Allow Me to Retort

1. The Constitution: A Flawed Foundation for White Male Dominance

The Constitution is an imperfect work that urgently and consistently needs to be modified and reimagined to make good on its unrealized promises of justice and equality for all.

A document of compromise. The U.S. Constitution, often revered as divine, was a product of sweaty summer deals among wealthy slavers, colonizers, and anti-slavery white men. Its original design was to ensure enduring white male dominance, with the Bill of Rights acting as a "day one patch" to address immediate political interests rather than fundamental flaws. This inherent design led to its spectacular failure, culminating in a devastating Civil War less than a century after its ratification.

Ignoring its origins. Conservatives frequently act as if the Constitution was etched by divine flame, ignoring its deeply problematic origins and the compromises made to protect slavery. This selective veneration allows them to dismiss calls for reform or reinterpretation, insisting on an "original public meaning" that perpetuates historical injustices. The document's flaws are evident in its failure to prevent:

• A Civil War within 100 years
• Massive minority uprisings for justice
• A failed coup led by a sitting president

A cruel tease. For people of color and women, the Constitution has historically been a "cruel tease," with many of its decent principles never applied universally. Its written principles often serve as a mocking illustration that those in power know the right thing to do but refuse to act, out of spite or a desire to maintain existing power structures. The author argues that seeing the Constitution for what it truly is—a document with its "foot on your neck for almost 250 years"—is the first step toward fixing it.

2. First Amendment: Weaponized Against the Vulnerable

Constitutional protections of speech are mainly concerned with the government’s attempts to silence or punish views the ruling party doesn’t like.

Misunderstood "cancel culture." Complaints about "cancel culture" and "free speech" from conservatives often misrepresent the First Amendment's purpose. They lament losing jobs or endorsements for offensive speech, yet ignore actual threats to free speech, such as government suppression of political protest or wealthy individuals using lawsuits to silence independent media. The First Amendment primarily protects citizens from government overreach, not from private consequences for their words.

Real threats to free speech. The true "cancel culture" is practiced by conservatives who use state power to chill dissent. Examples include:

• The prosecution of Desiree Fairooz for laughing during a Senate hearing
• The firing of Juli Briskman for flipping off a presidential motorcade
• Attorney General William Barr ordering the gassing of peaceful protesters for a photo op
• Billionaires like Peter Thiel using endless lawsuits to destroy independent publications like Gawker

A corrupted shield. The First Amendment, intended as a shield for the vulnerable, has been infected by the religious right, turning it into a sword to enforce dogmas and humiliate marginalized communities. This corruption allows powerful majoritarian religions to impose their beliefs on the secular sphere, justifying bigotry under the guise of religious freedom, as seen in cases like Hobby Lobby and Masterpiece Cakeshop.

3. Second Amendment: Rooted in White Supremacy, Not Self-Defense

The Second Amendment is in the Constitution because Patrick Henry (Virginia’s governor at the time that the Constitution was being debated) and George Mason (the intellectual leader of the movement against the Constitution, the “anti-federalists”) won a debate against James Madison (the guy who wrote most of the Constitution and its original ten amendments).

A modern invention. The popular interpretation of the Second Amendment as an individual right to gun ownership for self-defense is a relatively new invention, largely popularized by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the 1970s. Prior to this, gun control was not constitutionally controversial, as evidenced by laws like the Mulford Act (signed by Ronald Reagan) and the Gun Control Act of 1968, which were direct responses to Black people openly carrying firearms for self-defense.

Original purpose: slavery. The true "original purpose" of the Second Amendment was to preserve white supremacy and slavery. Southern states, fearing slave revolts, insisted on the right to maintain armed white militias to quell insurrections. This historical context is often omitted by originalists like Antonin Scalia, who whitewash the amendment's origins to fit a modern narrative of self-defense.

Beyond self-defense. The author argues that gun rights are not about self-defense but about menacing, intimidating, and, if necessary, killing racial minorities. This underlying intent explains why Republicans resist gun control measures and why police often face no consequences for shooting unarmed Black individuals. Until society confronts the racial prejudice embedded in gun rights, the cycle of violence will continue.

4. Police Brutality: A System Designed for White Comfort

Police are the only people whose own cowardice and hysteria can be used to justify an objective misreading of the facts.

Justifying violence. The Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Connor (1989) dictates that a police officer's use of force must be judged from the officer's perspective at the scene. This standard effectively grants police a "license to kill Black people," as their claims of "fearing for their life"—no matter how ridiculous—are often accepted as justification for violence. This ruling nullifies racial discrimination claims by converting them into Fourth Amendment questions of "reasonableness."

