Below is my column in The Hill on Kamala Harris and her “bad ideas” podcast. Harris was previously said to favor packing the Supreme Court, but the podcast appears to be part of the effort of many in the Democratic Party to condition voters to an emerging radical agenda on the left.
Here is the column:
On Thursday, former Vice President Kamala Harris posted a livestream on the “Win with Black Women” podcast to call for a “no bad idea brainstorm” for the Democratic Party. She used that pretense to “throw out there” the idea that Democrats should make radical constitutional and political changes as soon as they retake power.
That includes packing the Supreme Court, admitting Puerto Rico and D.C. as states and killing the Electoral College.
All of these items have been previously raised by liberal professors and pundits as a way to circumvent small-D democratic processes in order to guarantee power for the big-D Democrats for years to come.
It was a telling rationalization. The Democratic Party has become a party of moral and political relativism, embodied in the popular “by any means necessary” mantra used by many on the left today.
But there are bad ideas, just as there are bad people who want to win at any cost.
For some, Harris herself showed the existence of truly bad ideas by accepting the position as Biden’s Border Czar as roughly ten million people poured into the country. Another bad idea was her selection of Tim Walz as a running mate before his series of rake-steps.
Indeed, her sudden surprise nomination was a bad idea, one that cost $1.5 billion in just 15 weeks and led to one of her party’s most crushing losses in decades.
The worst idea, however, is to celebrate our 250th anniversary by destroying the very institutions and values that created the most successful and stable democracy in history.
In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I discuss lawyers and law professors who rationalize the trashing of the Constitution and our institutions to achieve their political goals. I debated one Harvard law professor who rattled off a list of Democratic proposals for our system, but then added that the left would need first to take control of the Supreme Court. It was an acknowledgment that the court would likely declare some or all of the proposals unconstitutional.
I previously wrote about the rise of “the new Jacobins” — influential figures who are seeking to dismantle our system after facing judicial and political setbacks. Even the dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky, wrote a book titled “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”
Now, leading Democrats such as House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) have declared the Supreme Court “illegitimate” and called for a “massive” overhaul of both state and federal courts to make them submit to Democrats’ demands. This was Jeffries’ reaction to the Virginia Supreme Court’s rejection of Democrats’ effort to wipe out Republican representation in Virginia.
He is not the only one adding bad ideas to Harris’s wish list. Various politicians and pundits called for the sacking and packing of the Virginia Supreme Court. By lowering the mandatory age for retirement to 54, they would simply force out all of the current justices and replace them with rubber-stamp liberal appointees.
If this sack-and-pack scheme is not enough, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign lawyer, Marc Elias, reminded citizens that, under the state constitution, they could scrap the entire Virginia government over the refusal to let Democrats gerrymander the state. (Elias is infamous for his role in the secret funding of the Steele Dossier to launch the debunked Russian collusion scandal).
It did not matter that even a justice appointed by former Democratic governor Mark Warner found the move unconstitutional, or that Democratic figures like Gov. Abigail Spanberger believed that it could be overturned.
The X posting was only the latest effort to throw out some “bad ideas” to an increasingly radical movement on the left.
When I and others flagged Elias’s posting as alarming, he criticized me for taking him to task for merely quoting the state Constitution. It was typical of the “Who, me?” response of establishment figures when confronted for pandering to the most radical political elements in the Democratic Party.
It is like responding to an adverse World Trade Organization trade ruling by invoking Congress’s power to declare war. It is a rather extreme reaction.
Yet, it is all part of the effort to normalize extreme measures and condition American voters to fundamentally changing our system. Harris calls it her “expanded playbook.”
Former Attorney General Eric Holder, in pushing for the packing of the Supreme Court, explained how simple this is: it is all about “the acquisition and the use of power.”
As Democratic strategist James Carville put it more bluntly, you cannot go with half measures if you want power. You just have to say “f–k it … just do it.”
Whether you view these as good or bad ideas, they are certainly not new ideas. These are the same voices that have plagued our system for generations; the siren calls for unleashing forms of direct democracy and removing moderating influences in our system.
The Framers sought to create a system that would avoid the pattern of earlier democracies becoming tyrannies, including Athens. James Madison famously wrote, “Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
The Framers rejected more direct democratic systems to blunt the impulses and passions that destroyed other systems. They wanted to avoid democracy becoming what Benjamin Rush called a “mobocracy.”
The American Constitution was a rejection of the “bad ideas” that politicians (called demagogues in Ancient Greece) have historically used to marshal the power of the mob.
They did not want an “expanded playbook” designed to secure and retain power for one party. We were the first true Enlightenment Revolution based on the protections of rights derived not from the government but from God.
Now that was a good idea.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Karl Marx introduced the concept of the ends justifying the means in his communist manifesto in 1848. It was later refreshed in the 1960’s by a Marx disciple, the Chicago based community organizer, Saul Alinsky.
Marx failed, Alinsky failed and so will this current effort.
The end justifies the means is a paraphrase of Niccolò Machiavelli, not Marx.
if it sounds like a Fascist and Goose Steps like a Fascists….it is a FASCISTS
Time to START jailing democrats for their crimes…which are PLENTY!
Neville Chamberlain tried to be the Nice guy with German Fascists…it DOESN’T WORK!
Kamala Harris – she has nothing but BAD IDEAS. She was a Bad Idea for the DEMS but they wanted someone that they could control like Sleepy Joe. The usual cast of Left Wing DEMS, Jefferies & Co., Ambulance chasing Lawyer Elias, Obama the Great one? James Carvile – Cajun Clown, etc All BAD IDEAS for the country but profitable for them.
