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.
The left makes winning the Senate more difficult because Senators are essentially elected by popular vote. Even in deep red states, there are enough blue pockets with Democrat machines capable of manufacturing votes, even exceeding the total number of registered voters in a precinct if that’s what it takes for a win . . .
Hey, without a constitution or other limiting document (as recommended by the editorialists), we certainly could. Just get enough people to agree to do so. And if that’s too hard, set up reasons people who like the New York Times don’t get to vote on the subject. Or set up a carefully selected group of “experts” to deem it too “controversial” or “disinformation” or something, and then abolish any entity or person those “experts” declare “controversial” or “disinformation.”
Of course that is where they are headed and even those who think they’ll be in charge won’t be. We can’t know who will be in charge after the power struggle because it will be the most ruthless, able, clever who gets to impose it and they don’t even need the Chinese to do it for them. Once the free market Republic is destroyed the Chinese won’t even need them.
I am wondering if perhaps this is a test of just how stupid are the American People?
Hey! Let’s abolish all our rights and have the Garland Secret Police ransack all our houses! Sounds like a great plan. Right.
Anyone who votes for any Democrat from now on should be roundly and publicly humiliated from their abject stupidity and callous indifference to the horrid suffering they are causing.
I am rereading CS Lewis” the Abolition of Man because someone here suggested it, but I don’t remember who or when. The end of the first chapter is relevant to everything that goes on here.
“We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
This reminds me of Thomas Freidman’s famous fantasies about being ruled by a Chinese-style benevolent dictator, who would only do things that Freidman approves of.
Good points. I might be simplifying when I object to the “…forced to…” argument, but I believe the Op Ed author’s point is meant to shed doubt on the constitution’s legitimacy. My opinion is that we wouldn’t have a country without the Bill of Rights.
As to the constitutional convention, I’m presuming (with no hyperbole, be assured) that the whole thing would be up for grabs; I believe that, in the current political environment such action would be used to do away with the Constitution itself. I don’t see the need for it – at the present time and don’t trust anyone to mess with it. Antifa would mobilize to make sure Amendments 1-3 were repealed (so they, as the Federal SS under President AOC, could live in my house, prevent me from speaking my mind, and I couldn’t drive ‘em away under arms).
(Not clipping the whole exchange due to word limits.)
How do you think that would happen? Again, Article V is clear on what happens with a convention to propose amendments. Whatever comes out of the convention would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the States, just as proposed amendments coming out of Congress must be ratified by 3/4 of the States.
How is a convention different? Do you really think 38 States will ratify amendments that do away with the Constitution? I note that at least 60% of the State legislatures are controlled by Republicans, in whole or in part. I think any situation where 3/4 of the States ratify amendments that do away with the COTUS is one where everything has already gone to hell and we may as well start shooting.
Well, Mr.-Cup-is-Half-Full, I am just imagining your worst-case scenario being more of a possibility in these uncertain times.
It is really odd you were disdainful of someone saying Trump might be locked up could be the trigger, but you seem to think a convention might still be an issue, even when it has been explained to you. With sarcasm, I might add.
Strange indeed.
Voters? What do they have to do with it? Once you’ve made DC into the imperial city by giving each neighborhood senators, the voters in the rest of America are irrelevant to political calculations.
Put it another way. Once Congress, by simple majority, admits a bogus 127 states to represent each of DC’s neighborhoods, how exactly are they going to guarantee those new senators will amend the constitution in the direction that they want? The simple majority in congress is now no longer relevant; a convention of the 127 states (they invited the others but the post office is so slow and those guys couldn’t make it to DC in time. Oh well, we’ve got a supermajority of the now 177 states; their votes aren’t relevant.) can write any amendments they please. In short, By following this scheme Congress would transform America into a representative republic into an imperium ruled by an elite consisting of, in the most democratic possibility, the voters of the 127 DC neighborhoods.
I can’t imagine that happening without a civil war ensuing.
But it hasn’t happened yet. I’m saying that if you have a bunch of Democrats running for election and one of their campaign promises is to take away any say that you have and put everlasting control of the Senate in the hands of the residents of Washington, even some Democrats are going to feel queasy about that. And a whole lot of independents who sometimes vote D and sometimes vote R are going to be repulsed by it. I do not envision Democrats enacting legislation to do this without ever having campaigned on it, and campaigning on this would be a losing strategy.
Lucky for us that congressmen are always so forthright with the voters about what they actually plan to do while in office. I agree that this scheme is dead in the water except as clickbait for the New York Times, but even if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t work out like they hope.
Oh come on, they won’t SAY that they’ll do that! Except in/around DC of course.
Let us say that this plan was kept under wraps, then passed quickly. Yay for the Democratic party, they own the Senate in perpetuity! But the bulk of those senators are going to want to run for re-election. What are their voters going to think about totally giving away their states’ say in anything, at least on the Senate side?
As Republicans, would you re-elect a Republican to the Senate who voted for a plan that ensured perpetual Republican control of the Senate, but made your state — and all other states — irrelevant? I suspect senators place a higher priority on keeping their job than on loyalty to the party.
Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. [link]
OK, then. I guess we don’t have to concern ourselves with matter of policy and laws, because we are completely powerless.
The opposing party (the erstwhile gOp) to the clear democrat stealing of the 2020 POTUS election (and subsequent GA Senate run-off) shrugged and didn’t give a damn about fighting it. Rather, they conspired with the dems to make such fight a criminal offense. This kind of took the “power” away from ‘We The People’ to do anything about such vote counting treachery.