Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on the growing counter-constitutional movement in the United States. This assault on the Constitution is being led by law professors who have lost their faith in the defining principles and institutions of our Republic.
Here is the column:
Kamala Harris declared in Tuesday’s debate that a vote for her is a vote “to end the approach that is about attacking the foundations of our democracy ’cause you don’t like the outcome.” She was alluding to the 2021 Capitol riot, but she and her party are also attacking the foundations of our democracy: the Supreme Court and the freedom of speech.
Several candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, including Ms. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats. Mr. Biden opposed the idea, but a week after he exited the 2024 presidential race, he announced a “bold plan” to “reform” the high court. It would pack the court via term limits and also impose a “binding code of conduct,” aimed at conservative justices.
Ms. Harris quickly endorsed the proposal in a statement, citing a “clear crisis of confidence” in the court owing to “decision after decision overturning long-standing precedent.” She might as well have added “because you don’t like the outcome.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) has already introduced ethics and term-limits legislation and said Ms. Harris’s campaign has told him “that your bills are precisely aligned with what we are talking about.”
The attacks on the court are part of a growing counterconstitutional movement that began in higher education and seems recently to have reached a critical mass in the media and politics. The past few months have seen an explosion of books and articles laying out a new vision of “democracy” unconstrained by constitutional limits on majority power.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley law school, is author of “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States,” published last month. In a 2021 Los Angeles Times op-ed, he described conservative justices as “partisan hacks.”
In the New York Times, book critic Jennifer Szalai scoffs at what she calls “Constitution worship.” She writes: “Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.” She frets that by limiting the power of the majority, the Constitution “can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”
In a 2022 New York Times op-ed, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for liberals to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Others have railed against individual rights. In my new book on free speech, I discuss this movement against what many professors deride as “rights talk.” Barbara McQuade of the University of Michigan Law School has called free speech America’s “Achilles’ heel.”
In another Times op-ed, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control,” Columbia law professor Tim Wu, a former Biden White House aide, asserts that free speech “now mostly protects corporate interests” and threatens “essential jobs of the state, such as protecting national security and the safety and privacy of its citizens.”
George Washington University Law’s Mary Ann Franks complains that the First Amendment (and also the Second) is too “aggressively individualistic” and endangers “domestic tranquility” and “general welfare.”
Mainstream Democrats are listening to radical voices. “How much does the current structure benefit us?” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) said in 2021, explaining her support for a court-packing bill. “I don’t think it does.” Kelley Robinson, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said at the Democratic National Committee’s “LGBTQ+ Kickoff” that “we’ve got to reimagine” democracy “in a way that is more revolutionary than . . . that little piece of paper.” Both AOC and Ms. Robinson later spoke to the convention itself.
The Nation’s Elie Mystal calls the Constitution “trash” and urges the abolition of the U.S. Senate. Rosa Brooks of Georgetown Law School complains that Americans are “slaves” to the Constitution.
Without countermajoritarian protections and institutions, politics would be reduced to raw power. That’s what some have in mind. In an October 2020 interview, Harvard law professor Michael Klarman laid out a plan for Democrats should they win the White House and both congressional chambers. They would enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election” unless it moved to the left. The problem: “The Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described, and that’s something the Democrats need to fix.”
Trashing the Constitution gives professors and pundits a license to violate norms. The Washington Monthly reports that at a Georgetown conference, Prof. Josh Chafetz suggested that Congress retaliate against conservative justices by refusing to fund law clerks or “cutting off the Supreme Court’s air conditioning budget.” When the audience laughed, Harvard’s Mr. Doerfler snapped back: “It should not be a laugh line. This is a political contest, these are the tools of retaliation available, and they should be completely normalized.”
The cry for radical constitutional change is shortsighted. The constitutional system was designed for bad times, not only good times. It seeks to protect individual rights, minority factions and smaller states from the tyranny of the majority. The result is a system that forces compromise. It doesn’t protect us from political divisions any more than good medical care protects us from cancer. Rather it allows the body politic to survive political afflictions by pushing factions toward negotiation and moderation.
