The truth stings. Thank you for putting this in context with reality. The cognition overload and anxiety are crushing, now. We need plenty of truth and practical wisdom on how to take care of our physical and mental health in this extended time of terror.
GLAD you mentioned it! How did I miss it? I read everything from you, every time you post. This is another good reason for comments. ASSUME nothing. Just because you posted it doesn't mean the Substack system delivered it. And let's not go there on "user error" because once you are on my WHITE list, nothing... I mean nothing from you goes to trash or spam. You are even above White List. You are in the VIP section of my community.
To be held in that kind of regard by you, and in a time like this... I’m humbled, thank you. For your care, for showing up here, and for reminding me why this work matters.
The Constitution of the USA was never meant to be a static document. Article 5 provides citizens the chance to amend it, as times change. The use of Article 5 provided for all the basic rights in the Bill of Rights, as well as voting rights for women and former slaves. (Interesting to note in terms of the balancing act that is *ideally* performed in the USA among Executive, Congress, and Judicial branches, it was Amendment 14 which gave former slaves citizenship, over-ruling a Supreme court ruling that had denied it to them - the Dred Scott case).
Constitutional amendments are not particularly easy to effect, as evidenced by the more than 10,000 proposals made in US history to do so, with only 17 ratified into law.
My point is that the Constitution was written in order to be rewritten. Americans are not push-overs. It's a complicated, wildly diverse country. We don't need to "throw everything we've got into countering it" (it's unclear who the "we" is and what the "it" is, to me) but we Americans do need to fight the Trump Administration and its habeas-corpus-denying lackeys until they can be replaced. And then, the country will really need to think about how it will rebuild, and hopefully the great American experiment can continue.
I'm not disputing that the U.S. Constitution was written to be amended. It's exactly what Article V allows. And yes, past amendments have expanded rights and corrected injustices. But that history doesn’t neutralise the danger posed by how Article V is being used now. The issue isn’t whether amendment is allowed. It’s what kind of amendment is being pursued, by whom, and through what tactics.
What’s on the table today isn’t about expanding rights, but about permanently weakening the federal government, curtailing judicial oversight, gutting civil and environmental protections, and entrenching minority rule. That’s not a theory. It’s spelled out in the Convention of States playbook, Project 2025 policy agenda, and the model resolutions already passed in 28 state legislatures.
I’ve already written two in-depth articles detailing exactly what this movement is doing, how it works, and why it’s dangerous. The phrase “throw everything we’ve got into countering it” refers specifically to the coordinated campaign to trigger an Article V Convention. Not Article V in the abstract. Not constitutional amendment as a concept. This campaign — well-funded, accelerating, and backed by operatives who openly reject the legitimacy of pluralist democracy — is what demands resistance.
“We” refers to those who recognise the authoritarian shift underway and are not content to wait and see how far it goes. If you don’t see yourself in that category, that’s your call. But I write for people who do.
Finally, while your comment presents itself as a moderate correction, as with your previous comments, it reframes my argument as alarmist and vague. It also shifts attention from the active threat to a nostalgic civics lesson, and subtly casts my readers as reactionary rather than informed. That’s not neutral engagement. That’s strategic delegitimisation — a tactic as familiar as it is tiresome. And I am not here for it.
You’re welcome to hold your view. But if your goal is to continually recast my work as misinformed while ignoring the specific, well-documented threat it addresses — then this isn’t a discussion. It’s deflection. And I won’t spend further time indulging it.
I mentioned you and the "How to Stay Sane" post on Robert Reich's substack tonight...it's so helpful!
That's really kind Dee, thank you. I'm so glad it helps, and I'm grateful to you for spreading the word.
The truth stings. Thank you for putting this in context with reality. The cognition overload and anxiety are crushing, now. We need plenty of truth and practical wisdom on how to take care of our physical and mental health in this extended time of terror.
You're welcome Georgia.
I don't know whether you read my last post, but if not, it may help.
https://loricorbetmann.substack.com/p/what-it-means-to-stay-human-when
GLAD you mentioned it! How did I miss it? I read everything from you, every time you post. This is another good reason for comments. ASSUME nothing. Just because you posted it doesn't mean the Substack system delivered it. And let's not go there on "user error" because once you are on my WHITE list, nothing... I mean nothing from you goes to trash or spam. You are even above White List. You are in the VIP section of my community.
Georgia, I don’t have words. Truly.
To be held in that kind of regard by you, and in a time like this... I’m humbled, thank you. For your care, for showing up here, and for reminding me why this work matters.
I’ll carry those words with me.🙏
What a read to start the day. Very well done.
Thanks Julia, I'm so glad it landed.
The Constitution of the USA was never meant to be a static document. Article 5 provides citizens the chance to amend it, as times change. The use of Article 5 provided for all the basic rights in the Bill of Rights, as well as voting rights for women and former slaves. (Interesting to note in terms of the balancing act that is *ideally* performed in the USA among Executive, Congress, and Judicial branches, it was Amendment 14 which gave former slaves citizenship, over-ruling a Supreme court ruling that had denied it to them - the Dred Scott case).
Constitutional amendments are not particularly easy to effect, as evidenced by the more than 10,000 proposals made in US history to do so, with only 17 ratified into law.
My point is that the Constitution was written in order to be rewritten. Americans are not push-overs. It's a complicated, wildly diverse country. We don't need to "throw everything we've got into countering it" (it's unclear who the "we" is and what the "it" is, to me) but we Americans do need to fight the Trump Administration and its habeas-corpus-denying lackeys until they can be replaced. And then, the country will really need to think about how it will rebuild, and hopefully the great American experiment can continue.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-5/
https://www.history.com/articles/constitution-amendments-changes
I'm not disputing that the U.S. Constitution was written to be amended. It's exactly what Article V allows. And yes, past amendments have expanded rights and corrected injustices. But that history doesn’t neutralise the danger posed by how Article V is being used now. The issue isn’t whether amendment is allowed. It’s what kind of amendment is being pursued, by whom, and through what tactics.
What’s on the table today isn’t about expanding rights, but about permanently weakening the federal government, curtailing judicial oversight, gutting civil and environmental protections, and entrenching minority rule. That’s not a theory. It’s spelled out in the Convention of States playbook, Project 2025 policy agenda, and the model resolutions already passed in 28 state legislatures.
I’ve already written two in-depth articles detailing exactly what this movement is doing, how it works, and why it’s dangerous. The phrase “throw everything we’ve got into countering it” refers specifically to the coordinated campaign to trigger an Article V Convention. Not Article V in the abstract. Not constitutional amendment as a concept. This campaign — well-funded, accelerating, and backed by operatives who openly reject the legitimacy of pluralist democracy — is what demands resistance.
“We” refers to those who recognise the authoritarian shift underway and are not content to wait and see how far it goes. If you don’t see yourself in that category, that’s your call. But I write for people who do.
Finally, while your comment presents itself as a moderate correction, as with your previous comments, it reframes my argument as alarmist and vague. It also shifts attention from the active threat to a nostalgic civics lesson, and subtly casts my readers as reactionary rather than informed. That’s not neutral engagement. That’s strategic delegitimisation — a tactic as familiar as it is tiresome. And I am not here for it.
You’re welcome to hold your view. But if your goal is to continually recast my work as misinformed while ignoring the specific, well-documented threat it addresses — then this isn’t a discussion. It’s deflection. And I won’t spend further time indulging it.
Say what we will about Trump's ability to govern, he is a master at that plausible deniability thing.
Dead right as always, W.J.