Is Michael Jordan Trolling You? MJ Has a Secret X Account to Rage-Bait...
Tim Walz's Attempted 'Release the Files' Dunk on Trump/DOJ Was a Self-Awareness Faceplant...
Scott Jennings Revisits CNN Clash With Dem Attorney Wildly Wrong About Judge Hannah...
Our Gift to You This Holiday Season
Jim Acosta Reports Outside the Trump-Kennedy Center but Will NEVER Call It That...
U.S. Retaliates Against ISIS in Syria With Massive Airstrikes
Maria Shriver Gets a Lesson on 'Dignity' After Whining About the Trump-Kennedy Center
Buffet of Fresh News Breaking in Minnesota, Legacy Media is Reheating Leftovers From...
This Is the Way! Erika Kirk Rises Above the Hate, Trolls Joy Reid...
'PANIC MODE'! Tim Walz Says Trump's Weaponizing Federal Gov't Against MN Just Because...
Three Is a Tragic Number: WSJ Hits Bottom With ‘Throuple Trouble’ Interior Design...
Star Tribune's Previous Attempt to Debunk Trump's Claim About Scope of MN Fraud...
Vance Dance: MAGA Embraces White House ‘Soul Train’ AI Parody Video Being Shared...
Dems Rage After Woke Trans Surgeries Targeted by Trump Administration
JK Rowling TROUNCES Labour Party for Claiming to Protect Women... While Removing Their...

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

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement