I’ve been listening to Matt’s cushvlogs and in a few of them he talks about how the constitution should have been gotten rid of after the civil war, and how it should be done away with now. Does anyone have a source where he elaborates more on this? Does he want to get rid of the whole thing? Or just certain parts? Does he think the bill of rights should be gotten rid of too?
They literally teach that the Electoral College was an institution to take power out of the peoples hands just in case they appointed someone the rich didn't like, and everyone today is like "Oh yeah, of course."
Like its just a normal thing that countries have.
Yep, everyone should check out the Two Faces of American Freedom for in depth discussion of this (and of the early proto-socialists who tried to resist)
What do people think "Death to America, of course" is supposed to mean?
Yes, he and most communists want the whole thing thrown out and reworked from scratch. Many countries' constitutions simply define the role of government, rights et al are decided by common law, legislation, and precedent and dynamically change as society changes.
Large sections of the commonwealth government are run essentially on a gentleman's agreement that it would be a really bad idea to do a thing that is technically entirely legal to do.
The US has the oldest constitution in the world. Long overdue for a new one. Jefferson thought we should have a new constitution every time the US population doubled, which if we did we'd be on our fifth.
uhh yeah stuff like judicial review is actually just fucking role playing. If any real leftist power were to be built within in our booj democracy you could dismantle the entire fucking country through judicial review theoretically. It somehow has been given infinite power.
The chances of that happening are basically 0. You would need a president willing to do so (not coming from the dems!) and you would need a majority in the Senate to confirm enough of your blatantly biased judges so they will go along with whatever you want. If that were to happen you could literally challenge any bill in the country and have the judges throw it out or approve it depending on your agenda. If the dems weren't such scared-y cats they could literally destroy any chances of a GOP gaining power for a generation or two to come but we both know they don't want that.
"bullet through the neck and the backbone
No stoppin'
one shot turn Steve Bannon into Steve Hawking"
I remember a rant in one of the episodes where he refers to it as an “absolute dog shit document . . . Pure garbage” (or something along those lines) but at this point there are so many episodes I feel like it would be impossible to find it (without a text document containing transcripts of all the episodes or something like that)
I know he says nearly that verbatim in the inebriated history democrips and rethuglicans (I think that's what it's called).
the american constitution is an incredibly anti democratic and conservative framework written during a time when only the landowning elite could have a say in it. the checks and balances in it are meant to put the popular will in check.
My Dad in the 90's and early 2000's wanted to start a movement called PNAC, or "Project for a New American Constitution". He wanted to call it that to see if he could accidentally trick neocons into donating. He never got around to it because he was hanging with Trots (ISO), didn't know how to start a movement, and had me.
The constitution is an outdated, awful document overall. The bill of rights is alright and some of the other amendments were definitely good, but the problem is that the constitution wasnt designed to last this long, nor was it designed with modern society in mind. Thomas Jefferson thought that the constitution should be rewritten every 19 years%2C%20has%20prevailed%20since%201789.), showing that even the people forming the government knew it wasn't that good of a document. Also remember that the language it uses had vastly different meaning when it was written compared to now. For example, "We the people" did not mean people, it meant white land-owning men. When the literal words the document is written with no longer mean the same thing, why try to bastardize and distort them into new, nobler interpretations when you can just write a better document? When a whole argument hinges on "the words on the paper", you can't take the words on the paper at face value, yet thats what people seem to do. This creates a situation where we are trying to preserve idealized traditions that the original creators honestly didnt even want to be preserved, and because we cant let go of these demigod beings of american mythology, we are actively making society worse.
No other country enshrines and worships the constitution like we do. In asia, the average age of a constitution is 19 years. In latin america, its 12. They understand that shit needs to be reworked constantly to get better results.
