Pol Pot’s name why do you use it?
Frightening fyi
Silicon Valley Billionaire capitalist digital overlords wuch as own or control Google and Apple are behind Kamala 4 years ago in her failed primary run and they’re behind her now. They have dropped the green nonsense because they need more energy to power AI research which they think will make them gods. Literally they believe this, read Ray Kurzweil’s infamous book “Singularity.” Anyhow they are all in on nuclear but all the fossil fuel complaining will go by the wayside
Moreover, they are behind her because they intend to see her win, and they want to avoid regulation of these AI schemes which are as dangerous as nuclear weapons research or gain of function virology schemes. Dont forget the experts who warned us: https://futureoflife.org/open-letter/pause-giant-ai-experiments/
Trump laudably promises to end the war in Ukraine through negotiations and does not spout ideological nonsense and slogans on that point.
There is much to dislike about Trump, but as RFK and Tulsi have noted, there really is a clear choice if we want to avoid WW3 and decrease the risk OF OUR VERY OWN EXTINCTION DUE TO NUCLEAR WAR.
Ironically, the warmonger, neocon, MIC sycophants and jingoists, want us to believe Putin and XI are devils incarnate, and yet they also want us to believe that they wont nuke us if we go too far. Well, I don’t think they are devils, but they are adversaries, and they will nuke the US as surely as the US plans to possibly nuke them.
But these crazies, the neocons et al,, they want us not to worry. We can bully and sned more JASAMS or whatever whiz bank rockets are left courtesy of Ratheon and Co, send them to Moscow but the Russkies wont hit back?
Oh they will. They’ll hit Kiev, they’ll hit NATO targets nearby in Poland, wherever. Soon, it will be very very dangerous.
You’ve been warned. The only realistic thing we can all do in the next months is get everyone you know to vote for TRUMP as an ANTIWAR VOTE.
To say nothing of the border, etc. or other issues.
Saloth Sar
Dunceocrats are the real threat to Democracy, the Constitution, and Civilization itself. They’ve transformed the Media into PURE PRESSTITUTES. And they’ve weaponized the Criminal Deep State they control to promote war, degeneracy, crime, corruption, and depravity.
America will not only be lost if Donald J. Trump does not rightfully return to the White House, but will never be able to recover from such a devastating blow.
Kamela Harris:
Writing to woo the ACLU, she committed to:
Taxpayer funding of gender reassignment surgeries and treatments for illegal aliens;
A pathway to citizenship for those who broke the law by crossing the U.S. border without permission;
The decriminalization of all illegal drugs under federal law including cocaine, heroin and fentanyl if a defendant claimed they were for personal use; and
The knee-capping of the nation’s main deportation agency, Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE, as it is colloquially known in Washington circles, by banning its use of deportation .
SM – while there is not the slightest chance that I would vote for Harris, I 100% toitally support ending unconstitutional drug laws – getting rid of the FDA and CDC and DEA.
I was disappointed when Oregon decriminalized drugs.
Experience in Oregon and all over the world shows that decriminalizing drugs does not make our drug problems better – but it also does not make them worse. It does however make our crime problems better.
Prohibition did not work for Alcohol. It has not worked for Drugs.
Today it is legal for adults to purchase and consume alcohol. Some make bad choices and when those choices risk harm to others – we punish them.
But we do not punish people for ruining their own lives with Alcohol.
There are many problems that DO NOT HAVE ANSWERS.
We have no cure for most serious mental health problems/
We have no cure for alcohol problems.
We have no cure for drug problems.
We have tried many things to deal with these and other intractable problems.
None of those worked. Often we call today barbaric what we called humane a decade ago.
If you have an answer that demonstrably WORKS – please tell us ?
Because everything we have tried has failed – making things WORSE not better.
“while there is not the slightest chance that I would vote for Harris, I 100% toitally support ending unconstitutional drug laws – getting rid of the FDA and CDC and DEA.”
.
John, I know you would, and for the most part, so would I. Kamala might end the drug laws, but she will create a more extensive social system. She has a communist mindset and will say one thing only to change her mind later.
Look at Stalin’s programs. He kept changing the rules to destroy a cohesive society, so the government remained the only significant entity to look towards. That is the mindset of a fascist, no matter what the underlying philosophy is.
We live in a country of many minorities that flock together, attempting to control the rest. Few hold our views, and yours are held by fewer. That is one of the many reasons to push for smaller government, where it is easier to find those with views more similar to yours. Because our libertarian views are far from the mainstream, I am willing to compromise, but you are not so much. When things are desperate, I don’t look at third parties; I look for the candidate to move us in the right direction.
I do not know enough about Oregon but wouldn’t want to live there. I do know a bit about Free Town Christiana, an abysmal failure. No, I do not wish to live there either.
“But we do not punish people for ruining their own lives with Alcohol.”
Sure we do. When an alcoholic kills people in his car, we put him in jail. When a person drives a car, he can be stopped by the police and tested for the level of his blood alcohol, with penalties to follow. I rarely drink, take no drugs, nor do I smoke, but I do pay taxes for people who do. These people punish society while they punish themselves.
I had no answer because my views were in the minority, so I compromised to get the best deal possible and let the results prove that my way was better. The first step is to vote for Trump and every potential candidate that can win and cost the Democrat Party. We must change the atmosphere of the country. You like Jimmy Carter because he rightfully reduced government interference in certain areas, but he was a socialist who wanted to move the country in the opposite direction you desire. We cannot focus on minor things and should not lose sight of the big picture.
Jonathan: I guess I waited too long to express my views on your column. My colleague “Anonymous” did it for me @1:00pm. You have a bad habit these days of just regurgitating what you see on other right-wing media. You need to be more original instead of just cutting and pasting!
That said, I must disagree with claim that the SC “has repeatedly blocked the overreach of presidents”. In its July 1 “immunity” decision the right-wing majority on the Court has given the president carte blanche to commit crimes. Now any president can take a bribe for an ambassadorship or order the killing of a political opponent and be immune from criminal prosecution–because now those are “official acts”. And what is worse about that decision is that Roberts, Thomas, Alito et al wrote that decision to benefit one person–DJT–to try to protect him from prosecution for all his crimes. That’s not exactly blocking the “overreach of presidents”!
You p*thetic l*ughable cl*wn. What a waste of time and space.
So true. Amen.
Dennis, I have SOME similar problems with Turley”s critique – however, most of those problems stem from the hypocracy of those attacking the constitution.
It is absolutely totally correct that the constitution and particularly the courts have NOT protected individual liberty in the way that Constitution requires.
But the answer to that is NOT to weaken the constitutional protections of individual rights.
I also agree with you that SCOTUS has defered too much to presidential power.
I even agree with you that the immunity decision is WRONG – Except that the reason that SCOTUS is wrong is the same reason YOU are wrong.
It is NOT the role of the courts to ecide what actions of a president are immune and which are not.
The constituition provides the means to address that – impeachment, trial and removal.
The house can impeach for ANY reason – we saw house democrats impeach Trump twice with nonsense that would have had our founders howling.
Should they have done so ? NO. But they had the power to do so, and they did. The house should impeach MORE often. Biden should have been impeached for many reasons shortly after talking office.
Presidents DO have too much power, though congress has willingly given that away.
Presidents enforce the laws they like, ignore those they do not, and then make up law as they please – all of which is wrong.
Trump did it, Biden did it, Obama did it – though the least offender is still Trump.
Regardless, ALL acts committed by a president while president should be immune from prosecution – it is NOT the role of courts to decide which acts have immunity and which do not. It is the job of congress.
That is NOT about presidents having unlimited power – it is about the FACT that the courts are overstepping when they get into hair splitting fights over what acts of the president arer immune and which are not. The answer is to return that power to where it belongs – Congress.
* forge a new future…the democrats destroyed the world and unburdened themselves. Unfortunately the future they’re forging will be worse than what they had.
Peace
“The father of an 11-year-old boy who was killed last year when a minivan driven by an immigrant from Haiti collided with his school bus has asked Donald Trump and JD Vance to stop using his son’s name for “political gain”.”
Do you think JD or dot give a rats ass about anybodies feelings? Heck no. mister grab em by the pussy only cares for himself.
Gosh, I’m looking forward to djt losing, jailed and epsteined! Bet you are, too, anonymous.
Anon
ATS – correct – we do not give a rats ass about your FEELINGS
Vance and Trump are using the man’s sun’s name for political gain – to gain power to make changes that would radically reduce the frequency with which other fathers sons would die as a result of the recklessness or criminality of illegal aliens.
Most of us are happy with that political gain.
Most of us wonder why the man objecting is unwilling to work to prevent other men’s sons from dying.