Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
Eliminating the Constitution

Eliminating the Constitution

Last updated on: August 31, 2022 at 8:32 am by Gene Veith

0 Comments

Eliminating the Constitution 2022-08-31T08:32:00-04:00 Gene Veith

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Progressives are accusing conservatives promoting voting security as “attacking our democracy.” And they brand Trump supporters who rioted at the Capitol as “insurrectionists” who tried to “overthrow our government.” But some progressives are openly calling for the overthrow of our government. They are doing so by advocating the elimination of our Constitution and replacing it with a system of government that they think will better advance their causes.

We have blogged about proposals to replace our Constitution before. But now there are calls to eliminate all constitutions in favor of pure majority-rules democracy.

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, in article on the subject, cites MSNBC commentator and the Nation’s correspondent Elie Mystal who called the Constitution “trash.” He also cited Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks for saying that we are “slaves” to the Constitution, which has become the problem for our country.

Their main complaint and that of other progressives is that the Constitution was “written by slave owners.” Such an ad hominem argument is not, strictly speaking, factual, since the Constitution is a collectively written document originally ratified by abolitionist representatives as well as slave owners and amended over the course of American history. Those who read the Constitution will find that the 13th Amendment (1865) eliminates slavery, the 14th Amendment (1868) affirms the rights of all Americans regardless of race, and the 15th Amendment (1870) forbids limiting the right to vote on account of race.

But Turley brings up a more sophisticated critique of the Constitution and of American “Constitutionalism.” The New York Times recently published an opinion piece by Harvard law professor Ryan D. Doerfler and Yale law professor Samuel Moyn entitled The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed.

The authors chastise their fellow liberals for trying to “reclaim” the Constitution with progressive legal theories or tinkering with the Supreme Court or making other changes. “The real need,” they say, “is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism.”

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. . . .

But constitutions — especially the broken one we have now — inevitably orient us to the past and misdirect the present into a dispute over what people agreed on once upon a time, not on what the present and future demand for and from those who live now. This aids the right, which insists on sticking with what it claims to be the original meaning of the past. . . .

One reason for these woeful outcomes is that our current Constitution is inadequate, which is why it serves reactionaries so well. Starting with a text that is famously undemocratic, progressives are forced to navigate hard-wired features, like the Electoral College and the Senate, designed as impediments to redistributive change while drawing on much vaguer and more malleable resources like commitments to due process and equal protection. . . .

By leaving democracy hostage to constraints that are harder to change than the rest of the legal order, constitutionalism of any sort demands extraordinary consensus for meaningful progress.

This mindset would work against the project some progressives are pursuing of writing a new constitution, since that too would involve “constitutionalism.” What Doerfler and Moyn advocate in their essay is pure democracy, governance by statute, based on majoritarian rule alone. They exhibit a naive assumption that the majority at any given time will be progressive and will advance the progressive agenda. Sometimes a majority of Americans vote for Barack Obama and sometimes a majority vote for Ronald Reagan. One majoritarian government would likely dismantle the achievements of the previous government.

Even more problematic is that pure majority rule has no provision to protect the rights of minorities. Including the racial minorities progressives profess to defend. Without an overarching system of legal rights, which can overrule particular majority-passed laws–that is to say, without constitutionalism–minorities would have no protections whatsoever.

The authors say that we can break out of constitutionalism not by packing the Supreme Court–which continues to play the constitutionalist game–but to “pack the Union with new states.”

That link is to an astonishing article in the Harvard Law Review that advocates not just admitting the District of Columbia as a state, which can be done by a majority vote in Congress, but admitting its 127 neighborhoods as separate states! After all, the author frankly states, D.C. is reliably Democratic. Those 127 new states, or perhaps fewer, grouped into different configurations but enough to constitute with other blue states 3/4 of the states necessary to amend the Constitution, would then pass amendments that would dismantle constitutionalism by turning the Senate into an advisory body like the House of Lords and make other changes to turn America into a pure democracy.

Again, the naiveté is breath-taking. Those 127 states, under the current constitution, would have 254 senators and 255 electoral votes! The District of Columbia would have complete dominion over all of the other 50 states. Why would they give that up?

Plus, the talk of states raises the question of what would become of them? Would there still be state and local governments, each governed by majority of voters? If so, progressives would not like what some states would likely vote to do. Or is the idea that the whole nation would vote on laws for everybody? In which case, there would be no need for states at all. But that would effectively cut off local citizens from the ruling government, which would be far away and many times more powerful. This undermines the very virtues of democracy, in which people have a say in their government and choose their rulers. D.C., the big cities, and the populous coasts would have unlimited power, but citizens in flyover country would be cut off from democracy. This would be even worse in the absence of “constitutionalist” rights and processes to protect citizens and to sort out the jurisdictions.

Notice how this movement among progressives accounts for the aptly-named Democrats’ rhetoric on the “threats to democracy.” Not threats to the Constitution, though politicians in that party will have sworn to “protect and defend” that document in their oaths of office, nor threats to individual rights. Democracy is separable from those concepts in the minds of many progressives, and they are willing to sacrifice them accordingly.

Prof. Turley gives other problems with eliminating “constitutionalism” in favor of pure democracy. He quotes James Madison, the father of American “constitutionalism””

Pure democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. (Federalist 10)

Furthermore, as Plato notes, drawing on the history of Greek city states, pure democracies almost always devolve into tyranny. But perhaps, for some on the Left, that would be not a bug but a feature.

HT: Paul Veith

Image by Mara_J via depositphotos.com, attributed free license

Government

Law

Politics

anti-constitutionalism

constitutionalism

democracy

Democratic Party

opposition to Constitution

progressives

U. S. Constitution

Previous Post

August 30, 2022

The "Fictionalist" Approach to Religion

Next Post

September 1, 2022 Resolution and Resistance in Teaching Reading

Recent Comments

0 | Leave a Comment

"Apropos to the post on Gen Z a couple days ago: "If you want the ..."

Steve Bauer

Luther on Tools

"“Don't eat with your hands, son, use your entrenching tool.”"

reg

Luther on Tools

"You serious, Clark?"

reg

Luther on Tools

"And all tools are made of media, thus making language and literature a tool (see, ..."

Steve Bauer

Luther on Tools

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category America Apologetics Art baseball Bible Blog Christ Church crime Culture Economics Education Ethics Family Food Football Government History Holidays Holy Week Humor International Islam Language Law Life Issues Literature Media Medicine Movies Music Nature News Personal Philosophy Politics psychology Reformation Religions Sacraments Science sex Social Science Sports technology television terrorism Theology Uncategorized Vocation war

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Samuel's mother, who prayed for a child at Shiloh?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peninnah Rebekah Hannah Leah

Books by This Author Books by Gene Veith

See All Titles »