Vice President Kamala Harris and the modern Democratic Party have finally stopped pretending. They have no fealty to the Constitution. It is fine when it serves their purposes. It is an obstacle to be surmounted when it doesn’t. Period.
For years, Americans were told that concerns about court-packing, eliminating the Electoral College, weakening the Senate filibuster, federalizing elections, and restructuring the constitutional system were merely paranoid conservative fantasies. Now, leading Democrats openly discuss them as if they are moral necessities.
Harris is again signaling support for “fundamentally transforming” the Supreme Court and other core American institutions in ways critics say would permanently tilt the balance of power toward Democrats. Among the proposals being discussed by the Left are expanding the Supreme Court, diminishing the Electoral College, and altering the constitutional structure that has restrained pure majoritarian rule since the founding of the Republic.
Naturally, all of this is being done in the name of “protecting democracy.” That phrase should now trigger immediate skepticism in every American mind. Because when modern progressives say “democracy,” they increasingly mean a system in which their side permanently governs and constitutional barriers preventing that outcome are dismantled one by one.
The Supreme Court is not malfunctioning because Democrats suddenly discovered constitutional principle. It is malfunctioning, in their view, because they do not currently control it.
The Electoral College is not suddenly illegitimate because it violates the Constitution. It is illegitimate, they argue, because it prevents California and New York from effectively choosing every president forever.
The Senate filibuster was not an assault on democracy when Democrats used it repeatedly. It became an assault on democracy the moment Republicans started winning elections and confirming judges.
This is not reform. It is escalation.
And if the Left truly believes court-packing is such a wonderful idea, perhaps Republicans should grant their wish immediately. Seriously.
Let Republicans expand the Court by four seats tomorrow morning. Let a Republican president fill every one of them with originalist constitutional scholars under the exact same “democracy-saving” logic Democrats have been promoting for years.
Something remarkable would happen almost instantly: Democrats would suddenly rediscover the sacred importance of constitutional norms, institutional stability, judicial independence, and the dangers of authoritarian overreach.
Funny how that works.
The truth is that most Americans instinctively understand why court-packing is dangerous. Once one side expands the Court for political advantage, the other side retaliates. Then the next administration expands it again. Eventually the Supreme Court becomes little more than a fluctuating super-legislature whose size changes every election cycle.
At that point, the Constitution no longer restrains power. Power simply rewrites the rules whenever it can.
The Founders designed the American system specifically to prevent this kind of raw factional domination. The Electoral College, equal Senate representation, judicial independence, and separated powers were not historical accidents. They were deliberate safeguards against exactly the kind of centralized political monopoly many modern activists now openly desire.
Alexander Hamilton warned about it. James Madison warned about it. And history repeatedly confirms it.
Nations rarely lose their republics in one dramatic moment. More often, political factions slowly convince the public that long-standing constitutional restraints are “outdated,” “undemocratic,” or obstacles to “progress.” Once those restraints are weakened, power consolidates quickly.
That is why critics are calling Harris’s proposals “institutional arson.”
Because the issue is not whether Republicans or Democrats temporarily benefit. The issue is whether America remains a constitutional republic governed by durable rules that apply to everyone equally, or whether it becomes a system where whichever party gains temporary power simply restructures institutions until opposition becomes nearly impossible.
Ironically, many of the same people warning that Donald Trump represents a “threat to democracy” are simultaneously advocating structural changes that would permanently weaken political opposition and centralize ideological control.
Americans should notice the contradiction.
If Democrats truly believe court-packing, Electoral College abolition, and institutional restructuring are legitimate tools of governance, they should have no objection whatsoever if Republicans use those same tools first.
But somehow, everyone already knows how that conversation would go. And that tells you everything you need to know.
Reader Responses