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”
Unsurprisingly, the only threats to the Constiution Turley sees fit to write about are those in which he criticizes Democrats. Beginning with the SCOTUS–there is NOTHING in the Constitution that sets forth any specific number of judges–the number has varied over the course of our country. The current SCOTUS has earned the scorn of the majority of Americans. Three of the most-radical–Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh–were nominated by someone who cheated to get into office by colluding with Russian hackers who spread lies about his opponent on social media as directed by his campaign, AND who LOST the popular vote. During their confirmation hearings, they lied about their position on the righ to abortion, as set forth in Roe v. Wade, being settled law and that they would respect the doctrine of stare decisis. For the first time in our history, the SCOTUS overturned a ruling that stood for almost 50 years that found that the Constitutional protections of privacy and liberty protected a woman from the government dictating whether she could control her own body, up to the age of fetal viability. This SCOTUS also gave broad immunity to the convicted criminal who is running on the Republican ticket for crimes he committed. While the extent of this rulling will be sorted out by lower Courts, never before in our history has a losing presidential candidate fomented an insurrection to try to prevent the rightful winner from taking office. Most Americans always believed that the POTUS is NOT a king, and that he or she is not above the law. Because of the lifetime tenure of SCOTUS judges, one way to dilute the influence of these radical right wingers whose values and beliefs do not align with most of us, is to add more judges to the bench–something Turley calls “court packing”, but where is there any law prohibiting this–and, if the majority of Americans want a SCOTUS that reflects our values and beliefs, why is this wrong? The only other way to rid ourselves of them is impeachment, which Republicans will not allow. Turley says: “Rather it allows the body politic to survive political afflictions by pushing factions toward negotiation and moderation.” There is NO “negotiation and moderation” when there is a majority of radical right-wingers, who were chosen by the Federalist Society specifically to shove their views and values down the throats of most of us—experience has proven that.
“For the first time in our history, the SCOTUS overturned a ruling that stood for almost 50 years…”
This is a complete lie. If you were really a lawyer, you would know it.
I’m getting tired of you and others spreading this lie.
For one example, Brown v. Bd. of Ed. overturned Plessy almost 60 years later.
And we are a better nation for it.
NUTCHACHACHA, just like “Cuckoo Kamala” wants “fundamentally transform the United States of America” into communism “cause you don’t like the outcome” of the free American republic.
💩💩💩
Another winner GiGi
NUTCHACHACHA, may we extirpate wholly unconstitutional affirmative action, etc., yet or do you still governmental “support” to appear to be a real person?
NONE of that is even close to the truth.
“there is NOTHING in the Constitution that sets forth any specific number of judges”
Correct – expanding or reducing the number of justices is not unconstitutional.
Doing so for the purpose of changing the constitution without going through the process of amending it is both unconstitutional and immoral.
That iw what democrats seek.
“the number has varied over the course of our country.”
It has been 9 for over a century, before that it was smaller.
“The current SCOTUS has earned the scorn of the majority of Americans.”
Yet SCOTUS is more trusted than congress or the executive – so lets fix the most serious problems first.
“Three of the most-radical–Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh–were nominated by someone who cheated to get into office”
I though election denial was a crime among those on the left ?
“by colluding with Russian hackers who spread lies about his opponent on social media as directed by his campaign,”
You are entirely clueless, There was no “collusion”.
The Russian social media programs was NOT run by hackers, and it did not favor Trump – it spread lies about Trump, Clinton and Sanders in equl numbers – worse still this was a tiny effort and a very stupid one.
But lets presume that it was effective and large – Why would anyone collude with Russia, when it is cheaper and simpler to do it yourself ?
“AND who LOST the popular vote.”
Change the constitution if you wish – but as it is, the popular vote is not how presidential elections are decided,
just as the superbowl is not decided by the number of rushing yards.
“During their confirmation hearings, ..”
By your definition of lie – everyone who has ever been nominated lied.
Stare Decisis is one of many legal principles – it is NOT a constitutional principle.
Contra YOUR nonsense it does not require past decisions to be irreversable – or we would still have dredd Scott and Plessey V Fergusson.
I do not like the Dobbs decision – but it is no worse tha Roe.
Roe BTW has not been “the law of the land” since the 90’s. The controlling decision that Dobbs reveresed was Casey – which is significant;ly better than Roe.
“For the first time in our history, the SCOTUS overturned a ruling that stood for almost 50 years”
Really ? You are completely clueless.
“that found that the Constitutional protections of privacy and liberty protected a woman from the government dictating whether she could control her own body, up to the age of fetal viability. ”
With extremely minor alterations that is what SCOTUS should have decided – in Row, in Casey, in Dobbs – but that is NOT what the court decided
There is very little right to privacy in medical decisions – and the court has NOT recognized a persons right to control of their own body.