When Benjamin Franklin said the framers had created “a republic, if you can keep it,” he meant that we needed to keep faith in the Constitution. Law professors mistook their own crisis of faith for a constitutional crisis. They have become a sort of priesthood of atheists, keeping their frocks while doffing their faith. The true danger to the American democratic system lies with politicians who would follow their lead and destroy our institutions in pursuit of political advantage.
Mr. Turley a law professor at George Washington University and author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage”
Lol. Turley is insane. The biggest threat to America’s defining principles was Trump’s attempted coup, the ongoing Republican effort not to care one bit, and the Republican attacks on voting.
Sammy
Shut up and go to the corner. Most people realize the 2020 election was rigged, whether by mail in ballots, ballot harvesting, stuffing ballots or by the failure of the press to report or the failure of the FBI to expose the Biden corruption scandal via Hunters laptop. It was rigged, Trump stood up against them. You call voicing objections to a blatant fraud a coup? You saw Democrats burn Bernie Sanders down in the primaries, you saw them use HSA against Tulsi Gabbard, you saw them repeatedly use the DOJ against Trump and Flynn. You have the freaking nerve to post that chit? Line up and get ready. Attacks on voting my arse.
“Nothing says ‘our sacred democracy’ like the country’s primary ballot handlers calling for the elimination of the leading presidential candidate.”
@FDRLST
EXCLUSIVE: Postal Union Sends Letter Calling Trump ‘Existential Threat’
https://thefederalist.com/2024/09/25/exclusive-postal-union-sends-letter-calling-trump-existential-threat/
“Existential threat” is so misused. Trump exists; therefore, he’s a threat.
“Postal Union Sends Letter Calling Trump ‘Existential Threat’”
Yeah, an existential threat to USPS employees making a very good living while effing up the postal system to the point that it cannot reliably deliver first class mail.
https://clip.cafe/men-in-black-ii-2002/just-about-everybody-works-in-a-post-office-an-alien/
Dems cheat. Everyone knows you cheat. Even dems know it
@Sammy
As always, you are an idiot. Do not overvalue your usefulness to ‘The Party’. Were it not for our 1A you wouldn’t be here spewing your daily nonsense in the first place. Spare us. 🙄 The rest of us are actually intelligent grownups. 🙄 You are usually a scroll past, but the trolls have been out in force lately, and I only expect that to get worse as November approaches. Go blow, you aren’t changing anyone’s mind with your bloviating, online, verbal flatulance.
^^^^ he votes. It may be the reason democracy really doesn’t work. It can be as simple as true or false and they still don’t see it.
Bombshell transcripts: Trump urged use of troops to protect Capitol on Jan. 6 , but was rebuffed
“Key lawmaker says interviews prove Pentagon wrongly allowed optics to overwhelm security concerns in lead-up to fateful day. The Pentagon’s top brass did not comply with Trump’s orders because of political concerns and “optics.”
Sorry, Sammy, but your coup narrative has been completely debunked.
https://justthenews.com/accountability/watchdogs/bombshell-transcripts-trump-urged-use-troops-protect-capitol-jan-6-was?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
“The reason why we find ourselves in a position of impotency is not because our only powerful, potential enemy has sent men to invade our shores, but rather because of the traitorous actions of those who have been treated so well by this nation. It has not been the less fortunate or members of minority groups who have been selling this nation out, but rather those who have had all the benefits that the wealthiest nation on earth has had to offer — the finest homes, the finest college education, and the finest jobs in government we can give.”
–Joseph McCarthy’s Speech on Communists in the U.S. State Department
1950 Excerpt
Americans must revisit McCarthy not because of the probable abuse of the House that McCarthy had nothing to do with but to understand better how people on the left acted, for today, they are acting in the same fashion.
McCarthy wasn’t a nice guy, nor was he the most effective, but his mission was correct. Yet he is blamed for all sorts of things he didn’t do. That is not much different from today, where the left blames the right for all kinds of things. We need to revisit the era and correct our mistaken impressions. McCarthy was right. The left played dirty games that many today do not see.
NO ONE ARESTED FOR BLM DAMAGE?
