The New York Times thinks the Constitution is “dangerous.” This is according to the title of an article by a book reviewer. The article contains comments belittling the Constitution, which Democrats want to abolish. The book reviewer clearly speaks for The New York Times.
The author writes: The United States Constitution is in trouble. After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, he called for the “termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Outraged critics denounced him for threatening a document that is supposed to be “sacrosanct.”
She is referencing President Trump’s use of the law to question the 2020 election. He wanted to follow the law, and Democrats didn’t like his interpretation.
Democrats can call a president “illegitimate,” but Republicans can’t follow the law to question the results.
The author also doesn’t like the Three-Fifths Compromise, which gave Black people a disproportionate vote [which was three-fifths more than women got].
She wrote: The abolitionist William Garrison considered the compromises so damning as to make the Constitution “a covenant with death” and “an agreement with hell.” But Frederick Douglass maintained the opposite — that slavery in the United States could only be upheld “by claiming that the Constitution does not mean what it says.”
She then synced it with Originalism to trash the original Constitution, and the current Justices who try to stick to it.
Democrats will abolish the Electoral College as soon as they have the power to do so. The Electoral College is aimed at giving less-populated states a voice in the federal government, but Democrats will never say that.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WILL BE HISTORY
The author says: The Electoral College, of course, is one of the bargains the framers made in order to reassure the slave states that they could keep their own “peculiar institution.” Abolishing the Electoral College has become a popular refrain among liberals — something that the legal scholar Aziz Rana counts as one of the procedural specifics that consume discussions about constitutional reform. In his bold new book, “The Constitutional Bind,” Rana argues against this tendency to “take our problematic system as a given, and then struggle to patch especially egregious leaks.” Instead of focusing on patchwork measures, he encourages us to think more expansively.
According to the author, it’s ‘peculiar.’
A constitutional ‘scholar’ Yuval Levin says the Constitution was a “product of grudging and gradual compromise.”
He doesn’t mention that it was the only way to form a Constitution; otherwise, the South wouldn’t have joined, and there would be no United States.
The article’s author describes sticking to the rule of law, our Constitution, as “Constitutional Worship.”
They want to overthrow The Constitution pic.twitter.com/d1g35Vavwy
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2024
Subscribe to the Daily Newsletter
wpDiscuz
