New Anti-Oligarchy Constitution book could launch a third party

Three Goals of the “democracy-of-opportunity tradition”

Over the last 250 years, democracy-of-opportunity advocates developed a vision of how to steer the nation’s political economy towards three democratic ambitions:

Going back to “political economy”

“Political economy” is the opposite of what Regressive and do-nothing, Centrist Democrats prefer, acting as if policies and laws have no impact on economic opportunity for wage earners. The current Supreme Court is conspicuously guilty of wearing these antique horse blinders. Many of its rulings can and do one-sidedly increase economic opportunity for the rich; while, severely restricting opportunity for middle and lower classes.

The question can and should be, “Who’s gaining and who’s losing from the Supreme Court’s decisions?”

The Constitution impels congress to legislate and pass laws to make the Declaration of Independence work. This is the opposite of judicial exceptionalism.

Other points

- The New Deal was crafted to exclude black Americans, black southern workers. This was part of its undoing in the 1970s-1990s.

“Originalist mythology” (their term)

The Authors wish to persuade the American people of the substantive case against the Court’s present majority vision of constitutional politics. Prescriptions for reform should flow from, and be shaped by, a substantive view of what is wrong with the present court’s constitutional politics.

What do we do now?

The Authors want and hope for a more confrontational approach to the current one-sided Supreme Court. Who could this agent be? The current do-nothing, Wall Street, Centrist Dems are uniquely un-prepared and unlikely to turn 180 degrees and start confronting the Supreme Court. Since the 1960s they have deified the courts. Why? Because they believe relying on courts to do the liberal Democratic thing is cheaper than investing and funding door-to-door grassroots organizing (an insight I learned from UCI historian, Jon Weiner on his podcasts). Dem neo-liberals are still living in a Warren-era defense of the Supreme Court. None of them can confront the current Supreme Court.

Include back-up plans when Congress passes a new law

The Authors say the current court is an extreme Court, a hostile Court. We’ve been here before. We need to consider political confrontation. We need checks and balances on this Supreme Court. We need to stop accepting the mythology the Supreme Court is a neutral umpire.

--

--

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store
Bruce Dickson

Bruce Dickson

Health Intuitive, author in Los Angeles, CA