The founding fathers have already rejected the attack on the Constitution, calling for ‘pack the courts’

newYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

It appears that we may finally come out of the campaign on the left to “pack the court” with a liberal majority. that’s good news. The problem is that the Left has expressed its anger on the Constitution itself as the root of all evil in our country.

In a New York Times essay, Harvard law professor Ryan D. Doerfler and Yale’s Samuel Moyen are calling for the Constitution to be “fundamentally changed” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” To fulfill this dubious purpose, they call for a move from “Pack the Court” to “Pack the States”. The attack on “constitutionality” is cool but these professors are not the first to slam our constitution as a curse of social justice.

New York Times column Called upon citizens to see the Constitution as the real enemy and insist on “fundamentally changing the basic rules of the game”. Attacks on our Constitution have become a matter of faith for the far left in recent years.

Most recently, Georgetown University Law School professor Rosa Brooks received praise for her appearance on MSNBC’s “The ReadOut”, after declaring that Americans were “slaves” of the US Constitution and that the Constitution itself was no longer for the country. there is a problem.

New York Times guest essay calls on liberals to bypass ‘broken’ constitution

CBS recently featured Boston University professor Ibram X Kendy, who declared that the Second Amendment was little more than a “right to enslave.”

MSNBC commentator and Nation Justice correspondent Eli Mistle has called the US Constitution “trash” and argued that we should ideally dump it. Mistle, who also writes for Above the Law, previously said that white, non-college-educated voters support Republicans because they care about “using their guns on black people and getting away with it”. .

Doerfler and Moyn make the same case for trying to pack the states. They emphasize that “the real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism.” Rather than assuming that the document produced the longest-lasting and most stable democratic system in history, the professors characterized it as a “text of a few centuries old” because it provided a stellar addition to their social and political agenda. stands as an obstacle. He suggests that the problem is that many liberals still believe in constitutionalism as opposed to raw majority power.

Some are calling for “popular democracy” as an alternative approach to governance. The term is often associated with “direct democracy”, where citizens have an unfiltered and direct say in government decisions. This was a model explicitly rejected by the framers in favor of our system of representative democracy.

In Federalist 10, Madison wrote:

Pure democracy has always been a spectacle of unrest and controversy; have ever been found to be inconsistent with personal safety or property rights; And in general they have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

Instead, he created a system by which public sentiment could be filtered or expressed through a small group of representatives, in order to quell and refine the popular impulse.

In addition to our system of representative democracy, we have institutions designed to resist popular impulses or demands. United States Supreme Court The prime example is in using elements such as life tenure to stand up against majority demands and what Madison called “the tyranny of the majority”.

That system has served us well. It was this anti-majoritarian role that allowed the court to ban interracial marriage, decriminalize homosexuality and protect the rights of the accused.

However, the constitutional process seeks to agree and compromise on key elements in the success and stability of our system through decades of political and social turmoil. Still, these professors complain that the Left has “little to show for it” and must now “fundamentally change the basic rules of the game.” Ultimately, he said, “it would be far better if liberal legislators could make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without bothering with the Constitution.” This is definitely correct. Without constitutionalism, then everything becomes a majoritarian muscle with little need to consider or compromise the views of minorities.

Therefore, the solution is not to “pack the court”, but to “pack the union with new states” in order to change the constitution and “rebuild” the society.

They are at least open and honest about their motivations and means. The essay reaffirms the view of critics that the Democrats’ push to create new states in Puerto Rico and D.C. is to secure an insurmountable majority for radical changes.

This is similar to Harvard professor Michael Klarman’s remarks to court packing two years ago and insisting that Democrats can change the system At least to guarantee Republicans will “never win another election” without giving up on their values. However, Klarman cautioned that “the Supreme Court can annul everything I describe” so the court must be pre-packaged to allow these changes to happen.

Democratic leaders have echoed these sentiments by questioning court packing and core institutions. Sen. Elizabeth Warren has declared the Supreme Court illegitimate and called on the Court to pack up opinions against “widely held public opinion”.

Click here to get Rai News

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also questioned the value of the institution: “How much do we benefit from the current structure? And I don’t think it does.”

The attack on “constitutionalism” says everything one needs to know about this campaign. The Constitution has long been the thing that has defined us. It is a shared covenant of trust not with the government but with each other. Irrespective of such constitutional rules, these professors want to break free from constitutional constraints in pushing for radical changes. It is so liberating that these professors may write that Congress should “openly defy” the Constitution “in order to achieve a more democratic order”. To accumulate such Orwellian doublespeak powers does little to shield the true purpose of this campaign, which Madison declared “must properly pronounce the definition of tyranny.”

Click here to get Fox News App

For those who try to stay ahead of the crowd, we are now moving beyond the Constitution. Now we have to “pack the states” to free ourselves from that strange constitution. After that, our “rebuilding” can begin. Ironically, however, we will find ourselves rediscovering the type of system that the Framers rejected some 250 years ago.

Click here to read more from Jonathan Turley