Candace Owens Learns the HARD WAY That Calling Ben Shapiro a Parasite (and...
One Post PERFECTLY Sums Up the Democrats' Hilarious BACKFIRE After Pushing to Release...
Mogadishu Utopia? X Users Say It's Funded by Minnesota's Missing Billions in Welfare...
Somali Sheriff Says Now That We've Been Hired, It Means We're Working for...
Our Gift to You This Holiday Season
As Operations Move to Columbus, Officials Vow Not to Work With ICE
Scott Adams Thanks Perma-TDS Dems for Helping Perpetuate Trump's 'Unmatched Political Skil...
Minnesota AG Keith Ellison Posts Cringe-Inducing 'Scam Stopper Showdown' Video
Photographer Critiques Vanity Fair's Photos of Trump Administration Officials
City of St. Paul Tells ICE to Cease and Desist Using City Parking...
Outrageous Stalking of ICE Ends with Epic Warning: Follow Us Again and You're...
JFK's Unknown Niece Vows to Remove Trump's Name From Building With a Pickaxe
Tara Palmeri Asks If It’s a Coincidence Trump’s DOJ Released the Epstein Photos...
Outgoing DC Police Chief Has Meltdown and a Biblical Message for the Haters
Heartbreaking Cat Theft: Amazon Delivery Man Snatches Piper by the Scruff, Leaves Family...

Now the Constitution Is Dangerous and We Need a New One

Twitchy

We're old enough to remember when President Barack Obama admitted that he wanted gun control, but he was "constrained" by the Constitution. At the Democratic National Convention, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson said that we need to "reimagine" democracy as something "more revolutionary than what our founders put down on that little piece of paper." Just yesterday, MSNBC's Chris Hayes said the Electoral College was "a national suicide pact."

Advertisement

The Constitution sure keeps getting in the way of what Democrats want to do. That's why it's not surprising that the New York Times is entertaining the idea that the Constitution is dangerous.

Jennifer Szalai writes in a review of USC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's new book, "No Democracy Lasts Forever":

Originalists, as these scholars call themselves, say they are simply reacting to decades of “overreach” by “activist” judges. Liberal critics counter that interpreting the law according to what the founders (supposedly) wanted amounts to an end run around protecting and promoting a multiracial democracy. The attorney and columnist Madiba K. Dennie argues that originalists’ canny use of apolitical language ensnares liberals into treating originalism as coherent jurisprudence, even when it functions more like an “ideology.” Far from encouraging “judicial restraint,” she writes in “The Originalism Trap,” originalism is much more effective in “restraining judges from doing good things.”

Advertisement

Define "good things."

Chemerinsky stopped by MSNBC's "Morning Joe" to promote his book and argue that America needs a new Constitution:

"… is undermining democracy."

This is the dean of Berkeley's law school.

Advertisement

Excellent point.

You're probably not getting your way 100 percent of the time.

Advertisement

This is another one of those issues that's become partisan. You never hear Republicans calling for a "reimagining" of the Constitution; it's always Democrats who want to scrap all the founding documents and start from scratch (to enshrine Marxism).

***

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Twitchy Videos