You cite Stare Decisis – Bell V. Buck is STILL good law – it was cited in Covid cases. adnd Bell V. Buck which is 100 years old REJECTS any right to control over your own body.
Regardless, even assuming that the court CRORECTLY found a right to control your own body – which it has NOT done in over 200 years.
That would NOT make abortion a right. The fetus is NOT your body, it is IN your body. It is a separate creature.
If SCOTUS recognized a right to control your own body – that would STILL allow states to rquire that if a fetus was removed from a womans body, that it was done so such that the fetus could survive.
BTW fetal viability is CASEY – Not Roe.
“This SCOTUS also gave broad immunity”
No the constitution does that. Pres. Obama ordered the assassination of two american citizens – can he be tried for murder ?
Thought SCOTUS botched the process. Impeach, Remove, Then indict and hold a trial.
ALL conduct of a president while president is protected from prosecution until after impeachment and removal by the senate.
” While the extent of this rulling will be sorted out by lower Courts, ”
No SCOTUS was perfectly clear what the extends are.
“never before in our history has a losing presidential candidate fomented an insurrection”
And that still has not happened.
“to try to prevent the rightful winner from taking office.”
The president of the united states is the person that Congress choses. They are free to certify the EC vote, or reject some states and slates of electors, or throw the whole thing out and elect the president themselves.
“Most Americans always believed that the POTUS is NOT a king”
He is not.
“that he or she is not above the law. ”
He is not. Congress can impeach the president and remove them, should congress deem a presidents acts require redress.
“Because of the lifetime tenure of SCOTUS judges, one way to dilute the influence of these radical right wingers whose values and beliefs do not align with most of us”
It is precisely to avoid having the courts driven by the passions of the mob that they were given lifetime Tenure.
All you are looking to accomplish is make the courts even MORE political – not less.
“is to add more judges to the bench–something Turley calls “court packing””
Turley calls it that – because that it what it is. It is constitutional to increase of decrease the size of the court.
It is NOT constitutional to do so to undermine the constitution.
” but where is there any law prohibiting this–and, if the majority of Americans want a SCOTUS that reflects our values and beliefs”
There is not – SCOYUS is supposed to act on the law and the constitution – not the changing values and beleifs of the people.
If you do not like that – change the constitution. It is that simple.
“why is this wrong? ”
Why on earth would you think it i s right ? You are literally challenging “the rule of law, not man”
“The only other way to rid ourselves of them is impeachment”
Correct.
“which Republicans will not allow”
Yup, that is how the constitution works.
Impeachment and removal is supposed to be hard.
“There is NO “negotiation and moderation””
Of course there is – and it did not go your way.
The left ALWAYS beleives and outcome short of getting their way is a failure of the system – the constitution, the courts, the law,
Your supposed to lose when your wrong.
SCOTUS is NOT doing their job – because left wing nuts still win far too often.
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.
Law professors may be leading the current tactical assault on our constitution, but they are not the strategic leaders. You cited Benjamin Franklin’s quote and that is when the anti-constitutionalists began this long march against this system designed to prevent future tyranny. Constitutionalists have truly been at war since our inception, not just this century or the last. To borrow a phrase, they’ve needed to win every battle, while the enemy to our constitution only needed to win just one. And then another and another. When we add up all the wins and losses, we wake up to discover the enemy outnumbers the constitutionalists, the enemy controls the system, they control the narrative and every meaningful institution in this country. China may have their long game, but these anti-constitutionalists have been at it much longer.
Excellent points, Olly!
🤙
“law professors who have lost their faith in the defining principles and institutions of our Republic”
While millions cross our borders to enjoy the principles and institutions of our Republic these “learned” men choose to destroy it. They never pack their belongings and migrate to a more suitable location for their taste.
“Asylum” is a massive legal fraud and must have been declared unassimilable, deleterious, irrational and unconstitutional by the Supreme Court – a small measure of legitimate asylum might be offered for one, one hundred, or one thousand, not 20 or 80 million actual illegal alien invaders who are “replacing” the American population in the name of global communism.
Not to fear, the Secretive Service is on the job…
“Secret Service Agent Accused of Sexually Assaulting Kamala Harris Aide After Drunken Night of Partying – Then Passed Out in Hotel Hallway”
–by Cristina Laila Sep. 25, 2024 1:00 pm
“The agent in question was so drunk that he was kicked out of his hotel room by coworkers and ended up passing out in the hotel hallway.”
“Others present witnessed the groping and fellow agents took photos of the Secret Service agent passed out in the hallway.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/secret-service-agent-accused-sexually-assaulting-kamala-harris/
Doesn’t say if they put shaving cream in his hand and tickled his nose.
Blind drunk
“in the name of global communism.”
No two terms for usurping international political order have been more invoked and abused than
“asylum” and “threat to democracy.”
