Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
New York Times: Let’s Abolish the Constitution
The TL;DR version of this editorial is “The US Constitution is an impediment to our grand socialist utopia. We should get rid of it and decide everything by majoritarian rule.” It’s behind a paywall, just so you know. I’ll put an excerpt at the bottom. Under this scheme, there would be no Bill of Rights; nothing to stop the Government from censoring speech, banning religion, or even breaking down your door in the middle of the night and making you disappear. Nothing except the presumed goodness and decency of elected politicians. This is how the left wants it to be.
This article was actually cited by Trump-Hating NRO contributor Dan McLaughlin in an argument with Bull-worker Stephen Hayes Jim Swift. Swift was arguing that Never-Trumpers like McLaughlin were wimps because they refuse to vote for Democrats to spite Trump. McLaughlin countered that voting for Democrats is voting to empower radical positions like the one espoused in the New York Times. “Sorry, I’m not gonna sign up with the people who argue that we need to get rid of the United States Constitution.” He is correct on this point.
Democrats can’t be trusted with any of our institutions. They constantly push changes to the fundamental rules to undermine our democratic system. They attack the legitimacy of our elections & system at the drop of a hat.
There really are no moderate Democrats anymore. When push came to shove, Manchin and Sinema voted the way Chuck Schumer told them to. Democrats are in lockstep on radical climate policies, outlawing voter ID and other protections of election integrity, open borders/mass immigration, use of public schools as indoctrination centers for their social agenda, outlawing or crippling alternatives to public schools (except for the very wealthy), and abortion up until the hour of birth.
And some people who call themselves “conservatives” and “patriots” will vote to empower this agenda out of sheer spite.
I am shocked (!) to see that the authors “teach law” at Harvard and Yale.
As shocked as Captain Renault was to find that gambling was going in at Ric’s!
A bit more from the op-ed:
In support of this, the article links to a law review article advancing one of the wackiest ideas you’ll ever see. And that’s saying a lot these days.
Remember stuff like this any time a “progressive” accuses you of having extremist views.
Would anyone be shocked (!) if secession were back on the table?
Capitalist pigs . . .
The necessity of the protections of due process and equality before the law, to say nothing of the checks and balances so carefully written into the Consitution, seems no longer to be even understood, let alone accepted, by far too many among what we used to call the “educated.” John Hinderaker today called the NYT piece “one of the stupidest things I have ever read.” Stupid, yes, but also poisonous. Someone needs to remind these great legal minds that they are playing with fire, both because there are people who will fight for those protections, and because the revolution always eats its own.
The good news is that college attendance is down, and may remain down.
If the left went that far to have a clear majority in Senate, what would keep various conservative states from deciding to split into hundreds of new “states?” It’s like with packing the Supreme Court. People think they’ve figured out some trick to stack the deck, forgetting that sometimes the opposition party gets to deal the cards.
Exactly right (although there are probably plans afoot to address the existence of the “opposition party”).
Amen! I’ve replied to some folks questioning due process on Twitter that due process is one of the greatest achievements of Western Civilization. (Though more specifically English law and civilization). Such a great inheritance should not be thrown away.
AFAIK, it’s not up to the states but to Congress. That scheme presupposes that Democrats are in control, as they are now.
We went through this once before. It can happen again.
Good point. But I wonder how many Democratic voters would give their blessing to a scheme that gives the voters of the 23rd largest city in the country absolute control over the Senate?
Once again, it’s time to compare the combined faculties of Harvard and Yale with the first thousand names in the Boston telephone directory.
The stupidity is a consequence of the poison.
They can’t just do it on their own, Congress has to approve.
I think plenty of them, since they never seem to think anything bad can come of what they vote for.
Good commentary on this at Powerline.
Nah, not really. Nothing is behind a paywall for those in the know.
https://archive.ph/HcA9o
Learn to use all available weapons to defeat your enemy.
I imagine that, had I written something “clever” like that in American Civ 1, Professor H (my great undergrad history teacher) would have put a big, red, smiley face next to the “D” this deserved.
Isn’t the Bill of Rights – also known as the first ten Amendments to the Constitution part of the handiwork?
