Quantcast

Politico Column Slams U.S. Constitution as Undemocratic

'Democracy is not just the enemy of the Republican Party. It is also the enemy of the Constitution... '

A new op-ed by professor Corey Robin of Brooklyn College in Politico claims that the US Constitution is undemocratic and part of a “violent assault” on rule by the majority in the U.S.

“Democracy is not just the enemy of the Republican Party,” said Robin. “It is also the enemy of the Constitution.”

Liberals are making a concerted effort to paint the Constitution of the United States as “undemocratic” in an effort to get rid of key features of our government like the US Senate and a conservative Supreme Court, which both prevent the majority from ganging up on minorities.

“While some longstanding, wealthy democracies do have upper chambers, the United States is one of the very few to grant its upper chamber equal power to its lower chamber,” explained Robin.

...article continued below
- Advertisement -

In the U.S. the upper chamber is the Senate and the lower chamber is the House.

Ian Millhiser, a radial progressive correspondent at Vox, is also pushing the notion to outlaw the Senate.

“Folks act like abolishing the Senate is a radical idea,” Millhiser wrote recently. “My view is that giving every person in Wyoming 68 times as much representation as someone from California is a radical idea.”

...article continued below
- Advertisement -

Except of course they don’t, really. California has 53 representatives in the House, while Wyoming has just one.

That’s not the only radical idea guys like Millhiser and Robin are pushing.

Millhiser recently said that the Supreme Court is more like a conspiracy then a judicial tribunal.

“The idea that there’s this unelected tribunal of nine people in black robes, and they get to interpret a vague document to veto any law, sounds like a conspiracy theory,” said Millhiser about the court’s ability to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

But what the founders envisioned when they created the constitution was a set of rules that would prevent a majority from not considering the views of the minority.

“They could simply campaign in a small handful of states with big populations,” explained Ed Feulner at Heritage, of a constitution without the checks on a tyranny by the majority. “Who would care what the people in Iowa think? Or Wyoming? Or any number of other states with smaller populations?”

Clearly not Robin and Millhiser who prefer to look after places that they now claim are under-represented, like New York, California and D.C.

Copyright 2022. No part of this site may be reproduced in whole or in part in any manner without the permission of the copyright owner. To inquire about licensing content, use the contact form at https://headlineusa.com/advertising.
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

TRENDING NOW

- Advertisement -
- Advertisement -

- Advertisement -