Look, forget the scholars for a second. What would the average guy in 1789 have thought about this? Not Madison, not Hamilton. The farmer. The tradesman. The veteran who just fought a war against exactly this kind of power grab. That person didn’t need a law degree to recognize a faction trying to kick out the referees and rewrite the rules mid-game. They built the whole system around stopping that. It was common sense then. The fact that we need credentialed experts to explain it to us now tells you everything about how far we’ve drifted.
. The fact that we need credentialed experts to explain it to us now … . Just like what you’re trying to pull off? Except you have no credentials or credibility.
Founders opposed to the Electoral College:
1. James Madison (privately opposed the final version)
Madison helped design the early framework, but he opposed the Electoral College as it was ultimately adopted.
His objections:
It gave disproportionate power to small states
It entrenched slave‑state advantage through the 3/5 rule
It allowed state legislatures to control the method of choosing electors, which he thought was dangerous
Madison preferred a national popular vote or at least a system that reduced state‑level manipulation.
2. James Wilson (the most outspoken opponent)
Wilson — one of the most democratic‑minded Framers — explicitly argued for a national popular vote for president.
He called the Electoral College:
unnecessarily complex
anti‑majoritarian
a system that would “confound and mislead” the public
Wilson lost that fight, but he was the clearest voice against the Electoral College.
3. Gouverneur Morris
Morris, who literally wrote much of the Constitution’s final text, opposed the Electoral College and wanted:
direct election by the people
no intermediary body
no state‑level control over presidential selection
He warned that the Electoral College would empower faction, intrigue, and corruption.
4. George Mason
Mason distrusted the Electoral College because he believed:
electors would be too easily influenced
the House deciding elections would lead to “cabal, intrigue, and corruption”
foreign powers could manipulate the process
He predicted the system would fail frequently and throw elections into Congress.
5. Elbridge Gerry
Gerry opposed the Electoral College because he believed:
it was too complicated
it would not reflect the will of the people
it would encourage backroom deals
He preferred congressional selection (which had its own problems).
⭐ Founders Who Accepted It Reluctantly (Not Supporters)
Alexander Hamilton
Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68, but this was strategic, not heartfelt.
Privately, Hamilton preferred:
a strong executive
selected by a small, elite body
insulated from state politics
He supported the Electoral College because it was the only viable compromise, not because he thought it was ideal.
Benjamin Franklin
Franklin disliked anything that concentrated power in elites.
He didn’t mount a major fight, but he was not a supporter of the Electoral College and preferred more democratic mechanisms.
It seems Harris wasn’t in bad company.
Apparently and obviously, other “Founders” disagreed and prevailed. Your point?
My point is that several of the Founders opposed the Electoral College and considering it flawed isn’t a brand-new concept of the radical left but always existed. A secondary point if you read the specific reasons some of them were opposed was that many of their concerns came to pass.
BlackCon
I suppose you are fine with millions of illegals voting, stealing teaxpayer money and appearing in the census?
BlackCon
you will have to TRY harder to be a FASCIST!
The Framers (Brearley Committee): The system was primarily crafted and recommended to the convention by the “Committee of Eleven” (also known as the Brearley Committee), which included delegates like James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, and James Wilson.
Alexander Hamilton: He was a vocal proponent of the system, strongly defending it in The Federalist Papers. He argued that the Electoral College would ensure the presidency was decided by “men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station,” keeping the process free from corruption and foreign interference.
Democrats, be careful for what you desire. “End gerrymanding!” cried Abby Spunberger and the Virginia Democrats. “Oaky Doky” said Thomas, Alito et al “Here you go!”
Whereas November loomed as a Democratic victory for the control of the US House appears more and more as a night of sackcloth and ashes, and wailing and gnashing of teeth for the Blue.
With respect to Harris, no more fitting description of an individual is that often used by the esteemed Senator Kennedy of Louisiana. Not only has she yet to be tested negative for stupid, but is the reason why there are directions for use on a bottle of shampoo. That having been saidis also the reason why there’s a voting bloc out there which will support her.
Instead of winning with good candidates and popular ideas, Democrats rely on racism and cheating. Now, since they have been disallowed to draw Democrat stronghold districts based on skin color, Democrats threaten to blow up the system. Democrat Fascists are calling for mob rule, just in other terms. By Democrat logic, why not elminate the Senate? It’s not purely democratic, after all. Why not eliminate state lines and force all elections to be natonwide popular vote driven? Why not eliminate courts and allow the people to vote on every issue, regardless of state and federal laws and Constitutions? Democrats know they can use emotion to stir up crowds and gin up instant support for any schemes that sound good in a moment of fervor but which ultimately fail once passions cool down.
. The fact that we need credentialed experts to explain it to us now … . Just like what you’re trying to pull off? Except you have no credentials or credibility. … just like to hate you project?
Today’s special offer, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.” marked down to $1.00. Today only folks.
ANON=LOSER
Why do libs lie so much?
You asked, so answer it. If you can.
Dad, It is Monday morning and already you are raging. Please take a shower and look for a job today. The electric is gone and the water company is threatening. Granny says if you do not shape up she is going to stop lending you her cell phone for “job searches” since it appears all you do is go online to rage. Face it Dad, the government job is gone and likely never coming back no matter how much you rage.