NYT Op-Ed: Throw out the ‘Broken Constitution’ and ‘Reclaim America’

…The “broken” and “famously undemocratic” U.S. Constitution “stands in the way” of “real” freedom and democracy, according to a New York Times op-ed by two Ivy League law professors.

The pair issued a call to “radically alter the basic rules of the game” by no longer requiring us to “justify our politics by the Constitution.”

A Friday New York Times essay, titled “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” and penned by law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale, claims when liberals “lose in the Supreme Court” they often blame justices for misreading the Constitution, yet in reality, “struggling over the Constitution has proved a dead end.”

“The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism,” the authors assert, as they attack the “some centuries-old text.”..,







read more news: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/08/22/ivy-league-professors-reclaim-america-from-broken-constitution/






The sheep’s clothing has been shed by these secular progressive urban elites. Their true feelings which we on the right have long known of have been shown to the rest of the world. They no longer have any shame for holding such hateful anti American views and now flout their contempt for our rule of law openly.

 

The truth of the progressive contempt for our constitution is revealed. It’s a foundational position of the secular progressive and since the late 1800’s and into the racist Woodrow Wilson regime, they and he have believed as these writers do.

 

I figured that not even the most committed of the hard left secular progressives here could not or would not even defend this msm insanity!

 

The NYTs has declared itself an enemy of the United States.

 

And it has been for a very long time…

 

Parts of the Constitution are inadequate to deal with our current times.

The Constitution is the reason that corporations can donate unlimited funds to political campaigns.

The Constitution is the reason that lobbying groups control legislation.

The Constitution wasn't handed down by god. We shouldn't be afraid to adapt it.

 

Authoritarians and totalitarians just hate constitutions (meaning real constitutions, not the show off and don't tell ones like Stalin's).

This from the so-called news organ that covered up the holocaust and supported Stalin's genocidal pogrom in Ukraine.

 

EVERY Right Wingnut "news" outlet is carrying this story, BUT not a single MSM or neutral outlet has it except the times which seems to rebut it but it's paywall so I can't link it.

IMHO, blaming this as an attack on OUR CONSTITUTION by the (entire) "left" is horseshit, I can't even determine the political lean of the two professors or what they actually said. You can be sure I will not, nor should anybody, take Blightfart's word for it.

 

They are not camouflaging their activity. As your OP implies they are open, unabashed, and in your face. The Democrats are making an all out assault completely in public against the Constitution.

 

How did you get from (2) two professors to "THE DEMOCRATS"?

 

There are some people who seem to think that even a discussion about amending the constitution these days is blasphemy.

 

I realize this is what you thought you were supposed to say. It does not, however, address what the author in the NYTs op ed said. Do you agree with them? If so, why? Do you feel the constitution gets in the way of your otherwise proclivity towards authoritarianism?

You generally associate yourself in posting with the lefty side. And it's the democrats, more than anyone else, who take advantage of organizational donations, but mostly from organizations like unions, and yes, corporate interests as well. Seen who on wall st they contribute to most? It in't republicans.

I'm sure, for you, there isn't any internal logic conflict, but for the rest of us, well, it's quite obvious.

In your world, it seems that government can adopt speech restrictions. Why is that? Because you do't want to be exposed to challenging speech? That does slot into the "cause mommy said so" BS lefties seem to have entirely adopted as their method these days.

 

I don't care what one person said in a letter to the editor of a newspaper that I don't read.

 

Untrue. But what folks like me generally aren't in favor of is folks like you using an amendment to take away things like free religion, free assembly, free speech, the right to protect ourselves from the state, to keep them out of our homes and conversations, etc. Do you rail for the removal of the 2nd amendment entirely? The fourth? The Fifth? The sixth? Where do you suppose your right to enslave the people comes from?

 

I think we need campaign finance reform.

Currently the first amendment as interpreted by the courts limits our ability to do that.

I want campaign finance reform, even if it means amending the first amendment.

I'm not sure why you assume I want to eliminate the entire bill of rights. That mentality is EXACTLY what i was talking about. If we even bring up amending the constitution, you guys go full on boogeyman,.

 

The sudden ostrich... of course... So why did you respond then? You seem to want to make sudden and impactful changes in other people's lives. And now you don't? That seems to be more conflicted than your initial post.

 

I responded because i wanted to say what i said. You are free to ignore me. A letter to the editor of the New York times isn't important.

 

There is this really awesome thing, called the legislature. try it there first. Do it in a way that respects the rights of the people. Try that. What could go wrong?

 

yes, it's called McCain Feingold. it was found to be unconstitutional.

Citizens United v/s the FEC

There's this awesome thing called history, it stops us from repeating ourselves.

 

It was. Because it is unconstitutional. But that doesn't stop legislation from being useful. Try better. I suppose you expect that only government provide the funding for political campaigns..... Cause, you know, patronage isn't a real thing, or ever was... Soooo laughable.

 

thanks for doing your own research, noone. britebart does tend to hyperbolize.

 

I'm sure you are cool with corporations being able to buy our elections, i'm not.

SuperPac's are bad for the country. We aren't getting rid of them without amending the constitution. They have only been around for about 15 years. Their impact on our country is easy to see.

But you keep pretending you have some idea about what you are talking about. It doesn't bother me.

 

I haven't heard one. The Constitution even lays out the process. You want to do that, get started.

Let us know how it goes.

 

All of your examples are the result of not following the Constitution. The Supreme Court walked away from strict constitutionalism long long ago.

 

What I find amazing about folks that post like this is the active refusal to actually understand the structural aspects of our government and how they are supposed to work. So, if you ignore the rules,.... stuff is easier. Just like Barry told the Russians it would be. A serious problem for the intellectually dishonest who practice this on these forums. It clearly isn't hard to spot. Just like the post above, where the real agenda is removing conservative funding from elections masked as an equity value statement. Either way, its still the same ol, cause "mommy said so" bs that the left have determined the rest of us must now simply accept as the holy writ that it is intended to replace...