People who call for overthrowing the constitution should be fired and arrested. Having denied the freedom of speech, they should be estopped from invoking it when they need it. Having rejected the right to due process they should be denied it.
Ditto for those who call for ignoring the second amendment in the name of “safety”. If we can ignore the second then we can also ignore the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and eighth, so they should be arrested and imprisoned without trial or charges.
Those that give up their freedoms for safety have neither.
The critics of the Constitution used the lack of perfection as a reason to destroy it. Yet most of our Nations problems are where we strayed or did not live up to the ideals of the Founders of our Nation.
These people have NO IDEA what they are asking for. The Constitution is what sets us apart from the rest of the world. it is our defining characteristic. It’s what makes us who we are. If we abolish the Constitution, we abolish our own identity, and sadly, our own existence. Wake up people! Learn about who we are and take pride in who we are while we still can.
I agree and I find the notion, advanced by some such as professor Chemerinsky, that we should convene a Constitutional Convention and produce a new blueprint for an American democracy to be hopelessly naive. This would indeed open a Pandora’s box.
“This would indeed open a Pandora’s box”
I have argues that for years. However, take comfort in the fact that the bar to an Article V convention and the ratification of any amendments approved out of it are formidably high: the legislatures of 34 states need to request Congress to call it; 38 states need to ratify the results (if any). No population weighting or plebiscite democracy included in that process.
“These people have NO IDEA what they are asking for. The Constitution is what sets us apart from the rest of the world. it is our defining characteristic.”
Oh, but they (at least the movers and shakers among them) do very thoroughly understand all those things. That is all that stands between them and the assertion of complete, permanent, authoritarian power here. Their clear objective is to remove those obstructions and establish that power.
I think they have a very great understanding of what they are attempting to destroy – it is the one document in world history that had a good chance of limiting tyranny and these ill-educated mushy-brained tools are working towards its destruction and a free ride towards total tyranny. How can we let such ignorant fools vote? There should be a restriction to vote; 10 an ID of valid citizenship, 2) a test of basic intelligence such as an IQ above freezing, 3) you need to forfeit your right to vote if you take money from the government without working for it – it is a conflict of interest if the parasites can vote themselves money from elected officials by way of government handouts of taxpayer money.
Those are good ideas. I am trying to give them the benefit of the doubt by saying they don’t know, but I think you are right. They do know, which makes it even worse. Far worse. 🙁
If these law professors are so smart and believe the U.S Constitution is so terrible, how come the have not written and published an alternative document to replace it? I suspect they haven’t, because they can’t.
Vincente,
I too would like to see what they have in mind.
However, I would be willing to bet it would be so slanted in favor of the Democrat party, all Republicans and the majority of Independents would reject it.
As they have stated, they want to slant power in their favor so no Republican can ever win or hold office unless they convert to being a leftist.
How evil.
From Jeff Clark
@JeffClarkUS
“Yesterday, I had promised my followers to run a search to see if Kamala Harris had ever argued any appeals — ever. Even just one.
I got busy but have now completed that task.
The short answer is “no, never.” I could not find any evidence she had ever argued an appeal.
I challenge her to cite to the records in such a case and explain why it is not captured in Westlaw, which is the most comprehensive electronic research service in existence.
Here’s the search I ran in Westlaw, which other lawyers with access to Westlaw can readily replicate:
Databases for search: ALLFEDS + ALLSTATES
(this searches all reported and many unreported cases in all federal courts AND state courts — I did not even limit my search as to state courts in California alone).
Boolean search terms: adv: ((kamala /3 harris) /2 argued)
This first part of that Boolean search finds the universe of all cases where Kamala Harris (including Kamala D. Harris and Kamala Devi Harris — or any other potential variants of her name) appears. Then the second part of the search narrows that universe down to cases where the word “argues” appears within 2 words of her name.
The search returns only 5 cases–see the first picture below.
I then manually checked each of the 5 cases returned by the search. In each of those, one of her subordinates argued, not her–see, for example, the second picture below (noting that her subordinate Steve Oetting was the one who argued Flournoy v. Small in the Ninth Circuit — one of the 13 federal circuits).
