New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution (but Donald Trump's the Dictator)

[Doc7505]

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution ​

(but Donald Trump's the Dictator)​

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution (but Donald Trump's the Dictator)

twitchy.com

30 Sep 2024 ~~ By Amy Curtis

When the Left tells you who they are, believe them. John Kerry said the First Amendment is a 'roadblock' to instituting their agenda, and needs to be curtailed to stop 'misinformation' and build a 'consensus'. This is their way of saying you'll either agree with the Leftist agenda or they'll shut you up and punish you.
So much freedom, though.
Obama called the Constitution a barrier.
It's a theme.
Here's The New Yorker calling for the torching of the Constitution:

​

Wow.
Abandoned the Constitution.
They actually said it.
~Snip~
They want to destroy America. And this is how they planned to do it.

​

Commentary:
It has been a pillar of "Progressive" ideology, since turn of the 20th Century that the Constitution is outdated and a barrier to "Progress". From Woodrow Wilson, a foremost archetict of "Progressivism" (before and after he became President", written in 1897

Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none. ​

— Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy, 1887​

This analysis is against the whole structure of the Constitution as limiting the power of the state; No Bill of Rights; No Federalism; No balancing of state power against federal power;
No protection of individuals against the power of the government.
The Neo-Marxist Left will be emboldened at some point to begin (or rather ramp up severely) violating constitutional rights- regardless of what the SC rules- There are 1000’s of peaceful people who have been arrested, imprisoned, and sent to solitary for years who did nothing wrong- worse is coming it seems-
Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America"and destruction of the U.S. Constitution including it's Amendements continues.

 

[progressive hunter]

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution ​

(but Donald Trump's the Dictator)​

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution (but Donald Trump's the Dictator)

twitchy.com

30 Sep 2024 ~~ By Amy Curtis

When the Left tells you who they are, believe them. John Kerry said the First Amendment is a 'roadblock' to instituting their agenda, and needs to be curtailed to stop 'misinformation' and build a 'consensus'. This is their way of saying you'll either agree with the Leftist agenda or they'll shut you up and punish you.
So much freedom, though.
Obama called the Constitution a barrier.
It's a theme.
Here's The New Yorker calling for the torching of the Constitution:

​

Wow.
Abandoned the Constitution.
They actually said it.
~Snip~
They want to destroy America. And this is how they planned to do it.

​

Commentary:
It has been a pillar of "Progressive" ideology, since turn of the 20th Century that the Constitution is outdated and a barrier to "Progress". From Woodrow Wilson, a foremost archetict of "Progressivism" (before and after he became President", written in 1897

Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none. ​

— Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy, 1887​

This analysis is against the whole structure of the Constitution as limiting the power of the state; No Bill of Rights; No Federalism; No balancing of state power against federal power;
No protection of individuals against the power of the government.
The Neo-Marxist Left will be emboldened at some point to begin (or rather ramp up severely) violating constitutional rights- regardless of what the SC rules- There are 1000’s of peaceful people who have been arrested, imprisoned, and sent to solitary for years who did nothing wrong- worse is coming it seems-
Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America"and destruction of the U.S. Constitution including it's Amendements continues.

John Kerry: First Amendment stands as a major block

“But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer it out of existence,” Kerry said...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[1srelluc]

Blah, failed rag trying to be relevant.

 

[lafayette]

John Kerry: First Amendment stands as a major block
“But, look, if people go to only one source, and the source they go to is sick and has an agenda, and they’re putting out disinformation, our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer it out of existence,” Kerry said...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Rambunctious]

Hillary calls for reeducation camps... John Kerry calls for ending the 1st amendment... and now this... a left wing rag calling to burn the US constitution.....
Anymore stupid questions libs on which side hates democracy?...

 

[berg80]

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution ​

(but Donald Trump's the Dictator)​

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution (but Donald Trump's the Dictator)

twitchy.com

30 Sep 2024 ~~ By Amy Curtis

When the Left tells you who they are, believe them. John Kerry said the First Amendment is a 'roadblock' to instituting their agenda, and needs to be curtailed to stop 'misinformation' and build a 'consensus'. This is their way of saying you'll either agree with the Leftist agenda or they'll shut you up and punish you.
So much freedom, though.
Obama called the Constitution a barrier.
It's a theme.
Here's The New Yorker calling for the torching of the Constitution:

​

Wow.
Abandoned the Constitution.
They actually said it.
~Snip~
They want to destroy America. And this is how they planned to do it.