It’s necessary as the USA is the world cop and the despots just gotta be me, I just gotta be me… 🎶 what else can I be but what I am.
It’s existential.
Nor do you see illegal immigrants flooding the gates of Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, et al.
How much more evidence do we need that these people are communists/socialists/globalists/fascists for the ‘average person’ to wake the hell up? I’m actually finding myself remorseful that the Iron Curtain fell; young people, and in many cases their forebears, seem to have learned nothing from that time. Seriously: just like Britain, we could be a communist country in less than a span of a year if people do not stop voting dem. For anything. Not even your local PTA. Absolute madness. Do not think it’s as simple as simply teaching civics, we have a a bonafide, generational problem on our hands, and if you value freedom, you will pay attention to every single, minute detail. We ARE in a civil war; it’s just that the bullets are dollars and rhetoric at present. Voting for modern dems is voting for your own extinction in 2024 if you aren’t at the least a multi-millionaire. The narrative is propaganda, and it is exactly backward. How long are you willing to take it?
Our educators, hard at work…
“Outraged Trump-Supporting Mom Confronts and Blasts School for Forcing 17-Year-Old to Register to Vote Democrat Without Her Consent,
Claiming Trump Win Would ‘Doom Black People’!”
–by Jim Hᴏft Sep. 25, 2024 9:15 am926 Comments
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/outraged-trump-supporting-mom-confronts-blasts-school-forcing/
I’m just surprised, if not relieved, that the good scholarly teach didn’t attempt to get in in the kid’s pants.
“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.’”
– Professor Turley
_____________________
And America has finally come full circle.
LINCOLN “DIDN’T LIKE THE OUTCOME” OF THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
LINCOLN “ATTACKED THE FOUNDATIONAL” CONSTITUTION OF THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC
LINCOLN “DIDN’T LIKE” A SOVEREIGN FOREIGN NATION, OCCUPYING ITS TERRITORY TO DELIBERATELY START A WAR
The American adventure into communism began with Lincoln, who rejected the preeminent fundamental law, forcibly usurped power, and imposed martial law and dictatorship because “you don’t like the outcome”—in Lincoln’s case, he didn’t like the outcome of the dominant democratic legislative process; he preferred despotism, dictatorship, and tyranny.
Secession is not prohibited, not unconstitutional, not rebellion, not invasion, and distinctly not a concern of public safety presented by a sovereign foreign nation devoid of a declaration of war.
Habeas corpus may have been suspended ONLY by Congress “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it,” not in the case of constitutional secession.
The president has no authority to issue a “proclamation” denying constitutional rights and freedoms and legislatively legal acts.
The Naturalization Act of 1802 constituted existing American immigration law.
Lincoln must have been impeached and convicted, not indulged in his war, for his crimes of high office—denying constitutional rights, failing to support the Constitution, subverting the Constitution, and usurping power.
America must be placed squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789—freedom, free speech, free assembly, free religion, free press, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, complete equity without bias, favor, and affirmative action, right to bear arms, due process et al., with infinitesimal government.
As corrupt and unconstitutional Roe v. Wade was retroactively corrected by 50 years, all of the unconstitutional transgressions of Lincoln must be retroactively corrected by 150 years, beginning with the “Reconstruction Amendments” of Lincoln’s “progressive” successors.
How do we overcome this wave of imbecility and ignorance of our founding documents? The continued attack on the principles of the documents (so to speak) by fiat, or executive privilege, courts, legislative and of course the media are an assured paved course to tyranny. Their basic foundation is abandonment of Natural Rights to the State, followed by a Utopia where there’s Strawberries Fields Forever! These fools seem to know not from where they came, they’ve endeavored to change basic scientific meaning as just one example and are now trying to codify when life begins. This imbecility and ignorance must be wrangled to the ground, hogtied and starved out of existence.
You correct the constitutional crimes and aberrations of despotic and tyrannical “Crazy Abe” Lincoln’s entire “Reign of Terror,” the “progressive” acts of his successors, and the corollary and more recent acts of pure communism.
You go Back to the Future of a reconstituted constitutional America—freedom, free speech, free assembly, free religion, free press, free enterprise, free industries, free markets, private property, complete equity without bias, favor, and affirmative action, right to bear arms, due process et al., with infinitesimal government.
The Kia Kamala – not a smart car.
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/introducing-the-kia-kamala/
The good professor correctly states in his last paragraph, “The true danger to the American democratic system….” The “American democratic system,” as Turley describes, is quintessentially more accurate than calling us a “democracy.”
I know I’m going to get some flak for this comment, but I really, truly, unequivocally resent and repel the tendency to call our country “a democracy.” We are a constitutional Republic–and for good reason. I DO accept the term, “democratic republic,” but I reject that we are a “democracy” as the leftists intend to make us think we are.
