Guys, when you see stuff like this from the media, believe them.
This is a real story that the real New York Times ran over the weekend.
The Constitution is sacred. But it's also dangerous and a threat to Democracy™!
If we follow the constitution then everything that the Left stands for could be undone!
Yeah, the Left has spent decades essentially undoing many of the protections provided in the constitution. But the pesky thing is still around.
Auron MacIntyre made this claim ...
... so yeah, I had to check it out.
Here's the lead-in thesis for The Times piece by Jennifer Szalai:
It's no surprise, then, that liberals charge Trump with being a menace to the Constitution. But his presidency and the prospect of his re-election have also generated another, very different, argument: that Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.
Liberals just figured out that America was not founded as a Democracy, but their Sacred Democracy™ is the only thing they care about. But also, the Constitution allows people to democratically ELECT Donald Trump.
So the whole document is "dysfunctional."
This is just the beginning of the nonsense.
After all, Trump became president in 2016 after losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College (Article II). He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court (Article III), two of whom were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population (Article I).
The first three articles of the constitution are a direct threat to the New York Times' version of America.
This is what we mean when we say we're living in two different countries. This is why the Left has moved past the constitution.
Szalai goes on to crap on the Constitution by pointing out that it was written by "all white men" and that they filled it with contradictions because some supported slavery. Therefore the entire 200+ year experiment is no good.
She goes on to attack conservatives on the courts. This is insane.
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.
If you support the original constitution, you're a racist. That's what they're saying. And, of course, Clarence Thomas is the biggest racist of all if that's the case.
The New York Times is just giving the game away.
They don't like the country as founded, libs have fought against it for decades, and if they win they're going to continue to undo the founding.
P.S. Now check out our latest video 👇