​

Commentary:
It has been a pillar of "Progressive" ideology, since turn of the 20th Century that the Constitution is outdated and a barrier to "Progress". From Woodrow Wilson, a foremost archetict of "Progressivism" (before and after he became President", written in 1897

Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none. ​

— Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy, 1887​

This analysis is against the whole structure of the Constitution as limiting the power of the state; No Bill of Rights; No Federalism; No balancing of state power against federal power;
No protection of individuals against the power of the government.
The Neo-Marxist Left will be emboldened at some point to begin (or rather ramp up severely) violating constitutional rights- regardless of what the SC rules- There are 1000’s of peaceful people who have been arrested, imprisoned, and sent to solitary for years who did nothing wrong- worse is coming it seems-
Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America"and destruction of the U.S. Constitution including it's Amendements continues.

The New Yorker said no such thing. A writer who contributes to the New Yorker wrote a book titled, "No Democracy Lasts Forever."

Chemerinsky had little to say that was critical of the Constitution, and he praised the difficulty of amending it. Something like 11,848 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789. (You can examine them on Jill Lepore’s Amend Project Web site.) Congress has ratified only thirty-three by the required two-thirds majority, and only twenty-seven were then ratified by three-quarters of the states, becoming law. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written by James Madison to help the Constitution secure ratification, so they are essentially part of the Constitution itself, and two of those which followed are the prohibition amendment and its repeal—which nets fifteen amendments in two hundred and thirty-three years.

Isn’t this undemocratic, sticking us with a dead-hand document that we can’t change when the times do? Not at all, Chemerinsky explained. The reason the Constitution was made difficult to amend is the tyranny-of-the-majority problem. In times of crisis, majorities may want to suspend individual liberties, and the Constitution makes it very hard for them to do this (which doesn’t mean that it has never been done). “The Constitution is society’s attempt to protect itself from itself,” Chemerinsky concluded.

That was then. Chemerinsky’s new book is “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States” (Liveright), and the difficulty of amending the Constitution is Exhibit A. “The framers of the Constitution went too far in preventing amendments,” he now argues. As a result, we are stuck with a set of rules which not only makes addressing political problems harder but is itself responsible for many of the political problems we need to address. The Constitution’s “very existence as a largely unchanged document has become a sledgehammer wielded by a minority to prop up a system that engenders polarization and festering national discord,” he says. Chemerinsky doesn’t just want to amend the Constitution, either. He wants us to throw it out and come up with a new one.

Is It Time to Torch the Constitution?

Some scholars say that it’s to blame for our political dysfunction—and that we need to start over.

www.newyorker.com

Try to get the story right next time, cuck.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The New Yorker said no such thing. A writer who contributes to the New Yorker wrote a book titled, "No Democracy Lasts Forever."

Chemerinsky had little to say that was critical of the Constitution, and he praised the difficulty of amending it. Something like 11,848 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789. (You can examine them on Jill Lepore’s Amend Project Web site.) Congress has ratified only thirty-three by the required two-thirds majority, and only twenty-seven were then ratified by three-quarters of the states, becoming law. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written by James Madison to help the Constitution secure ratification, so they are essentially part of the Constitution itself, and two of those which followed are the prohibition amendment and its repeal—which nets fifteen amendments in two hundred and thirty-three years.

Isn’t this undemocratic, sticking us with a dead-hand document that we can’t change when the times do? Not at all, Chemerinsky explained. The reason the Constitution was made difficult to amend is the tyranny-of-the-majority problem. In times of crisis, majorities may want to suspend individual liberties, and the Constitution makes it very hard for them to do this (which doesn’t mean that it has never been done). “The Constitution is society’s attempt to protect itself from itself,” Chemerinsky concluded.

That was then. Chemerinsky’s new book is “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States” (Liveright), and the difficulty of amending the Constitution is Exhibit A. “The framers of the Constitution went too far in preventing amendments,” he now argues. As a result, we are stuck with a set of rules which not only makes addressing political problems harder but is itself responsible for many of the political problems we need to address. The Constitution’s “very existence as a largely unchanged document has become a sledgehammer wielded by a minority to prop up a system that engenders polarization and festering national discord,” he says. Chemerinsky doesn’t just want to amend the Constitution, either. He wants us to throw it out and come up with a new one.

