N.Y. Times features 2 law profs who want to shred U.S. Constitution

Two law professors are suggesting that the U.S. Constitution no longer is needed for American society, which they apparently believe would be better off if its majority could write its own laws when, how, and if it wants.

It is in a commentary in the New York Times that Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale proposed, “The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim American from constitutionalism.”

They make claims that the Constitution is broken and “undemocratic,” and it is that document that really is hindering “real” freedom and democracy.

Their writing, headlined, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” explained their premise was that when liberals “lose” at the Supreme Court, such as in the recent Dobbs decision assigning regulation of abortion to the states, they blame the result on a misreading of the Constitution.

But they charge that “struggling over the Constitution has proved a dead end,” and it should not be “reclaimed.”

The college teachers said, “The idea of constitutionalism is that there needs to be some higher law that is more difficult to change than the rest of the legal order. Having a constitution is about setting more sacrosanct rules than the ones the legislature can pass day to day.”

They said, “National constitutions have been associated with some set of basic freedoms and values that transient majorities might otherwise trample.”

report at Breitbart explains the two believe that even though progressives have tried to “reclaim” the document for years, they’ve got “agonizingly little” to show for their work.

They explained they would like a system where they would not have to check with the Constitution in order to get their way.

“It would be far better if liberal legislators could simply make a case for abortion and labor rights on their own merits without having to bother with the Constitution,” they wrote.

Changes should be allowed to be done more easily, they said, and one way to do that would be to pack the nation with states, as liberals already have suggested packing the Supreme Court with leftist judges – so leftists would always “win.”

“One way to get to this more democratic world is to pack the Union with new states,” they claimed. “Doing so would allow Americans to then use the formal amendment process to alter the basic rules of [politics] and break the false deadlock that the Constitution imposes through the Electoral College and Senate on the country, in which substantial majorities are foiled on issue after issue.”

They appeared not to address any sort of protections for blocs of minority voters, and the possibility that majorities could randomly violate their rights at will.

They blame the “foggy past” on some of the concepts in the Constitution, and suggested Congress could “openly defy” the document.

“A politics of the American future like this would make clear our ability to engage in the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way,” they insisted.

Latest News