Systemic racial bias. The degradation of Fourth Amendment protections, particularly through "Terry stops" and "broken windows policing," has inevitably led to racial profiling. Despite being unconstitutional, stopping individuals based on race is a common practice, as evidenced by statistics from New York City's stop-and-frisk program, where Black and Latino individuals were disproportionately targeted. The author's personal experience highlights the terrifying reality of these encounters.

Lack of accountability. The federal government's power to hold police accountable is limited by federalism and dependent on the political party in power. State and local governments, heavily influenced by powerful police unions, are equally reluctant to impose objective standards on police conduct. The author argues that police hesitation before opening fire, driven by fear of accountability, is not a negative outcome but a necessary step towards protecting Black lives.

5. The Fourteenth Amendment: A Second Founding Under Attack

So profound were these changes that the amendments should be seen not simply as an alteration of an existing structure but as a “second founding,” a “constitutional revolution.”

A new beginning. The Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th) and the 19th Amendment fundamentally transformed the U.S. Constitution, creating a "second founding" that repudiated white male supremacy. These amendments recast the entire document, demanding that political and economic power be shared among all, not just white men. The author argues that without these amendments, the original Constitution remains a "violent piece of shit."

Conservative resistance. The entire conservative legal project, from Reconstruction to the present, has been to limit the scope and effectiveness of this "new" Constitution. Regardless of their stated legal theories (federalism, judicial restraint, originalism), their consistent goal is to:

• Limit the right to vote
• Exclude fairness from due process
• Treat equal protection as an input, not a required outcome

Obliterating supremacy. The Fourteenth Amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and due process, is presented as the ultimate tool to dismantle structures of white male supremacy. The author asserts that any institutionalized bigotry or sexism upheld by law can be constitutionally destroyed by a robust application of these principles. The core conflict is whether equality and fairness should meet modern standards or remain tethered to the limited views of 19th-century white men.

6. "Reverse Racism" and Judicial Hypocrisy

No matter what your definition of suspect class is, it’s hard to fit all of white-dom into it.

Defining discrimination. The equal protection clause allows for discrimination against most classes of people, but not against "suspect" or "protected" classes, generally defined by race, religion, national origin, or immigration status. White people, as a class, do not fit this definition, as they have not been historically singled out for discrimination based on immutable characteristics. This distinction is crucial for understanding why policies like affirmative action are facially constitutional.

Manipulated standards of review. Courts use different levels of judicial review—rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny—to assess the constitutionality of laws. These standards, while presented as objective, are often manipulated by judges to achieve desired outcomes. For example, strict scrutiny, which typically invalidates laws, was used in Korematsu v. United States (1944) to uphold Japanese internment, demonstrating how even the highest standard can be bent to justify racism.

Hypocrisy in application. Conservatives frequently deny the existence of "substantive due process" or claim to adhere to a "color-blind" Constitution, yet their actions reveal deep hypocrisy. They selectively apply legal principles to benefit white interests, as seen in Justice Scalia's inconsistent reasoning in Loving v. Virginia (interracial marriage) versus Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy laws). The author argues that the "reverse racism" narrative is a distraction from ongoing, state-sponsored bigotry against actual minorities.

7. Unenumerated Rights: The Battle for Fundamental Fairness

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The Ninth Amendment's purpose. The Ninth Amendment explicitly states that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny or disparage others retained by the people. This provision was intended by James Madison to prevent future generations from concluding that the listed rights were the only ones people possessed. However, originalists like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork have notoriously dismissed the Ninth Amendment, effectively trying to read it out of the document because it undermines their restrictive interpretation of constitutional rights.

Substantive due process. The concept of "substantive due process," though controversial and often rejected by conservatives, is crucial for protecting these unenumerated rights. It demands actual fairness, not just procedural fairness, ensuring that the government cannot deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without a fundamentally just reason. This principle is essential for rights like privacy, which are not explicitly mentioned but are necessary for other enumerated rights to make sense.

Selective application. While conservatives reject substantive due process when it protects individual liberties (e.g., abortion rights), they readily employ its underlying logic to protect corporate rights and gut labor laws, as seen in the Lochner era and modern cases like Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This selective application exposes their true agenda: limiting rights for individuals while expanding them for businesses, demonstrating that their objection is not to the principle itself, but to who benefits from it.

8. Abortion Rights: A Fight for Bodily Autonomy, Not Just Privacy

If you proceed from the premise that “women are people,” the idea that women-people have a constitutionally protected right to control their own reproductive system is entirely obvious.

Beyond textualism. The right to abortion and privacy is not explicitly in the Constitution, a fact often used by opponents. However, the author argues that this textual absence is irrelevant given the misogynistic views of the framers, who did not consider women as equal persons. If women are recognized as full, equal people, then the right to control one's reproductive system, including access to contraception and abortion, becomes an obvious constitutional protection, akin to rights men inherently possess.

The "penumbras" and equal protection. The Supreme Court first recognized a right to privacy in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) regarding contraception, deriving it from the "penumbras" of other amendments. While Roe v. Wade (1973) extended this to abortion, it introduced "legitimate state interests" in potential life, creating a framework that balances a woman's rights against the state's interest in the fetus. The author contends that a stronger argument for abortion rights lies in the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as no other medical procedure for men is limited based on its impact on another potential life.

Forced birth as involuntary servitude. The author provocatively argues that forced birth, especially for unwilling women, constitutes involuntary servitude, which is explicitly prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. The state's compelling interest in a fetus does not justify forcing a woman to undergo nine months of physical transformation and labor without compensation or consent. This perspective reframes the abortion debate from one of privacy to one of fundamental bodily autonomy and freedom from forced labor.

9. The Illusion of Constitutional Amendment as a Solution

If they really thought that the organizing document of American self-government didn’t, on its face, protect gay people having sex in their own home, or protect Black people from driving without police harassment, or protect women who get a prescription from their doctor, then wouldn’t they spend nearly their whole life trying to change such an obviously flawed document?

A false promise. Conservatives often suggest that if certain rights (like LGBTQ+ equality or women's rights) are not explicitly in the Constitution, they should be added through the amendment process. However, the author argues this is a disingenuous tactic. Conservatives actively block proposed amendments, such as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), and work to limit the scope of existing ones, demonstrating that their true aim is not to fix the Constitution but to maintain existing power structures.

The ERA as a case study. The Equal Rights Amendment, proposed to explicitly guarantee equality of rights regardless of sex, failed ratification due to conservative opposition led by figures like Phyllis Schlafly. Schlafly's "STOP Taking Our Privileges" campaign argued that the ERA would strip women of "privileges" like exemption from the draft, ignoring that many of these "privileges" were forms of systemic disadvantage, particularly for Black women. This highlights how conservatives frame inequality as beneficial to maintain the status quo.

Fetal personhood hypocrisy. While opposing amendments for women's equality, some conservatives advocate for "fetal personhood" amendments, granting rights to the unborn. The author points out the hypocrisy: these same individuals often show little concern for born children living in poverty or facing discrimination. Equating Roe v. Wade to Dred Scott is a "crap"-covered indignation, as it ignores the vast difference between chattel slavery and a woman's bodily autonomy, especially when the 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude.

10. Voting Rights: A Century-Long Battle Against White Supremacy

The right to vote is nowhere in the original Constitution or its Bill of Rights.

A foundational omission. The original Constitution did not include a right to vote, reflecting the founders' intent to limit suffrage to a select group of white male landowners. This omission, coupled with the decision to leave voting rights to the states, laid the groundwork for centuries of disenfranchisement. Subsequent amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) gradually expanded the franchise, but this expansion has been a constant struggle against resistance.

Judicial and political obstruction. Despite constitutional amendments, the expansion of voting rights has been consistently undermined by the judiciary and conservative politicians. The author argues that amendments are merely "suggestions" in the face of dedicated white supremacy. The Fifteenth Amendment, intended to prevent racial disenfranchisement, was largely unenforced until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA).

Gutting the VRA. The Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder (2013) effectively gutted Section 5 of the VRA, which required states with a history of discrimination to get federal "preclearance" for voting law changes. Chief Justice John Roberts's logic—that racism in voting had been sufficiently defeated—is dismissed as willfully ignorant. This ruling unleashed a wave of voter suppression tactics, disproportionately affecting Black and brown communities, and directly contributed to outcomes like the 2016 presidential election.

11. Abolish the Electoral College and the Senate: Dismantling Structural Racism

Tying representation to the land as opposed to the people living on it is, among other things, fucking stupid.

Antidemocratic structures. The Senate and the Electoral College are presented as fundamental structural features of white supremacy embedded in the Constitution. The Senate, with its equal representation for each state regardless of population, disproportionately empowers smaller, often whiter, states, effectively diluting the votes of citizens in more populous, diverse states. This structure, a result of the "Great Compromise," was designed to protect the interests of slaveholding states and remains unamendable without the consent of the states that benefit from it.

Racial implications. The Senate acts as a "bulwark of white power" because people of color are not evenly distributed across the country. This "winner take all" system in statewide elections means that even in states with significant Black populations, white majorities can control both Senate seats, limiting Black representation. The author highlights the stark reality that only a handful of Black individuals have ever served in the U.S. Senate.

The Electoral College's flaw. The Electoral College extends the Senate's antidemocratic, white supremacist structure to the presidency. It allows a candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote, as seen in recent elections. While a constitutional amendment to abolish it seems unlikely, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a proposed workaround. However, the author warns that this compact is a "duct tape" solution, vulnerable to partisan manipulation and judicial challenges, especially given the current conservative control of the Supreme Court.

Last updated: July 30, 2025