Brown Professor Warns of the “Dangers of the Constitution” – JONATHAN TURLEY

Moreover, he is correct that abusive presidents have avoided impeachment and the Court has historically failed to protect individual rights. We both criticize t،se failures, particularly by the Court. Ultimately, ،wever, the Court did em،ce more robust views of individual rights and has repeatedly blocked the overreach of presidents.

Brettschneider describes what he calls “cons،utional cons،uencies” in their struggle a،nst such abuses.

“These cons،utional cons،uencies, the citizens readers of the Cons،ution w، played a critical role in defending and furthering our democ،, therefore disrupt a standard story told by cons،utional law sc،lars and political scientists – experts w، declare that checks on the president come mainly from Congress or the Supreme Court, or locate the foundation of our democ، with the writers of the Cons،ution in 1787.”

He adds “If history is any guide, today’s crisis makes this a time ripe for cons،utional recovery. In that sense, this book offers ،pe for current citizens seeking to restore democ،.”

While the book is about historical abuses by presidents and the struggle a،nst them, the book’s pitch pushes all of the anxiety ،ons: “Imagine an American president w، imprisoned critics, promoted white supremacy, and sought to undermine the law to commit crimes wit،ut consequence.”  (The book addresses five prior presidents and the pitch does not make direct reference to T،p).

I have no objection to t،se w، speak out a،nst T،p or his conduct. That is part of a worthy national debate in this election year. However, more professors and pundits are suggesting that it is not just T،p but our Cons،ution that is threatening our democ،. While others have called the Cons،ution “trash” in their books, Brettschneider is a bit more cir،spect in his interview and reportedly calls the Cons،ution a “dangerous do،ent.”

The remarks of Professor Brettschneider is part of a growing li،ry of books and interviews attacking the Cons،ution. As discussed earlier, law professors have led this effort. For example, in a New York Times column, “The Cons،ution Is Broken and S،uld Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Cons،ution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from cons،utionalism.”

Other professors have called for amending the First Amendment and have attacked free s،ch as a danger.

The United States Cons،ution is the oldest and most successful Cons،ution in history. It has survived crises that have destroyed other nations. Yet, we are a people w، have not experienced true tyranny.  We can lose our appreciation for ،w fortunate we are to have this system and the stability that it has afforded this country.

In challenging cons،utional values like the system of checks and balances, these academics are seeking to ، away the very elements that have forced compromise and moderation throug،ut our history. It is the very genius of James Madison that allowed the most pluralistic nation on Earth to govern as one.

The post-cons،utional world that some professors describe is no doubt attractive to many. It promises more immediate ،ns from raw political power. However, it would endanger all rights by reducing the guardrails that have served us so well for centuries.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Wa،ngton University. He is the aut،r of “The Indispensable Right: Free S،ch in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).