Radical law professors’ NYT op-ed: Throw out the “broken” United States Constitution


The following includes editorial content which expresses the opinion of the writer. 

Do you want some insight on why students coming out of colleges and universities, in particular so-called “elite” Ivy League schools are such an unhinged radicals, we present the following courtesy of Breitbart News.

In an op-ed written by two law professors from the “elite” institutions of Yale and Harvard and published by the New York Times, they referred to one of our founding documents, the United States Constitution, which has stood for over 175 years “broken” and “famously undemocratic,” claiming the document “stands in the way” of “real”  freedom and democracy.

There you go…and remember this…most of the judges in the federal judiciary are graduates of either Yale or Harvard Law…that could spell trouble if they have anywhere near the mindset these two loons do.

In the op-ed, the two continued and called to “radically alter the basic rules of the game” by requiring the United States to no longer “justify our politics by the Constitution.”

The funny part is, that Constitution allows crazy people to have the freedom to write insane op-eds for the New York Times.

In the essay published on Aug 19, titled “The Constitution is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” the two law professors—Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale—take the position that when liberals “lose in the Supreme Court,” they often blame justices for “misreading” the Constitution, however they claim in “reality,” “struggling over the Constitution has proved a dead end.”

They assert that as opposed to working to “reclaim” the Constitution, instead it was time to “reclaim America from constitutionalism,” using typical liberal talking points that claim the document is too old, calling it “some centuries-old text.”

That may be true in their mind, but that “centuries-old text” has made our country the greatest nation in the world, or at least it was until the moonbats took over. That “old” text has allowed the United States to become a beacon of freedom and liberty and unleashed American ingenuity to create the world we now live in.

The law professors continue to take our Constitution to task, and claim that constitutions, “especially the broken one we have now” is stuck in the past and claim that because of that, it “aids the right” who tend to be originalists and therefore abide by “what it claims to be the original meaning of the past.”

They claim that despite efforts by liberals to “reclaim” the document for half a century, they complain there is “agonizingly little to show for it” and then called to “radically alter the basic rules of the game.”

Doerfler and Moyn also slam progressives for attempting to “gain ownership” of the document, then blame the Supreme Court for “hijacking” the Constitution instead of inherent problems with the founding document itself.

“[E]ven when progressives concede that the Constitution is at the root of our situation, typically the call is for some new constitutionalism,” they wrote.


They continued to question why so-called progressives “justify our politics by the Constitution or by calls for some renovated constitutional tradition.”

“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.”

In other words, they seem to believe that the country should be ruled by “feelings” instead of the underpinnings of our Constitution and in particular the bill of rights—natural law.

Indeed, the Constitution plays off the Declaration of Independence, which says that men have certain unalienable rights…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These two law professors appear to disregard those tenets.

The funny thing about their statement about abortion is that the Constitution is silent on the matter, as well as labor rights. Those two issues are left to the states, where the Constitution specifically says anything not relegated to the central (federal) government is delegated to the states.

The foundation of a representative Republic is that voters elect representatives to carry out their wishes in their state legislatures. If they are not happy with that representation, they have the right to vote out those who do not abide by their wishes. That is democracy.

The writers suggest a “new way of fighting within American democracy” needs to be undertaken in order to obtain “real freedom.”

They suggest making the Constitution “more amendable” than it currently is. Of course, any such process would lead to outright chaos. Oh, but they’ve got some suggestions and they are, shall we say, crazy.

“One way to get this more democratic world is to pack the Union with new states,” they wrote. “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.”

These proposals of course amount to nothing less than a “hissy fit” by the progressive left, who are angry that they can’t run roughshod over the country with their 50-50 Senate and razor-thin margin in the House. So instead, these two propose burning it down.

The possibility of chaos doesn’t seem to bother these two, as they apparently think that by eviscerating the Constitution the liberals would be in power forever. That is clearly what the goal is.

Imagine the sheer chaos of changing the rules every four years or so based on who is in power. The chaos would be unimaginable. Although liberals seem perfectly content with turning the United States into a third-world banana republic, so such a scheme would fulfill that goal.

Republicans and conservatives believe that Democrats and liberals (by and large) hate the United States of America and such a scheme as cooked up by these two “legal scholars” seems to confirm that belief. And polls seem to back up the fact that Democrats do indeed want to “burn our Republic down.”

For example, a Rasmussen Reports survey from July found a majority of Democrats have bought into the Critical Race Theory claptrap that the U.S. Constitution is a fundamentally “racist” and “sexist” document.

The report said:

Most of President Joe Biden’s strongest supporters are in favor of rewriting the Constitution. Among voters who Strongly Approve of Biden’s job performance as president, 54% at least somewhat agree that the Constitution “should be mostly or completely rewritten.” By contrast, among voters who Strongly Disapprove of Biden’s performance, just 10% agree that the Constitution should be rewritten and 81% strongly Disagree with rewriting the Constitution.

That is because if Democrats don’t get their own way, they have a meltdown, threaten Supreme Court justices, burn stuff down and steal sneakers from their local Foot Locker.

When Republicans don’t get their way, they work within the system that is in place, or at least an overwhelming majority do. And don’t mention the January 6 Capitol breach.

Compared to the mayhem and murder that took place in 2020 perpetrated by Joe Biden voters, that breach was a Saturday picnic.

Liberals have become much more vocal in their criticism of the Constitution, apparently feeling their oats with a decrepit dementia-ridden bag of oatmeal in the Oval Office, a 50-50 Senate and a slim majority in the House.

For example last month, Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks (another “law” professor) claimed Americans were “slaves” to the Constitution because it was written by “a tiny group of white slave-owning men.”

Biden, not exactly a Rhodes scholar and who barely passed law school, claimed in a May briefing pushing for more gun control that “the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute.”

A couple of months before that, unhinged lunatic and Q-tip impersonator, MSNBC panelist and The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal called the Constitution “trash” written by the “captains of the slaving industry.” Wonder if he feels that way about the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution?

Ever the wordsmith, Mistal called the Founding Fathers “racist, misogynistic jerkfaces” (yes, he used an insult best used by a second grader).

All while bloviating about the importance of criticizing the origins of the Constitution, which he defined as “not great” and often “working purposefully towards those not great outcomes.” Wonder if this word salad blowhard is Kamala Harris’s speechwriter?

Yet another law professor, University of Texas at Austin’s Richard Albert argued in 2020 that the United States should revise the Constitution to remove “racist” and “gendered” language.

For the love of God, why don’t we just do the same to the Bible while we’re at it? These people are certifiably insane.

All of this is further proof positive that as Michael Savage would say, liberalism is a mental disorder.

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts