The Constitution Is The Crisis

The American left should work toward abolishing the Constitution someday—either for a new document or a new democratic order without a written constitution.

Interesting article.

What we see here is the more radical side of the Woke.

Sounds like Jamaal Bowman.

CHAZ everywhere …

Osita Nwanevu, while not a household name, is not some nobody on Twitter either.

This isn’t exactly a breaking revelation. Progressive Democrats haven’t exactly been shy about expressing their lust for single party rule, and the same publication argued that America needed to be governed like Communist China earlier in the year:

I don’t believe Joe Biden is authoritarian, but the people he surrounds himself most certainly are.

Jbiden is permissive. A gateway. And they are not authoritarians, they are totalitarians.


Why is the idea of a new or no constitution radical? Other countries don’t seem to have an issue with it. The United Kingdom doesn’t have a codified constitution. Neither do New Zealand or Israel. They generally do pretty well. Many of the European nations have had multiple constitutions. Canada had a major rewrite in 1982 and they’re doing just fine.

Was it radical when the founding fathers abandoned the articles of confederation for the current constitution?

Was Thomas Jefferson radical when he said:

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

It’s radical to me that people think a document written by over 200 years ago is an infallible document to be preserved and adhered to at all costs.


Thank you.

It has been amended, but thank you.

Do they?

[quote=“SottoVoce, post:9, topic:237631”] Te
It’s radical to me that people think a document written by over 200 years ago is an infallible document to be preserved and adhered to at all costs.

The next step it to have it declared to be racist hate speech. 100 percent guaranteed. These are the same freaks who have banned the word picnic. We cannot let insane people intimidate normal people.

1 Like

Of the bill of rights, would you give me one or two that are obsolete?

Progressives start with the First and Second, usually.

Obviously, people don’t think that, but there is a constitutional way to change the constitution. Ignoring it is not that way.

Joe is just a puppet with a stick up his butt.

“The Squad” and their cohorts will be making policy and it will be administered through Kamala.

1 Like

The perfection is that they left us a way to Amend it and do so only in such a way as to not invite the dissolution of the nation because it requires a long, complicated process that requires a clear super majority of support for such changes.

Radical, political and social change force on the whole of the people by a minority or even simple majority invites revolution and dissolution.


These days they tend to do things like burning down the very businesses and gov’t buildings where they would be getting the goods, services, public services and protection they rely on most.

Brilliant long term planners they are!


…just one big sanctuary country.

I am glad I am not a prog.

I like the constitution just fine as is.

Amendable when the time comes and all the parties agree.


1 Like

I agree. But excuse my ignorance, what is wrong with picnic?