Practices can vary, but in general, prosecutors — especially in state systems — often argue their own appeals. Not Kamala. She never even attempted the feat, which requires the lawyer presenting or defending the appeal to both know the law, think on their feet in responding to questions from a panel of three or more judges, and know the factual record.
Westlaw also includes a report about cases worked on. But it goes back only to 2014, and by then she was already AG and doing nothing more than supervising, so nothing about her own chops as a lawyer in her own right can be gleaned from that report.
I note that I find it an insult that she sat in judgment on the second Senate Judiciary Committee vote on my nomination to join the leadership of the Justice Department in early 2018 (she voted against me, but I still got out of Committee). Based on my research thus far, she is not a technically accomplished lawyer. I also note that even during my high-level service in the U.S. Justice Department, I continued to argue some cases myself. Legal reporters were puzzled and asked me why several times. I told them that I wanted to keep the saw sharp. That is how real lawyers think and act. I also note that I argued more cases myself personally than any of the other 5 to 6 Assistant Attorney Generals in the Trump Administration running litigating Divisions at Main Justice like I did. (I originally ran 1 Division but eventually simultaneously ran 2 Divisions, which is why I talk about 5 to 6 other Division. The total number of litigating Divisions at USDOJ is 7.)
Kamala also takes after her running mate, Joe Biden, who did poorly in law school and was even caught plagiarizing during his studies. (And remember that Kamala failed the bar exam once.) Yet, Biden got to sit in judgment on the Senate Judiciary of both the great Yale Law Professor, constitutional and antitrust scholar, and Kirkland & Ellis partner Robert Bork — and in judgment of the great and long-service Justice Clarence Thomas — during their respective confirmation hearings.
And yet both Biden and Harris, when they were Senators, acted like royal legal scholars when they were questioning such nominees as Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. It disgusted me at the time and still does. (I watched Bork’s nomination when I was in college. I watched Clarence Thomas’s the year before I started law school. And I watched Brett Kavanaugh’s during a period when I was preparing for an oral argument of my own before the Fifth Circuit, when I was in private practice.)
Now, one of our two major parties has nominated Kamala to be President. She wasn’t qualified to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, let alone be Commander in Chief or Magistrate in Chief, or to select future Supreme Court Justices — which she will select an awful lot of if she gets elected and then packs the Supreme Court, as she has said she plans to do.
Lastly, I note that I am still trying to actually lay my hands on a transcript where she first-chaired a trial as a California prosecutor. She and her campaign (
@KamalaHarris
) could easily assist me and put to rest any doubts about her legal bona fides — and do so at any time — by locating such a transcript, uploading it to a storage site, and linking to it on X in response to this post.
The challenge to do that is weeks old now. And the days are counting down to the election — one in which Democrats tell us that she is a sharp-as-nails prosecutor whom the Nation should trust with its highest office and this is one of her main qualifications.
That claim is starting to ring very hollow.
I hope that America wakes up before it is too late.”
VOTE !!!! There is only one correct choice in this election.
Save the Supreme Court! THIS alone should force you –and everyone you know –to urgently Get Out to VOTE TRUMP —->
“She wasn’t qualified to sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee, let alone be Commander in Chief or Magistrate in Chief, or to select future Supreme Court Justices — which she will select an awful lot of if she gets elected and then packs the Supreme Court, as she has said she plans to do.”
Harris will blow up the filibuster. She said she favors doing away with it to codify Roe. SHE is the existential threat to “democracy”…. to our Republic … to our Constitution … to our rights and freedoms.
A vote *for* Harris because you hate Trump would be unfathomable stupidity.
*BANK your Vote as early as you can! Do not wait until Election Day*
RESCUE the REPUBLIC! Sunday, September 29 in Washington DC
JoinTheResistance.org
JoinTheResistance.org
JoinTheResistance.org
**Note that the website “rescue the republic.org” is a LEFTIST site *** it is NOT the UNITY Party MAGA/MAHA ***
Go To —-> JOIN THE RESISTANCE . ORG
**Part 2 from JEFF CLARK —> @JeffClarkUS —>>
“I formulated another search. Trying to give Kamala every benefit of the doubt.