I want ALL elementary and secondary school systems to teach the differences to our students–and why our Framers EXPLAINED their EXPRESS REJECTION of a pure “democracy” and opted for a democratic republic.
The casual and incremental adoption and use of “democracy” is an attempt to expand a “say” in our government to all those who have no VESTED interest in our Nation’s superiority. It is the rule of mobs, the majority masses who outnumber the creme at the top, the gimme gimmes who want redistribution of what others have earned, –and an expanding non-citizen population. and as I have said ad nauseam, there will always be more have-nots than haves, more average than achievers/accomplishers, more followers than thinkers, more lesser-educated than more-educated. This is the power of the majority masses.
That’s why I think Benjamin Franklin said, “…if you can keep it.”
That sagacious old man with the wired lenses and paper kites.
While I agree with your categorization of democratic republic, I think it is erroneous to view the term “democracy” in such narrow terms. Can you name a true 100% democratic system? Was Athens a democracy? Absolutely not. Only about 5,000 citizens were enfranchised to participate, and when they chose to delegate some of the governing task to a smaller body, they had 500 members in that counsel. Outside of certain Swiss cantons, I don’t think pure democracy exists in the world. As Jefferson quipped back in 1816: “We may say with truth and meaning, that governments are more or less republican as they have more or less of the element of popular election and control in their composition.”
So, I think this semantic discussion is usually a disingenuous exercise. Of course, we don’t have 100% pure majoritarian democracy. But, we can absolutely understand when democratic institutions are eroded by elements like Trump’s attempt to submit fake slates of electors.
Thanks for the response. But nothing in your summary reduces or voids the more truthful designation that I prefer, which is “democratic republic.” I find nothing disingenuous about teaching the differences to our students, since most of them are already being fed deceiving definitions and meanings. FInally, I think the continued attempt to push the story of “fake electors” is disingenuous in itself, as he has never been found liable or guilty for same, despite numerous attempts. At the time that Professor Turley first published an article on this subject, I and others promptly listed other times in history where contentious and competing electors had been submitted, without such consequence.
p.s. sorry, forgot to mention your comment about “true democracy.’ You precisely make my point for me–the erosion and casual evolving of the word/term itself.
Go back and read what you wrote, and consider its original meaning in Athens/Greece to its current understanding–more in common today with socialist communism- a term readily rejected by Americans, -without their realization that this is where we are headed, under the specious and honorable label of “democracy.”
Democracy: 2 fox, 1 chicken sitting at the table and voting for what they will have for lunch.
Sorry but that is complete malarchy.
My above point was that democracy as I assume you define it (though you never did) is a theoretical concept that has never been adopted. Ancient Greece’s “democracy” was an oligarchy.
Never did I say that democracy involves economic redistribution. In fact can you point to anything I said above that concern redistribution?
You either do not know that “socialist communism” concerns economic redistribution (in which case, please inform yourself!), or you are failing to comprehend the above response.
And please, as a fellow attorney, I would hope you understand the basic idea that directing a group of people to sign and notarize a document under oath, claiming that Trump won the election in their states when they knew there was no evidence that this was true, is textbook fraud. NONE of the past examples by Eastman are applicable here. And regardless, they do not prove that the act was not fraud. The 1960 Hawaii presidential election never used the fake slate, nor was their existence ever legitimated by a court. This, it was still fraud.
listen, clown, she’s right. I went back and read it. You tell lin that “You (lin) either do not know that “socialist communism” concerns economic redistribution…please inform yourself.”
Well, wonders of wonders, she describe socialist communism as including “the majority masses who outnumber the creme at the top, the gimme gimmes who want redistribution of what others have earned…”
AND it was state RNC people, not Trump, who engaged in the alternate elector plan.
So, from a third fellow attorney, I would hope you understand the error of your words. In fact, clown.
No she is not. I never equate any definition of democracy with redistribution.
Yet she says I do. She seems to think that democracy means social communism. No one thinks that. That is complete bs.
It means what is right or wrong. Would all people vote true if the question were: all Americans need good, healthy food?
People are voting on partisan issues instead.
“Was Athens a democracy? Absolutely not.”
Socrates could not be reached for comment.
Except it wasn’t. Did everyone have the right to vote?
You’re tilting at windmills.
Athens has been known as a democracy since it was Athens. The word comes from the Greek “demos.”
Rather than staring at who could vote, try reading a Greek scholar (e.g., Edith Hamilton).
Lin, you helped propel me back to political science classes I took over 50 years ago and I appreciate it. The “democracy” crowd has no understanding of how our country actually operates and my guess, after seeing the radical things they wish for, is that if this were a true democracy none of their ideas would ever become codified.
-that is precisely why they want to change the complexion/makeup of America.
Lin
We are a republic – period. We are NOT a democratic republic.
Democracy appears nowhere in the declaration of independence or constitution.
hey john, you stepped on your own foot. you quoted “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” THAT, my friend, is a “democratic” republic.