I had a conversation the other day with a “kookie” co-worker. Said kook was seriously worried about Trump’s imminent incarceration starting a civil war. I countered with “for what?” and “with what”? He then sputtered as I explained that there wasn’t a civil war over Nixon, and, how soon we forget… Clinton, and the Gore vs. Bush. People were pissed, sure, but they all have to go to work the next day and our money’s got to stay good. I also expressed doubt that Trump would get indicted, but there’s the proverbial ham sandwich analogy.
I did remark that what I thought would start a civil war would be a Federal Constitutional Convention. And that those of us who’ve sworn in the past and present to defend it, should – and I know that I would.
This article, in a newspaper many folks take seriously, is part of what’s now an open probing mission by the enemies of America.
The left is insane and it’s not going to get better. I suppose it could just be historical ignorance and personal greed. Ignorance not just of history but of mankind anywhere in any form If they actually believed what they say why wouldn’t they just let us lesser stupid people form our own republic? We could seperate and agree to trade with them freely. If they have the right ideas what could go wrong for them? We’d be foreign so could develop our own oil. If we can’t defeat them in an election that is exactly what we’ll have to do.
What? You don’t think we can fix this by “voting for the right people next time.”
I can talk on why it can spark a war. If the ruling class tells half the century that their speech does not count, and their votes don’t count, and there is nothing they can do, that is how you do it. I have no idea what the actual spark will be.
But.
If the pathway does not change, Concord 1775 is coming.
I am not sure I understand you other comments. Are you saying that a Constitutional Convention, called by the states, would not only provoke a Civil War, but that people in the military would be right to oppose it?
What they see as bugs are the actual features. They should try studying law, instead of teaching it.
Your history teacher should know that several of the states would not ratify the Constitution unless a Bill of Rights were added as amendments as soon as COTUS took effect. Heck, you should know that as well. You could even look it up.
(Yes, I know your point is that the BoR was crafted by (generally) the some men who wrote the COTUS. But those same men thought a BoR was redundant.)
You do know that Article V allows the States to apply for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, right? And that upon application of 2/3 of the several States, Congress must call the convention? And that any proposed amendments coming out of such a convention must be ratified by 3/4 of the several States, just as those poposed by Congress must be? You know all this, right?
So why would any amendments that result from that process, which requires extensive consensus among the States, kick off a civil war? Why don’t amendments originating with Congress kick off a CW? Show your work.
They argue that the whole concept of “constitutionalism“ is the problem. So it would seem that in the view of the editorial writers there is(or should be) no “rule of law” just mob rule. Which makes scenes like Jan6 commonplace and perfectly acceptable.
How long do the “principled conservatives” at the Bulwark declare the same?
They know how to control mobs so there won’t be mob rule. Hungry people who get crushed if they misbehave is how it works. It’s called totalitarianism and it makes most people poor and despondent, but why should those who run things care? Of course, it doesn’t even work for them either, those who take over will be the most ruthless and able. These people are just fools and in a place as large and diverse as the US it will disintegrate and we’ll get to start over. Poor, in pieces but we’ll be reborn. Maybe even some of our kids or grand kids will see it.
I say, “Good for them!” They are bringing honesty to the discussion.
The objectives of Progressivism (which is what I presume they mean by “liberal”) since at least as early as President Wilson are fundamentally opposed to the concepts of individual liberty, voluntary associations and actions, and self-governance expressed in the Declaration of Independence and that undergird the structure of the United States Constitution. Let’s openly discuss whether we really want to abandon the basic concept of self-governance and join all of the historical and current systems that have a ruling class of people that lord that ruling status over everyone else.
That the editorialists oppose the very concept of a constitution is where they really should be challenged, but challenged on substance and not just dismissed. Their opening thesis is that there should be no “higher law” to which government must adhere when setting new laws in place. If you have no structure of governance and no limitations on the types of laws that may be enacted, you may not end up with majoritarian mob rule. You may end up with rule by the strong individual (dictator) or oligarchy.
I have a better idea. Let’s abolish the OLD Gray ‘Lady’.
It’s a toss-up to say which is worse.