This one is designed to see — if Kamala prosecuted either hundreds or at least 50 cases — whether there is any record of a state or federal habeas petition being filed by an inmate to try to get out of custody in a case where she had been the trial lawyer who secured the conviction.
Again, the short answer was that there are no such cases.
If there had been, the trial transcript for the underlying criminal conviction might have been entered into the habeas case record and I then could have used PACER or state court equivalents to try to locate such a transcript filed as a habeas petition exhibit.
I ran the Westlaw search in the same two databases as my prior search tonight (ALLFEDS and ALLSTATES).
The search terms this time were:
adv: habeas and (kamala /3 harris /p prosecut!)
The search returned only 7 cases. It was quite broad in that it’s looking for Kamala Harris in the same paragraph as the word “prosecutor” in a habeas case.
All of the 7 cases were federal cases, not state cases. And the majority of the 7 cases involved situations where Kamala was just a named formal defendant in her pro forma capacity as California Attorney General.
So again, no indication of trial transcripts proving Kamala’s prosecutorial prowess in habeas cases.
Additionally, this search would have revealed if Kamala had ever opposed a habeas petition filed by someone she’d convicted or helped convict.
That question is similarly answered with a big: NADA.
No evidence that Kamala ever did anything more than supervise habeas opposition briefs. And given how often habeas petitions get filed — and the breadth of a cases in a large state AG’s office like California’s — she likely never even read, let alone helped draft or edit a habeas petition ever in her entire career.”
——————-
Kamala = inept, incompetent, DEI hire.
Kamala = liar & fraud — for all of her 20 years in politics.
DO NOT ALLOW THIS IMPOSTER (or her puppet masters) TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY
Kamala also said she is a gun owner.
She needs to be asked questions about that “lie” as well.
When did she buy a gun? What kind of gun? Has she ever fired her gun?
Has she ever prosecuted a homeowner for shooting an intruder?
She laughed hysterically when she told Oprah she would shoot anyone who broke into her house.
That behavior is not what anyone would call “responsible” gun ownership.
Someone needs to tell Kamala it is not a joking matter.
Call her on her lies.
Fake propaganda reporters? Where art thou?
“That claim is starting to
Very impressive research. However, most of us with a functional brain and the ambition to use it already had discovered ample evidence that Harris is a nothing but a cheap fraud, and a sock puppet for Soros and his ilk.
Kamala Harris is LYING about prosecuting transnational criminals.
Myself, a whole lot of others and those currently serving in the military raised our right hands and swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Does that make these people enemies of the state?
* ☺ “if you can keep it”. Keep faith. Very good professor.
“They know not what the do”. They don’t know the law. How can they keep it.
Thank you for the gem. 😢
1. The Constitution is the only thing we have in common. Without the Constitution there is no United States of America. Didn’t anyone watch “Bridge of Spies” with Tom Hanks?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2gLGW9w8Hk
2. We never see the new Constitution that they want to replace it with. Lets put the old and the new up side by side and we can judge which of the two are better.
The communist manifesto. There now, we’re all equal.
“We never see the new Constitution that they want to replace it with.”
There seems to be a common delusion here that these slime bags want to replace the Constitution with some other durable document that is its approximate equivalent, only with different rules and guarantees. Wise up – they don’t want to replace it, they want to trash it, after which the only rule in effect will be the requirement for the rest of use to do whatever they say, in the manner they describe, and the time frame they specify.
My family has been here since the mid 1600’s, they served the King, they served this country, they served their communities, they have fought in nearly every war, they built their homes and farms out of the wilderness, they helped forge our Nation. I would rather face death than to stand idly by and let anyone destroy what they helped to provide for us all, liberty and freedom by the people and for the people. Much like a garden, our government has to be weeded on occasion.
This inclination to change the Constitution is not new but the number of Democrats taking it up is increasing. Why? My father was a life long Democrat and my mother a life long Republican. They always canceled each other’s vote. They laughed about it and it never affected their marriage. The Democrats of today are no longer the Democrats of two generations ago. They have morphed into Socialist-Totalitarians (ST). Integral to this transition from the Democratic Party to the ST Party are the accretion, over time, of attributes best described in the book Political Ponerology by the Polish psychiatrist Andrew Lobaczewski. (Political ponerology is the study of political evil.) Lobaczewski convincingly shows how defective leaders gradually take control and institute in effect, a Pathocratic State. We are well on the way to a Pathocracy in the United States. In my opinion the beginning was the expansion of the intelligence network after WW2. To be fair, there are also Republican leaders that exhibit these ponerologic features, but the Republican Party is not nearly as captured by ponerologic features as the ST (Democratic) Party. I would urge everyone to read this book and understand what we are facing.
Really, Mr. Turley, I am simply at a loss for words. My only thought is the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights, should be taught beginning in the elementary school levels. Hillsdale College has a program for age-appropriate lessons regarding this. If we give our public-school students a foundation of how our Founding Fathers worked and came together over not only these two important documents but others, it will greatly help them as they attend the public universities. They would have the tools to counter-act any attempt in the classroom to paint the Constitution and Bill of Rights in a bad light.
Counter-Constitutional? Uh, what? It seems the professor is being a bit…melodramatic.
“ Several candidates for the 2020 presidential nomination, including Ms. Harris, said they were open to the idea of packing the court by expanding the number of seats.”
Of course, he likes to call it “packing the court” because it sounds more ominous than just expanding the court, which Turley does not oppose. He supported the idea of expanding the court with one caveat: it should be done gradually. Not in one fell swoop by a single party. That’s a fair argument. However, it would not be ‘counter-constitutional’ as he claims. It would be very much constitutional since it allows for such a change. It does not, however, say that it must be gradual or done with bipartisan consensus. If any of the two parties had a supermajority, they could expand the court, impose binding ethics rules, and confirm justices favorable to their agenda. None of it would be counter-constitutional.
Turley’s criticism of other professors calling for so-called counter-constitutional changes or even declaring the constitution itself “trash” is only a gripe about other professors. Opinions and views. He may be alarmed about their notions, but he left out one particular example, Trump. Indeed, Trump called for the termination of the constitution because he lost the election. He declared that all rules, regulations, and amendments, even in the Constitution, should be eliminated. Just because he didn’t like the outcome of the last election, he made a big stink about it on his social media platform, and everyone noticed except Turley. He wasn’t alarmed or shocked. Even project 2025 calls for some pretty unconsitutional ideas to be implemented. From separation of powers, separation of. Church and state, and civil liberties. There are more than just a few liberal professors having an opinion about the usefulness of the Constitution in its current form. The Constitution was designed to be updated, changed, and amended. There is nothing counter-constitutional about it. Turley seems concerned about maintaining the Constitution as if it were meant to remain as it is. Realistically, that is not true. Every nation updates and changes its constitution to meet the needs of its evolving and progressing society. We are historically behind in making such changes. We are overdue for a constitutional makeover or a few new amendments.
Liar.
Trump never called for the constitution to be terminated.
Congress can expand the court, but it can’t impose an ethics code, nor can it impose term limits.
NOTHING in Project 2025 is unconstitutional. Unlike you, the Heritage Foundation cares about the constitution and every single proposal is consistent with the constitution.
George is having an adverse reaction to his gender affirming estrogen treatments again. That and he cant get laid on Grindr hence his histrionic outbursts.
“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/us/politics/trump-constitution-republicans.html
1. Trump did not say that, or
2. Trump was taken out of context, or
3. Trump was joking, or
4. Trump was speaking in hyperbole, or
5. The election was stolen thus Trump is correct, but NEVER,
6. Trump is wrong and dangerous.
/s
How many times does it need to be explained to you and George that Trump NEVER said “terminate the Constitution.
DO you have a reading comprehension and context problem?
He said (talking about rules, regs, and articles, “..even those found in the Constitution>’
CLEARLY meaning, make changes to…AMEND….by TERMINATING the old provisions and replacing with amendment.