JohnSay, guess what? Republic appears nowhere in the declaration of independence or constitution.
“Republic appears nowhere in the declaration of independence or constitution.”
It does in the Federalist Papers.
The Founders took great pains to explain the difference between a democracy and a republic. And to create a republican system of government.
To John Say-
“During recent political upheavals, some commentators and politicians have asserted that calling the United States a democracy is incorrect, preferring instead the term ‘republic’. …This restrictive interpretation, however, misses a broader point: the terms are not mutually exclusive and are interwoven deeply in the fabric of the US governance system. The electorate’s power to elect representatives who make and interpret laws is inherently democratic, while the constitutional framework that guides and limits governance embodies the republic notion.
Ignoring this connection narrows the discourse and can polarize debates unnecessarily.”
from “Republic vs. Democracy.” https://www.usconstitution.net/republic-vs-democracy/
Bourgeois liberals are always shocked by the reality, since liberals never suffer under the class war. This particular author refuses to acknowledge the elephant in the room – capitalism and the ruling class. All roads lead to the ruling class. Democrat-Republican ballot box democracy has always been a lie and the judiciary has always been ruling class architecture. Sorry – the world is not the lie you believed.
“Who needs Iran when you have Democrats?”
“counter-constitutional”
Turley is mincing words to the point of being disingenuous, intentionally or not. That term is fallacious. The Constitution establishes and limits everything that the Federal government has the power to do. Behavior by that government is either authorized by those enumerated powers, in which case it is constitutional, or it is not, making it unconstitutional. The last thing we need when discussing the powers of government is some additional, ill-defined word, useful only to muddle the debate.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, NPR, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “…general (all, the whole) Welfare…,” omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor or charity. The same article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the Value of money, Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes, and land and naval Forces.
Additionally, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification, and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
Government exists, under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to provide maximal freedom to individuals while government is severely limited and restricted to facilitating that maximal freedom of individuals through the provision of security and infrastructure.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is nothing more than a perfunctory redundancy for the purposes of clarification—a reinforcement of that which was previously codified—and shall not be employed to amend and impose separate acts that do not represent but alter the letter and intent of the Founders and Framers.
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.
What did Kamala know? How did she enable Sean Diddy just like she enabled Domestic terrorists BLM ANTIFA? Given Kamala’s oral history with well placed politicians, what role did she play at P Diddy’s BDSM “freak off” parties? Dominatrix or female slave?
#GrabEmByTheKetaminePussy
Kamala Harris
@KamalaHarris
Thank you, @Diddy, for hosting this town hall last night. There’s a lot at stake for our communities right now and it’s critical we bring to the forefront how coronavirus is perpetuating racial inequality and health disparities.
https://x.com/KamalaHarris/status/1248624302682828802
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs faces life in prison after ‘freak off’ parties. What to know
Prosecutors allege his “criminal enterprise” included sex trafficking, forced labor, interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution, coercion and enticement to engage in prostitution, kidnapping, bribery, drug offenses and arson, among other crimes.
He “manipulated women to participate in highly orchestrated performances of sexual activity with male commercial sex workers.” To ensure their participation, Combs would distribute drugs like ketamine, ecstasy and gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and control their careers or leverage his money, “threatening to cut off (financial support), and using intimidation and violence.”
The indictment also alleges that Combs punched, struck, dragged and kicked various women since at least 2008, and forced employees to “cover up his abuse and commercial sex” operation. Other incidents involving an armed kidnapping and blowing up a car.
What is a ‘freak off’? Police seized more than 1,000 bottles of baby oil from Diddy’s homes
The indictment refers to Combs’ alleged “freak off” parties, or “elaborate and produced sex performances” that were recorded without many victims’ consent and at times used as collateral against them.
In the parties, which could last multiple days, Combs “arranged, directed” and “masturbated during” the “performances” by sex workers with him and his employees distributing drugs to victims, partly to keep them “obedient and compliant.”
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/2024/09/18/sean-diddy-combs-where-detained-new-york-freak-off-parties-charges/75276448007/
Hold Kamala accountable to P Diddy.
I suppose the question there is; who Diddy’d who?
One is known for raising the skirt to commit coercion, the other is known for committing coercion to raise the skirt.
Black Epstein? Will he be epsteined when incarcerated? He’s been charged. Due process awaits.
Not interested freakazoid news.
“Soon after, Polymarket began taking wagers on whether he’d be sprung by that Friday, September 20. When the smoke cleared, $130,191 had been wagered, with 99 percent of the money on “no,” and Diddy was still locked down. (Observed one commenter: “C U F F D A D D Y.”)”
“You can still put down dough on whether he’ll be out by September 30. As of Tuesday, September 24, the odds were 99 to 1 against that happening with $32K wagered. (Morbid comment: “What if Diddy kills himself in custody?”)”
