New York Times

Think the Constitution Will Save Us? Think Again.
The subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the framers.

By Meagan Day and Bhaskar Sunkara
Ms. Day is a staff writer at Jacobin, where Mr. Sunkara is editor.

Consider a few facts: Donald Trump is in the White House, despite winning almost three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. The Senate, the country’s most powerful legislative chamber, grants the same representation to Wyoming’s 579,315 residents as it does to 39,536,653 Californians. Key voting rights are denied to citizens in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and other United States territories. The American government is structured by an 18th-century text that is almost impossible to change.

These ills didn’t come about by accident; the subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the Constitution’s framers. For James Madison, writing in Federalist No. 10, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention” incompatible with the rights of property owners. The byzantine Constitution he helped create serves as the foundation for a system of government that rules over people, rather than an evolving tool for popular self-government.

Writers on the left such as Jacobin’s Seth Ackerman and the journalist Daniel Lazare have long argued that constitutional reform needs to be on the agenda. Even some liberals like Vox’s Matthew Yglesias rightly worry that the current system of governance is headed toward collapse.

These perspectives are vital at a time when many progressives regard the Constitution as our only line of defense against a would-be autocrat in the White House. Yet whether or not the president knows it, the Constitution has long been venerated by conservative business elites like himself on the grounds that it hands them the power to fend off attempts to redistribute wealth and create new social guarantees in the interest of working people. There’s a reason we’re the only developed country without guarantees such as universal health care and paid maternity leave. While preserving and expanding the Bill of Rights’s incomplete safeguards of individual freedoms, we need to start working toward the establishment of a new political system that truly represents Americans. Our ideal should be a strong federal government powered by a proportionally elected unicameral legislature. But intermediary steps toward that vision can be taken by abolishing the filibuster, establishing federal control over elections and developing a simpler way to amend the Constitution through national referendum.

How hard would change be? As Mr. Ackerman reminds us, while constitutional change is straightforward and feasible in most countries, “an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires the consent of no less than thirty-nine different legislatures comprising roughly seventy-eight separately elected chambers.”

But it’s a problem worth confronting. As long as we think of our Constitution as a sacred document, instead of an outdated relic, we’ll have to deal with its anti-democratic consequences.

quote:

Bhaskar Sunkara

quote:

Bhaskar Sunkara is an American political writer, founding editor and publisher of Jacobin magazine and the publisher of Catalyst: A Journal of Theory and Strategy. He is a former vice-chair of the Democratic Socialists of America

Years ago I started doing a quick google search of authors of wild sounding articles. It turns out, many are nothing but paid shills, other are Paid activists, Others are political hacks in the guise of journalists. This is President William Mc Kinley and leon Czolgosz all over again.

The whole list of marches, protests, socialist crap is the same bit of history repeating its self as then. The book "defend the realm" and "the president and the Assasin " outline the pervasive and criminal tendencies of the socialist left.

The Old Gray Lady has completed her dive into the delusional with shit like this.

The content of the article wasn't surprising given the authors.

But I was surprised that the NYT published it.

Maybe I shouldn't be surprised... But I was. The NYT has been a liberal shithole for a longtime but this it taking things lower than I expected.

Commie

NYT is trying to sustain itself with radical progressive articles.

It's click bait yellow journalism masquerading as a cogent editorial.

The more items like this are published, the more the middle of the road Dems and readers hold their nose.

quote:

Donald Trump is in the White House, despite winning almost three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton.

Gee, I'm sorry your hag lost, but that is the entire point of the United States constitutional structure; prevent a few population centers from dominating the rest of the citizenry.

Put another way, those guys with their christian beliefs, property, riches, slaves, and white privledge got Nostrodomous to peer far into the future and he said "Jesus, Mary, and Joseph! Another fucking Clinton?!? You gotta set it up to keep people from doing something really stupid and electing that evil bitch."

Uh, they do know we're a Representative Republic, and not a Democracy, right?

To that end, yes absolutely the Constitution is meant to "subvert democracy." Pure Democracy is no more than Mob Rule, and it is dangerous.

Fuck the NYT.

NYT is right. Let's end the Consitution, and start with the 1st amendment. Trump can openly declare them an enemy of the state and close them down immediately.

Yeah, I don't want to be ruled by a few blue specks...

quote:

the subversion of democracy was the explicit intent of the Constitution’s framers.

If you substitute "prevention" for "subversion"...that's exactly right.

The United States is not, never has been, and hopefully never will be a "democracy" you ignorant twatwaffle.

Ignorance. Let them live in Venezuela for a month to see the end result of what they propose.

Besides, the doctrine of pure democracy predates The Constitution.

In her case it would be better to say nothing and be thought a fool and to open her mouth and confirm it. She has no concept of the methods and intent of the founding of this nation. The people do not elect the president. The States do.

"outdated relic"

Good Lord, what a joke.

I now feel stupider than I did five minutes ago.

First off whoever wrote that has zero knowledge of even what kind of government we have.

Second if there is a valid reason to amend the constitution, it's not as daunting of a task as they allege. If it were so impossible to do so there wouldn't be 27 amendments. 75% of the population does not want universal health care or paid maternity leave. If they did Congress could pass either in a heart beat without amending our constitution.

Stupid fuckwits, keep printing your crazy ass stuff NYT, you diminish your credibility by ever word you type.

They always seem to have a much bigger problem with Wyoming having two Senators for 580,000 than with Vermont's two for 625,000. Maybe Bernie should give up his seat to California.

Are the authors from the same "Jacobin" that says of itself:

"Jacobin is a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture" ? Link

Jacobin interviewed the leader of the Democrat Socialist Party as found in this Link.

On the US Democrat Socialist Party's website, they refer to their followers as "comrades." They even devote a webpage in their official publication, The Socialist Magazine, to why they call adherents comrades.

It starts with . . . “If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.” – Che Link

Considering the Democrats are extolling their Democrat Socialist lurch, the NYT is following away from the USA our founders established.

quote:

Originally posted by MNSIG:
They always seem to have a much bigger problem with Wyoming having two Senators for 580,000 than with Vermont's two for 625,000. Maybe Bernie should give up his seat to California.

Strange they don't have a problem with CA having 12% or about 1 out of 8 of all Representatives being from CA.

quote:

Originally posted by Palm:
"outdated relic"

Good Lord, what a joke.

Yeah, only Jallen and Jhe888 are worthy of such a title.

The NYT can go perform an anatomical impossibility upon itself.