The New York Times non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed the Constitution was “frozen in amber” while reviewing a book by University of California law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky.
Chemerinsky’s book, “No Democracy Lasts Forever,” released Aug. 20, argues that the United States Constitution has become a “threat to American democracy” that is “beyond redemption.” Szalai claimed that “Constitution worship” was possibly damaging the American political system in her review, citing arguments made by Chemerinsky and other liberal legal scholars, who say the document created a situation where a minority held tyrannical power to thwart. (RELATED: Law School Dean Tells MSNBC It’s Time To Scrap Constitution)
UC @BerkeleyLaw Dean Erwin Chemerinsky says a new Constitution formalizing the United States’ evolution into a pure national democracy is critical: “The Electoral College increasingly is choosing the president who lost the popular vote. Two senators per state is undermining… pic.twitter.com/FXpD1YGRg2
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) August 30, 2024
“According to this line of argument, the damages of Constitution worship extend to the structure of the political system itself. National politics gets increasingly funneled through the judiciary, with control of the courts — especially the Supreme Court — becoming a way to consolidate power regardless of what the majority of people want,” Szalai wrote. “This disempowerment of majorities, combined with political gridlock and institutional paralysis outside the judiciary, fuels popular disaffection. The document that’s supposed to be a bulwark against authoritarianism can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.”
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued rulings on abortion, gun rights, presidential immunity and former President Donald Trump’s eligibility that have angered liberals, who have suggested either imposing term limits on the justices or expanding the court in response.
Szalai noted that some of the reforms Chemerinsky sought could be achieved by passing a constitutional amendment, but then seemed to imply that such a change would be unlikely after dismissing the 1992 ratification of the 27th Amendment, claiming the ratification of the 26th Amendment in 1971, which lowered the voting age to 18, was the last “major” change to the document she asserted was “frozen in amber.”
Chemerinsky argued in an Aug. 23 op-ed in the Los Angeles Times Americans should look into a new governing document, criticizing the equal representation of states in the “egregiously undemocratic” United States Senate and objecting to the filibuster.
Democrats have sought to abolish the filibuster during the Biden administration, but were thwarted by then-Democratic Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia.
Chemerinsky also argued against the Electoral College in his Los Angeles Times op-ed, citing the 2000 and 2016 elections, when Republicans George W. Bush and Donald Trump won the presidency despite losing the popular vote.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