The most secure detention in history!
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/you-can-bet-on-how-soon-diddy-posts-bond-in-sex-trafficking-case-21359314
Given Kamala’s oral history with well placed politicians . . .
That’s comedy gold right there.
😍
There is no reason to suppose that she ever knew about these parties, let alone ever participated in them.
There is every reason to believe it.
A defining principle most disturbingly under attack by illiberal progressives is the one that provides individual liberty protection against unchecked, arbitrary, and capricious majority rule. Aware from history that the majority is not always right and often has been at first irresponsible and then subsequently tyrannical, the Founders carefully wrote into the Constitution precepts that would help to balance minority interests with majority excesses whenever the two conflict, as they inevitably and frequently do. In his book “The Conservative Sensibility”, George Will addresses in depth the hostility that majority rule presents to minority rights and dates it to the beginning of what he calls the “progressive project” over a century ago.
Autocratic majority rule has been a principal goal of the Democratic Party’s progressivism since its founding over a century ago when it first proclaimed itself as [the] preferred alternative to the Constitution. For progressives, individualism is an abomination that must be crushed if absolute majority rule is to prevail. It is because the Constitution is the foremost impediment to progressivism’s arbitrariness that for progressives the rule of law must be replaced by the rule of men. A simple and bare majority of men is all that is required.
Progressives who fail to consider what may happen to their individual wellbeing whenever a majority power has them unquestioningly roll with the tide will reap what they helped to sow having willingly been for so long persons unknown and undistinguishable within the collective. Progressives who rail against authoritarianism are well advised to more clearly confront their fear of it by understanding it is with the power of the majority that the ground is prepared for authoritarianism to grow. Surely, progressives do not want to one day find themselves servants to authoritarians. They might ask themselves: What becomes of the dog that chases a car when one day that dog catches it?
The Constitution that was wisely written to protect not only the enumerated rights of individuals but their unenumerated rights as well is deserving of every person’s adherence for how it balances majority rule and minority rights. With that, George Will asks the question: “Is the Constitution’s primary purpose the creation of a governmental architecture that ensures, as much as possible, the protection of natural rights? Or is its primary purpose merely the creation of a government that facilitates effective majority rule?”
To state that ‘America’s defining principles’ are under assault could not be more clear about what has been incrementally happening so quietly in the dark yet has now become quite comfortable in the bright light of the sun for everyone to see.
And this is why the second amendment exists.
“ They have become a sort of priesthood of atheists, keeping their frocks while doffing their faith.”
Republicans are consistently failing to propose legislation that protects or improves protections for minorities or people with low incomes. Their support seems to be solely for legislation that benefits themselves and their close campaign donors, disregarding the needs of the majority of their constituents.
“ 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.“
Isn’t it ironic? Project 2025 aims to be a guide toward a more authoritarian form of rule, seeking to dismantle our institutions for political gain. Our cherished institutions, often referred to as the “deep state” by some Republicans, are under threat. Project 2025 undermines the very pillars that Turley believes should be preserved: the Constitution, checks and balances, and civil liberties. Those behind Project 2025 are biding their time, hoping for a Trump victory. It’s doubtful that Turley would criticize the dismantling of the very things he accuses Democrats of seeking if they end up in power. If Trump returns to the White House, Turley’s justifications will be more difficult to defend.
George: What kind of legislative “protections for minorities or people with low incomes” are”Republicans failing to propose?”
Please, take your time. be specific.
Lin, as you may recall, George / Gigi, has told us he is an attorney. Consequently he is likely too busy filing legal briefs on behalf of all of the men, women and children who were drugged, caged, beaten and otherwise involved in P Diddy’s slave trade “freak off” parties to provide you answers. That and he is pissed he wasnt invited by P Diddy
Not sure what George was referring to, but how about Trump’s 10-20%+ tariffs?
From the Tax Foundation: “Candidate Trump has proposed significant tariff hikes as part of his presidential campaign; we estimate that if imposed, his proposed tariff increases would hike taxes by another $524 billion annually and shrink GDP by at least 0.8 percent, the capital stock by 0.7 percent, and employment by 684,000 full-time equivalent jobs. Our estimates do not capture the effects of retaliation, nor the additional harms that would stem from starting a global trade war.”
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/trump-tariffs-biden-tariffs/
Tariffs tend to be regressive because the average share of income sources burdened by tariffs are higher for lower-income taxpayers. Additionally, tariffs will be inflationary, which disproportionately affects lower income Americans.
Of course, as is the case with Harris, Donald “concepts of a plan” Trump has not indicated what cuts to social programs will be needed to account for the loss of tax revenue that will result from his tax cuts. But we can look to what was part of his 2020 administration proposals for guidance. Here is a summary: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-administration-budgets-and-programs-for-people-of-limited-means/
1. SNAP – reductions of $200B over 10 years
2. Medicaid/ACA – – reductions of $750B to $1T over 10 years
3. Housing/Rental Assistance – eliminating housing programs like the HOME program, the Community Development Block Grant, and LIHEAP.
