A recent article by Jennifer Szalai, a contributor to The New York Times, has ignited controversy by labeling the U.S. Constitution a “threat to American democracy.” Szalai’s piece, “The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous?” challenges the perception of the Constitution as a protective shield against authoritarianism, arguing instead that it may foster conditions conducive to such governance.
They want to overthrow The Constitution pic.twitter.com/d1g35Vavwy
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 1, 2024
Szalai criticizes the Constitution for being inherently antidemocratic, pointing to mechanisms like the Electoral College. She argues that the Constitution’s framework allows for a “tyranny of the minority,” citing how President Trump ascended to power in 2016 despite losing the popular vote, solely due to the Electoral College. This, she claims, exemplifies a disempowerment of the majority, as two Supreme Court justices appointed by Trump were confirmed by a Senate representing only 44% of the population. This dynamic, according to Szalai, facilitated decisions such as the overturning of Roe v. Wade, which she argues does not align with the majority public opinion.
Szalai’s critique extends to what she describes as “Constitution worship,” particularly criticizing originalist interpretations that she believes hinder progressive reform and perpetuate outdated structures. She suggests that the document, once seen as a bulwark against tyranny, now contributes to widespread political cynicism and polarization.
The article has provoked significant backlash. Critics argue that Szalai’s views undermine the foundational principles of American democracy and liberty. Elon Musk, among others, highlighted the controversy, suggesting that labeling the Constitution as a threat reflects an extreme agenda aimed at dismantling foundational legal structures.
This debate touches on broader discussions about constitutional interpretation in the United States. Originalism, seen by some as a means of preserving the framers’ intentions, is criticized by others as an impediment to addressing contemporary issues effectively. Szalai’s article has thus intensified the discourse about whether the Constitution needs reform to better serve a diverse and evolving society.
The public reaction has been polarized. Some see Szalai’s arguments as an urgent call to revisit and potentially reform aspects of the Constitution that they believe no longer serve the democratic ideals of inclusivity and majority rule. Others view her critique as an existential threat to the stability and continuity provided by a time-tested legal framework.
As this discourse unfolds, it raises fundamental questions about how democracy is best maintained and strengthened in the United States. The debate over the Constitution’s role and relevance is likely to continue, reflecting deep-seated ideological divides about the nature of governance and the protection of rights in a modern society.