Is It Time to Torch the Constitution?

Some scholars say that it’s to blame for our political dysfunction—and that we need to start over.

www.newyorker.com

Try to get the story right next time, cuck.

GASLIGHT ALERT

 

[lafayette]

GASLIGHT ALERT

 

[Independent thinker]

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution ​

(but Donald Trump's the Dictator)​

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution (but Donald Trump's the Dictator)

twitchy.com

30 Sep 2024 ~~ By Amy Curtis

When the Left tells you who they are, believe them. John Kerry said the First Amendment is a 'roadblock' to instituting their agenda, and needs to be curtailed to stop 'misinformation' and build a 'consensus'. This is their way of saying you'll either agree with the Leftist agenda or they'll shut you up and punish you.
So much freedom, though.
Obama called the Constitution a barrier.
It's a theme.
Here's The New Yorker calling for the torching of the Constitution:

​

Wow.
Abandoned the Constitution.
They actually said it.
~Snip~
They want to destroy America. And this is how they planned to do it.

​

Commentary:
It has been a pillar of "Progressive" ideology, since turn of the 20th Century that the Constitution is outdated and a barrier to "Progress". From Woodrow Wilson, a foremost archetict of "Progressivism" (before and after he became President", written in 1897

Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none. ​

— Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy, 1887​

This analysis is against the whole structure of the Constitution as limiting the power of the state; No Bill of Rights; No Federalism; No balancing of state power against federal power;
No protection of individuals against the power of the government.
The Neo-Marxist Left will be emboldened at some point to begin (or rather ramp up severely) violating constitutional rights- regardless of what the SC rules- There are 1000’s of peaceful people who have been arrested, imprisoned, and sent to solitary for years who did nothing wrong- worse is coming it seems-
Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America"and destruction of the U.S. Constitution including it's Amendements continues.

Democrats have never cared about the Constitution. Mob rule is what they want.

 

[SeaMajor7]

The subverted demented LEFT are frustrated as to getting around this pesky Constitution.
These neo-Marxists apparently forget that MASS-MURDER is required to establish communist regimes.
With big-pharma and the "vaccination" cabal, perhaps they haven't forgotten after all....

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Looks like the communists are complaining that the Constitution makes it hard to change the republic into a communist tyranny.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

louis menand is a delusional totalitarian crackpot

 

[lafayette]

MAGA is beginning a flat spin to apparent defeat.

Their vitriol will become louder and more vulgar to election day.

 

[Lesh]

The New Yorker said no such thing. A writer who contributes to the New Yorker wrote a book titled, "No Democracy Lasts Forever."

Chemerinsky had little to say that was critical of the Constitution, and he praised the difficulty of amending it. Something like 11,848 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789. (You can examine them on Jill Lepore’s Amend Project Web site.) Congress has ratified only thirty-three by the required two-thirds majority, and only twenty-seven were then ratified by three-quarters of the states, becoming law. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were written by James Madison to help the Constitution secure ratification, so they are essentially part of the Constitution itself, and two of those which followed are the prohibition amendment and its repeal—which nets fifteen amendments in two hundred and thirty-three years.

Isn’t this undemocratic, sticking us with a dead-hand document that we can’t change when the times do? Not at all, Chemerinsky explained. The reason the Constitution was made difficult to amend is the tyranny-of-the-majority problem. In times of crisis, majorities may want to suspend individual liberties, and the Constitution makes it very hard for them to do this (which doesn’t mean that it has never been done). “The Constitution is society’s attempt to protect itself from itself,” Chemerinsky concluded.

That was then. Chemerinsky’s new book is “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States” (Liveright), and the difficulty of amending the Constitution is Exhibit A. “The framers of the Constitution went too far in preventing amendments,” he now argues. As a result, we are stuck with a set of rules which not only makes addressing political problems harder but is itself responsible for many of the political problems we need to address. The Constitution’s “very existence as a largely unchanged document has become a sledgehammer wielded by a minority to prop up a system that engenders polarization and festering national discord,” he says. Chemerinsky doesn’t just want to amend the Constitution, either. He wants us to throw it out and come up with a new one.