4. Cash assistance – reductions in benefits for low-income children with disabilities through SSI, reduction of $20B over 10 years in TANF; reduction in Social Security disability benefits.
5. Non-defense discretionary – deep cuts in NDD funding, proposal of $1.8B over 10 years.
6. Self-sufficiency – reductions in benefits for low-income households Trump budgets proposed to reduce job training funds by 40 percent, reduce the Job Corps substantially, reduce education, student aid, work-stud, and other progarms, and terminate the community service employment program.
Again, neither candidate has been forthcoming about specifics, so all we can look to is what President Trump previously proposed. These cuts will certainly not be enough to balance the budget, which will also increase inflationary pressure.
* How about the usa makes its own cars.
Well, you are not George, so thanks for letting him off the hook.
But I respond in kind.
Of course, I don’t recall this kind of criticism over merely “proposed” plans, in contrast to where we lost HUGELY under Biden’s VERY-controversial-but-seldom-mentioned-in-media “De Minimis program” with China.
That not only cost the U.S. $billions in tariff revenue, but also invited the importation of widely non-inspected direct-to-consumer illegal and/or dangerous goods. Additionally, not only did Biden KEEP Trump’s tariffs, but (trying to undo the harm he caused) —now-in an election year (of course), decided to HIKE the Chinese tariffs (May 2024) and again, two weeks ago (Sept 2024)– from 7.5-100%, n’est ce pas?
First, and importantly, virtually EVERY administration (Repub and Dem) has utilized tariffs, going back to post Civil War. Nothing new here. Some say the problems/imbalance started with Clinton’s NAFTA; Obama’s 35% tariff on tire imports cost Americans dearly; as did Bush’s steel/aluminum tariffs.
I believe that tariffs facilitate NEGOTIATION of reciprocity. Sure, no pain, no gain, but it also tends to reduce our landfills and dumpsites and stop the inherent “throw-away” mentality and WASTE that has become so ubiquitous in booming economies. A tender and tenuous balance of interests is always best.
I don’t align with either statist candidate, and i generally oppose tariffs, including those on China. Both Harris and Trump want support tariffs on China because it is politically expedient to do so.
However, it is one thing to impose tariffs on China for stealing tech, etc. and another to impose tariffs on… John Deere for moving a manufacturing plant to Mexico. Trump literally told farmers in PA that this week.
And your history of tariffs is misleading. Tariffs have steeply decreased in usage since at least the 1930s, and they have only seen meaningful increases since the Obama administration (based on average tariff rates)
https://www.cato.org/publications/separating-tariff-facts-tariff-fictions#how-has-united-states-used-tariffs
I keep hearing this idea that tariffs facilitate negotiation of reciprocity. But I haven’t seen any actual data to support that. And, even if playing “hardball” at the expense of the American consumer puts some pressure on other countries, the goal should be economic growth, not reciprocity. The whole idea is so backwards coming from a GOP candidate that it makes me go insane. It is a tax on consumers! Why is the GOP pro-tax?
Anonymous: thanks, And, all of what you wrote is not even considering the economic impact of reciprocal tariffs which other countries would apply to our exports. What will happen to our farmers if they can’t sell their products to other countries? From “Environmental Working Group”:
“WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2021
Taxpayer-funded farm subsidies have long been skewed in favor of the richest farmers and landowners. But under the Trump administration, even more money went to the largest and wealthiest farms, further shortchanging smaller, struggling family farms.
EWG’s analysis of records from the Department of Agriculture finds that subsidy payments to farmers ballooned from just over $4 billion in 2017 to more than $20 billion in 2020 – driven largely by ad hoc programs meant to offset the effects of President Trump’s failed trade war.
Not only did the amount of subsidies skyrocket, but the richest farms also increased their share: In 2016, about 17 percent of total subsidies went to the top 1 percent of farms and about 60 percent to the top 10th. In 2019, the richest 1 percent received almost one-fourth of the total, and the top 10th received almost two-thirds.1”
Gigi, your failure to understand agri subsidies is only exceeded by your failure to display legal expertise.
Why don’t you educate yourself by looking up the highest agri subsidy payouts (hint-not under Trump) under CCC and the Market Facilitation Programs. Trump had one high year (not nearly the highest) caused by high flooding throughout the midwest. The highest was under Clinton in 1999-2000 ($33B) while Trump’s high year (2019-almost 20 years later) was “$22.6B) Look it up, gigi.
Tariffs have a lot of nuance.
China produces Prada, Armani and many other high-end brands.
For stability China must export!
Let’s say a tariff was placed on these high-end products.
