Link for people who don’t want to give jews ad revenue.

The United States Constitution is in trouble.

Yeah, jews destroyed it.

After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, he called for the “termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

Nah.

Outraged critics denounced him for threatening a document that is supposed to be “sacrosanct.”

What critics? The ones who explicitly say the same thing themselves?

By announcing his desire to throw off constitutional constraints in order to satisfy his personal ambitions, Trump was making his authoritarian inclinations abundantly clear.

Didn’t happen, though.

It’s no surprise, then, that liberals charge Trump with being a menace to the Constitution.

The same liberals who say we need to abolish it?

Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution

Wrong.

a document that is essentially antidemocratic

Correct, and?

and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.

Proven falsehood.

After all, Trump became president in 2016 after losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College (Article II)

If the constitution was being followed, there would have been zero votes for democrats. Your point, whore?

He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court (Article III)

Is this bitch literally listing job requirements as an argument?

Those three justices helped overturn Roe v. Wade, a reversal with which most Americans disagreed.

Didn’t happen.

The eminent legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky

I don’t care what a jew has to say about my documents.

worried about opinion polls

You mean the things that have been admitted to be hoaxes?

showing “a dramatic loss of faith in democracy,”

Good; it doesn’t work.

“It is important for Americans to see that these failures stem from the Constitution itself.”

Nope. There’s no democracy in the Constitution.

Asserting that the Constitution, which is famously difficult to amend, has put the country “in grave danger,”

Nah. It is the country.

he entertains the possibility of secession.

Not one fucking inch more.

Scholars are arguing that the Constitution has incentivized what Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt call a “Tyranny of the Minority.”

I don’t care what jews have to say about my documents.

The delegates were all white, and they were all men.

No one gives a shit, kike bitch. What’s your point.

There’s a glaring discrepancy between the soaring words in the Constitution’s preamble — a call to “we the people” that is “a seemingly ringing endorsement for popular governance,” as Chemerinsky puts it — and the distrust of democracy embedded in the rest of the document

No, there isn’t. You’re just too retarded to comprehend what it actually says.

reflecting the framers’ inability to conceive of a future when women and Black people would have a right to vote.

Correct, and? Learn what a nation is.

The legacy of this history is a stubborn ambivalence: Is the Constitution supposed to be a guarantor of human equality?

Yes.

Or, for a society with a profoundly inegalitarian origin story, is the lofty principle just hypocritical cover?

Egalitarianism has fuck all to do with equality.

You might think that such disputes would have been laid to rest by a bloody Civil War and the Reconstruction amendments, which outlawed slavery and granted all men the right to vote, regardless of race.

Why would causing a dispute in the first place end a dispute?

Senators were to be directly elected

This is unconstitutional and never legally passed.

women were granted the right to vote.

Setting the ticking time-bomb for the end of the country.

(The last major amendment, in 1971, lowered the voting age to 18.)

Shouldn’t have happened.

In reaction to landmark decisions prohibiting segregation

Unconstitutional.

bans on interracial marriage

Constitutional.

Originalists, as these scholars call themselves, say they are simply reacting to decades of “overreach” by “activist” judges. Liberal critics counter that interpreting the law according to what the founders (supposedly) wanted amounts to an end run around protecting and promoting a multiracial democracy.

Where are your farcical quotes around the words liberals said, filthy yid?

The attorney and columnist Madiba K. Dennie

I don’t care what an African has to say about my documents.

argues that originalists’ canny use of apolitical language ensnares liberals into treating originalism as coherent jurisprudence

Oh no, how dare they. I thought “liberals” were supposed to be “more intelligent,” though…

even when it functions more like an “ideology.”

Always accuse your enemy of what you are doing.

originalism is much more effective in “restraining judges from doing good things.”

“MUH FEE FEE HURT BY PAPER! MAKE PAPER STOOOOOOOP!”

It may be a measure of the current crisis that even the conservative scholar Yuval Levin

I don’t care what a jew has to say about my documents.

Originalism is by definition preoccupied with what judges do, when the more urgent problem lies with a legislature that is, as he puts it in “American Covenant,” “underactive.”

“Oy vey the government has to keep controlling your lives it has to do even mooooooooooore”

Members of Congress behave “like performers or mere seekers of celebrity,” neglecting to do the hard work of wielding the legislative power entrusted in them by the Constitution.

No one will ever believe you.

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.”

Utterly incorrect. It was created to balance the evil of populism with the representation of each state to a minimum degree.

Abolishing the Electoral College has become a popular refrain among liberals — something that the legal scholar Aziz Rana

I don’t care what a Muslim has to say about my documents.

“These defenses implicitly suggest that Americans can only effectively protect their bedrock liberties from demagogues by redoubling their commitment to the text.”

No shit, that’s literally how human psychology works, you fucking dune coon.

tolerated racial terror in the Jim Crow South

Didn’t happen.

, the Constitution was offered as proof that the country was profoundly committed to liberty and equality — that “its interests are coterminous with the world’s interests.”

Nah, the Founders never said that.

originalism has allowed conservatives to undermine progressive policies while using the soothing language of constitutionalism.

Good. Eat shit, commies.

This disempowerment of majorities, combined with political gridlock and institutional paralysis

Objectively good things.

fuels popular disaffection

Not really. Never had any trouble with it until the commies took over.

The document that’s supposed to be a bulwark against authoritarianism can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.

Nope.

Americans tend to overlook the possibilities of mass democratic politics precisely for this reason

Because they’re bullshit and illegal for a reason.

The historian Linda Colley,

I don’t care what a British woman has to say about my documents.

who has written critically about the connection between constitutions across the world and imperial expansion

Except the UK doesnt have one and had the largest empire in history.

The police officers “recognized the text from where she was reading — and they did not move in and attack.”

Which they weren’t going to do anyway, you stupid fucking whore.

the undeniable power of a constitution — alongside the undeniable power of undemocratic forces determined to have the last word.

Agreed, exterminate all jews and reclaim the United States’ true laws.