You score NO political points here; you only display your DUNNING-KRUGER biased ignorance.
That is not a call to terminate the constitution. At most it’s a suggestion that if a goal is vital enough then the constitution may be disobeyed, exactly like those who claim it’s “not a suicide pact”. That’s incorrect, but it’s not anything like what you claim. And it’s a lot less wrong than the attitude to the constitution routinely displayed by 0bama, Biden, Harris, Schumer, and other powerful Democrats.
Trump both called for the termination of the constitution, and made a full attempt to terminate it.
Trump did call for the termination of the Constitution. When he posted on his social media platform, everyone was talking about it.
“ A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,”—Donald Trump, Dec 22’
Congress can impose an ethics code. If it can determine the size of the court, it can certainly impose a binding ethics code. Congress has the authority to regulate the ethics of the court. Congress requires every justice to take an oath written by Congress. They can also require justices to report expenses and what or who pays them for gifts and travel.
Project 2025 undermines many checks and balances and concentrates power on the executive branch more than any of the other branches. It strongly believes in the executive unitary theory.
“Allows for” is not an action. This is repeatedly clarified, but Democrats don’t have anything to complain about, so they deal with lies and the perversion of the English language. Svelaz is perverted in another fashion, so I guess where Svelaz is concerned, being perverted is par for the course.
“Project 2025 undermines many checks and balances”
Project 2025 has nothing to do with Trump or Harris. It is independent of both candidates. That being said, tell us how it undermines many checks and balances.
As usual, like the example below, Svelaz will run away.
,,,
When the Ottoman Empire broke up, portions of the Middle East were divided into Mandates. Some of the major countries of the time each got a piece of land, which, under specific laws, was to be divided up to become nation-states. That is how many of the countries were created and the boundaries settled. Therefore, each country created worked under the same international rules.
What happened to the British Mandate?
Time for you to respond, but you don’t. You can’t. You are too stupid to do so.
S. Meyer demonstrating his insanity agin, I fear.
David, I give you more credit than Svelaz the Stupid, but I may be too generous.
You need to find out what Project 2025 is. It is a book that the Heritage Foundation has been publishing regularly for decades, hoping to influence politicians. It has nothing to do with Trump, who has his own set of policies. You should read it. Like everyone else, you will have some agreement and disagreement.
If you want to talk, go ahead. If all you are capable of is insulting, then maybe you have reached an age when that is the best you can do
No, he didn’t call for the constitution to be terminated. He didn’t even call for any part of it to be disobeyed on a once-only basis, but merely claimed that it could be. At most it’s a suggestion that if a goal is vital enough then the constitution may be disobeyed, exactly like those who claim it’s “not a suicide pact”. That’s incorrect, but it’s not anything like what you claim.
No, Congress cannot impose an ethics code. It can determine the size of the court and nothing else. It cannot regulate the ethics of the court. It may have written the text used for justices’ oaths of office, but it can’t require them to use that text; they have to take an oath to support the constitution, but they can write their own text if they like. It can’t require them to report anything.
NOTHING in Project 2025 is unconstitutional. Your “concerns” about it are noted and ignored, but your claim was that it calls for violating the constitution, and that is just not true.
The unitary executive theory is explicitly in the constitution. So of course Project 2025 believes in it. Anyone who doesn’t needs to propose an amendment.
George: Apparently, you seem to suffer from the same bias-laden Dunning-Kruger syndrome that you recently learned about, (mislabeling it as “Kruger-Dunning” in trying to display your new-found and sage knowledge).
You said:
(1)”Of course, he likes to call it ‘packing the court’ because it sounds more ominous than just expanding the court..”
George, the difference between “packing the court” and “expanding the court” is patently understood by the majority of us.
However, I applaud you for pointing out that “packing the court” sounds more “ominous.” True, that’s because it IS more ominous: the clear and unequivocal intent of Harris and Democrats is to “pack the court” with more left-leaning justices, not just “expand” it. Even a fifth-grader could flesh out the difference here, George. Perhaps you need to more comprehensively read this in context to understand the difference?