Is It Time to Torch the Constitution?

Some scholars say that it’s to blame for our political dysfunction—and that we need to start over.

www.newyorker.com

Try to get the story right next time, cuck.

So neither the New Yorker nor the author of article in question want to “torch the Constitution “. In fact quite the opposite.

But some asshole on twatter takes a phrase out of context know that Trumper bumpkins will run with it without checking

 

[frigidweirdo]

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution ​

(but Donald Trump's the Dictator)​

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution (but Donald Trump's the Dictator)

twitchy.com

30 Sep 2024 ~~ By Amy Curtis

When the Left tells you who they are, believe them. John Kerry said the First Amendment is a 'roadblock' to instituting their agenda, and needs to be curtailed to stop 'misinformation' and build a 'consensus'. This is their way of saying you'll either agree with the Leftist agenda or they'll shut you up and punish you.
So much freedom, though.
Obama called the Constitution a barrier.
It's a theme.
Here's The New Yorker calling for the torching of the Constitution:

​

Wow.
Abandoned the Constitution.
They actually said it.
~Snip~
They want to destroy America. And this is how they planned to do it.

​

Commentary:
It has been a pillar of "Progressive" ideology, since turn of the 20th Century that the Constitution is outdated and a barrier to "Progress". From Woodrow Wilson, a foremost archetict of "Progressivism" (before and after he became President", written in 1897

Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy are almost if not quite one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none. ​

— Woodrow Wilson, Socialism and Democracy, 1887​

This analysis is against the whole structure of the Constitution as limiting the power of the state; No Bill of Rights; No Federalism; No balancing of state power against federal power;
No protection of individuals against the power of the government.
The Neo-Marxist Left will be emboldened at some point to begin (or rather ramp up severely) violating constitutional rights- regardless of what the SC rules- There are 1000’s of peaceful people who have been arrested, imprisoned, and sent to solitary for years who did nothing wrong- worse is coming it seems-
Obama's "Fundamental Transformation of America"and destruction of the U.S. Constitution including it's Amendements continues.

Seems they're talking about changing the US Constitution so that it works in the 21st century.

I agree. Yes, they used the term "torch", probably as a reference to torches lighting the way of liberty or whatever symbolism....

They're not talking about turning the US into a dictatorship... by the way... in case that's what you read in that (how the hell would you get that?)

 

[frigidweirdo]

So neither the New Yorker nor the author of article in question want to “torch the Constitution “. In fact quite the opposite.

But some asshole on twatter takes a phrase out of context know that Trumper bumpkins will run with it without checking

Well, Trump supporters can make anything fit to what they want to hear.

 

[BluesLegend]

MAGA is beginning a flat spin to apparent defeat.

Their vitriol will become louder and more vulgar to election day.

Meh, the Dem party is dying out idiot left wingers wrecked it.

 

[Lesh]

Meh, the Dem party is dying out idiot left wingers wrecked it.

Nope

Not even close

 

[fncceo]

Apparently, the entire editorial staff of the New Yorker slept through school.

Of course The Constitution can be changed. We have changed it many times in our short history. Sometimes for good reasons, other times for stupid reasons.

The Founding Fathers knew that people had the collective memory of a goldfish and are easily distracted by shiny objects so…

… they made a Constitution that could be changed … but not capriciously. They hoped that people would get bored and moved on to the next shiny thing before they had time to make crazy changes.

 

[task0778]

New Yorker Says It's Time to Torch the Constitution (but Donald Trump's the Dictator)​

And replace it with what? The New Yorker has a paywall that I ain't paying, so I don't know what their answer is to my question. Is this still a thing or did the democrats do an about-face when Trump won? It sounds like they wanted to throw out the rule of law and substitute the rule of the majority, which is not the same thing. It could be that in the coming weeks and months that Trump and his supporters are going to be calling for an end to the filibuster and majority rule. I was against that when the democrats tried to do just that back in 2021 and I'm against it now. I see it as a complete travesty of government, we would learn 1st-hand about the tyranny of the majority.

As for the Constitution, I cannot imagine what changes could be made that would improve it. Trampling freedom of speech does not sound like a positive start.