1) To compensate for the tariff China lowers the price.
2) Well to do people pay more
3) Money ends up in the treasury
4) Needy people do not buy Prada and Armani.
This is not how tariffs work.
A short reply without any substance demonstrates ignorance and arrogance. Let us hear your argument, or you can return to the swamp.
Professor Turley,
Why is advocacy for amending the Constitution a “counter-constitutional” act? Are the amendments to the Bill of Rights counter-constitutional too? Do you think outlawing slavery was counter-constitutional?
Further, Trump has literally called for terminating the Constitution in connection with his 2020 election conspiracy. See the article below. Why, then, would you focus on Kamala’s desire to amend the Constitution rather than Trump’s desire to terminate it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/us/politics/trump-constitution-republicans.html
Because she’s not calling for amendment to the constitution as per the constitutions plan for amendments. She’s calling for ignoring it and violating it and abolishing it
Harris has called for an amendment for reforms that require it (i.e., overturning the immunity decision).
There are ways to impose term limits that could be done by statute however. For example, Congress established “senior status” for judges in 1919, and it has been repeatedly upheld as constitutional. Here, justices would retain life tenure, but their tenure would be divided into two distinct periods: a phase of active service lasting 18 years and a senior phase lasting for the remainder of a justice’s life term. The Supreme Court held nearly a century ago that “Congress may lighten judicial duties, though it is without power to abolish the office or to diminish the compensation appertaining to it.”
Please cite the decision to which you refer. If you have portrayed it accurately (I have serious doubts about that) it needs to be revisited and overturned. There is no effing way that the text below could reasonably be interpreted to divide lifetime tenured judges into two groups, one of which is stripped of the essential responsibility that defines a judge (i. e., “their Offices”)
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme
Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times,
receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.”
“Congress may lighten judicial duties, though it is without power to abolish the office or to diminish the compensation appertaining to it.” Booth v. United States (1934) Page 291 – https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/291/339/
“https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/291/339/”
Did you even bother to read what you cited? That case and decision are entirely about reducing or eliminating compensation for a judge who has VOLUNTARILY RETIRED, not resigned.
“1. Does a United States District or Circuit Judge who, having served continuously for ten years and attained the age of seventy years, does not resign but retires under the provisions of § 260 of the Judicial Code, as amended, continue in office within the meaning of § 1 of Article III of the Constitution, which forbids diminution of the compensation of Judges during their continuance in office?”
The decision was, no, the retired judge continues to fulfill some responsible, and is entitled to continue at his former pay. That has no bearing at all on a proposal to INVOLUNTARILY LIMIT DUTIES of judges without (unconstitutionally) removing them without impeachment.
Yes it clarified the line drawn, aka compensation reduction is not acceptable but altering a judge’s duties is permitted. This is why the statute would not reduce a Justice’s comp, it would only change their duties. For example, it may limit the justice to presiding only in cases where SCOTUS has original jurisdiction.
* the quote of suspend the constitution was referencing what the dems did with voter registration, verification and count. They suspended it. Too many roadblocks to vote they said like being a citizen. 😂 voting only once and in just one state.
China is sending its mail ins as is the ayotollah.
Does it matter WHY he advocated to terminate the Constitution? He clearly supports a “counter-constitutional” movement, even if you think his reason for doing so was justified.
Obamma and his band of mulatto marxists, and all of the other CCP sycophants must be purged.
damnatio memoriae
Expanding the Supreme Court to 15 members is a good idea.
Twenty-two would be better. That’s eleven for each side. We give them a football and different colored robes, and each game victory would decide the selected case outcomes.
No special teams?
Chief Justice Bill Bellichick sounds good to me.
Why 15? Why not 3 or 3,000 or 330,000,000?
How many different interpretations of a 237 year-old document do we need?
Pulling Medicare & Social Security from Cal Tech grads over the age of 70 are good ideas. Because, you know, for the sake of the immigrants who suffer from systemic racism…and “getting past the Muslims”
Estovir, that was beneath you.
Racist!
Fifteen gives one associate justice to ride circuit for each federal district except the 9th, which is so big as to require two. The cheif justice would have enough to do riding herd on 14 associates.
David, Let’s discuss your idea of the 15 members.
Assume Trump wins, is in office, and has six members to nominate for the Supreme Court. Do you still want the six additional members?
Others have suggested increasing the court size by 2 per president.
S. Meyer, I said basically the same thing above.
Yes, it is a good thing to have agreement.
Ok David, let’s expand the Court right after Trump wins and the Republicans take the Senate. Sound ok to you? If you aren’t sure why don’t you give Harry Reid a call and ask him about such shenanigans.
Harry Reid stood in the way of using Yucca Mountain to dispose of nuclear waste after all the tunnels were drilled, spending federal money to employ people in Nevada.
Shenanigans?