(2) “Even project 2025 calls for some pretty unconsitutional[sic] ideas to be implemented. From separation of powers, separation of Church and state, and civil liberties.”
George, please educate us. Tell us –by express enumeration, repeat, by express enumeration, which specific proposals in Project 25 (regarding “separation of powers, separation of Church and state, and civil liberties,”) are “unconstitutional,” and why?
I am not being sarcastic here. I’m just inviting you to follow your own advice and engage in a real exchange/discussion.
Thanking you in advance, yours truly, lin.
The probability is near 100% that George has NOT read the Project 2025 document. This year Project 2025 serves as the Democrat’s hate object. Other years it’s been the Koch Brothers. Other times it’s the NRA. Or climate “deniers”. And their favorite hate object is obviously Trump. He’s been the focus of Democrat hatred for 8 years.
It is almost irrelevant who or what the hate object is. They decide on an object to hate, link it to Republicans, then emotionally manipulate people like George to hate it. That keeps the rabble riled up. Democrats hope it will increase the likelihood that the rabble like George will turn out to vote. Against Republicans.
This year, Trump and Project 2025 are the Democrats hate objects.
Expanding the court and packing it are not the same
For sought to pack the court
Democrats are seeking to pack the court
Neither care about the size of the court or the workload
They are looking to change the decisions of the court. Democrats are free to do that in the constitutional fashion
By amending the constitution
To the extent the current (or past) courts have had issues it is not following the constitution closely
Regardless democrats make no secret that they are packing rather than expanding the court
There is zero doubt they would be discussing this had Clinton won and put two more left wing nuts on the court
Turley does not like to call it packing
That is what it is
You have a constitutional means to change the constitution
Amend it
Packing the court is not unconstitutional
Doining so for the purpose of getting the court to quit following the constitution is
Turleys criticism of other professors is spot on
We alter the form of our government
Which is what is being called for
When supermajorities find what we have has failed and supermajorities propose something new
Why are supermajorities required
Because we should not be able to replace something that exists and has not failed so badly we are literally in civil war with some groups idea of what might be better
Most new idea FAIL
Failure in free markets is not dangerous
It harms those who bet on the new idea
And rewards the same if they succeed
Failure in government harms everyone
A simple majority does not have the right nor should it have the power to risk failure for everyone
If you think the constitution has failed
Have an article V convention
Propose amendments or a new constitution and then get it ratified the same as our current constitution
I have no interest in left wing nut rants about project 2025
I doubt you have read it
Regardless it is working papers from A think tank
It is not the gop or trump campaign policy or platform any more than antics reflects Harris
If these malcontents find our constitution onerous; the exit door is never locked and they are free to depart for whatever other form of government they crave.
So hackneyed, same to you obviously. People luv that line.
Hear, hear!
They are calling to end the Constitution for a all out power grab.
“They would enact “democracy-entrenching legislation,” which would ensure that “the Republican Party will never win another election” unless it moved to the left. The problem: “The Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described, and that’s something the Democrats need to fix.”
That is exactly what they want, everyone to be like them, leftists.
I shall not abide.
This all sounds like the many priests and ministers who have lost their faith. In the clergy, the lost practitioner has few choices. But in the law, the professors can rearrange their views and take another tack, as in finding a new “faith.”
In fact, the clergy and the lawyers are rather similar. They both have systemic beliefs, and they both have scripture. As well, both have highest court to appeal to.
only solution is TAKE AWAY Democrats MONEY
75% cut to Federal Spending
End ALL Federal aid and loan backing to cities, states, colleges/students and Non-profits
Ban Public Unions as they just bribe Democrats
Let Democrats PAY for THEIR Failures!
If we could eliminate that disastrous anthropological failed experiment of “The Great Society” legislation that saddled us with a parasitical relationship between the lazy and the bureaucratic leviathan used to push that paperwork, we could significantly reduce both taxes and government’s size. Then we go after all the bureaus and agencies created since woodrow wilson was a pup; starting first with the dept. of education and working our way through their alphabet of intrusive government overreach.
being democrat is EVIL!
They can’t DEFEND their HATRED of western society!