Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
The Democratic Socialists of America openly advocates major constitutional changes, including drafting a new constitution and creating a democratic socialist republic.
The current Constitution makes changes like that extremely difficult. Article V generally requires two-thirds support to propose amendments and ratification by three-fourths of the states, with even stronger protection for equal state representation in the Senate.
My argument is not that a handful of democratic socialists could take office tomorrow and simply abolish the Constitution.
My concern is what could happen over time if a movement committed to replacing major parts of the current system continually gained voters, elected more candidates, controlled more state governments, expanded its influence in Congress and other institutions, and eventually accumulated levels of political power that seem unrealistic today.
Some people argue that the Constitution’s safeguards are strong enough that the DSA could never realistically accomplish its most radical goals.
I disagree. Constitutional safeguards are strong, but I do not believe they are an absolute guarantee forever regardless of how much political and institutional power a movement eventually gains. Political movements organize specifically to turn goals that are impossible today into possibilities tomorrow.
So I believe Americans should take an organization’s stated long-term constitutional goals seriously before it ever acquires enough power to attempt them.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
1Opinion
This supreme court has already shown that they will interpret the constitution in favor of republican values and goals, basically shitting on the constitution anyway. I could envision a world in the future where socialists do gain more power and eventually do the same in their favor. Coporate democrats and MAGA are to blame for the rise of socialists winning in elections lately so it's of their own doing if all their work comes undone.
Frankly, while i may not agree with their messaging in full, id rather clear out the swamp both parties have made of this goverment and country.
Downside is, every politician eventually caves to financial pressure and we end up back in a swamp. It never ends
Also, you seem to be posting a lot about the DSA. They must really have you worried over nothing.
You actually just conceded the central point of my question.
You said you can envision a future where socialists gain more power and eventually reshape institutions in their own favor. That is exactly why I am not “worried over nothing.”
My concern is not that a few socialists can abolish the Constitution tomorrow. It is what happens if a movement keeps gaining voters, winning elections, controlling more institutions, and eventually acquires enough power to pursue the constitutional transformation it openly says it wants.
And there is an important difference between disagreeing with how the current Supreme Court interprets provisions of the existing Constitution and an organization explicitly saying it wants to draft a new constitution and create a democratic socialist republic. The DSA’s current program says exactly that.
You also say you would rather let them “clear out the swamp” even though you do not agree with all of their messaging. That is precisely the kind of attitude I am concerned about. People can support a movement for selected reasons while still helping that movement accumulate political power for a much broader agenda.
So which is it? Can socialists realistically gain enough power over time to reshape the system in their favor, as you just said, or am I worried over nothing? Both cannot simultaneously be your argument.
I post about the DSA because I have read what they say they ultimately want, and I oppose that destination. I would rather oppose it while it is politically weak than wait until it becomes strong enough for everyone to suddenly decide the threat was real after all.
You'll be long dead before that happens, IF it even does happen. Stop worrying so much. I just said I could envision that future, not that it would happen for sure.
@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 You don’t know that I’ll be “long dead” before anything like this could happen, and telling me to “stop worrying” is condescending rather than an argument.
I’m not claiming the DSA will control the country tomorrow, and I’m not claiming that one democratic-socialist president could simply abolish the Constitution by executive order. My concern is political accumulation: winning more primaries, electing more candidates, gaining influence inside the Democratic Party, and eventually reaching positions—including the presidency—from which that movement would have substantially greater power to advance its agenda.
And this isn’t some imaginary political trend decades in the future. AP is describing Democrats right now as being in an “internal civil war” between moderates and progressives while democratic-socialist candidates defeat incumbents and party leaders worry about some of those candidates.
Bill Maher is worried enough about the direction of the progressive wing that when he was directly asked whether he could support JD Vance in 2028 if a progressive Democrat were nominated, he answered yes, saying he didn’t want to live in what he called “communist America.” That doesn’t make Maher correct about everything, but it certainly means I’m not the only person looking at this trend and taking it seriously.
Most importantly, the DSA itself says its goal is to “draft a new constitution” and “create a democratic socialist republic,” and says “complete victory” requires building a new society from the ground up. That is their language, not mine.
So yes, you said you can envision socialists eventually gaining enough power to reshape institutions in their favor. That is precisely the possibility I’m concerned about.
You can think the probability is low. You can think it will take decades. But you cannot know that I’ll be dead before it happens, and dismissing the concern with “stop worrying so much” does not answer it.
You are seriously looking under the bed for boogeymen here in this one. Unless they show a blatant disregard for the law like this current administration has done, then the courts have been packed by Republicans for years now. You won't see a change that drastic in your lifetime, but i tell you what, if it ever happens that they take over enough to enact what they say then feel free to come back and say I told you so.
@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 Calling this a “boogeyman” does not make sense when, in the very same comment, you acknowledge the possibility that they could eventually “take over enough to enact what they say.”
That is literally the scenario I am trying to prevent.
I do not need to believe it is guaranteed to happen, nor do I need to believe it will happen next year, for me to oppose a movement whose published destination I fundamentally reject. Political risks do not suddenly become worth caring about only after the people pursuing them already have enough power to succeed.
And now you are bringing the current administration into it. I voted for Trump and I support the agenda I voted for, so I am not interested in turning this thread into another argument about him. Whether you believe this administration has disregarded the law does not answer the question of whether Americans should take the DSA’s own long-term constitutional agenda seriously.
You also cannot possibly know that I “won’t see” something like this in my lifetime. Political movements can rise, collapse, and transform parties much faster than people expect.
And no, I do not want to come back someday and say “I told you so.” That completely misses my point. I want the DSA’s radical constitutional agenda defeated politically before it ever gains enough power for there to be anything to say “I told you so” about.
You are free to think the risk is remote. I am free to tell voters what the DSA says it wants and encourage them to reject it at the ballot box. That is how democratic politics works.
Hey, if you wanna be paranoid about it, then by all means, go for it.
@Ez_Bri-Z_v2, That’s rich coming from someone who has spent this same thread warning about MAGA, Republicans, the courts, and the current administration.
Apparently when you worry about a political movement gaining institutional power, that is legitimate concern. When I worry about a political movement gaining institutional power, it suddenly becomes “paranoia.”
The difference is that I can point directly to the DSA’s own current program. It says the movement wants to “draft a new constitution” and create a “democratic socialist republic.” It calls for abolishing the Senate and Electoral College, replacing the President and Supreme Court with institutions subordinate to Congress, and includes an explicitly socialist-feminist agenda among its national goals.
So no, I am not imagining some random boogeyman. I am reading what the organization itself says it wants and deciding that I oppose it.
You are free to think the risk is remote. But calling me paranoid while simultaneously warning about MAGA and Republicans is just a double standard.
You are worried about what might happen long in the future. I am bringing up what is already happening here in the present. We are not the same here.
@Ez-Bri-Z_v2 I understand the distinction you’re making. You believe the things you’re concerned about are happening right now, while I’m concerned about preventing a political movement from eventually gaining enough power to carry out an agenda it openly publishes.
But that does not make my concern irrational or “paranoid.” Preventing something before it happens is the entire point of political opposition.
I also simply do not share your assessment of the current administration. I voted for Trump and support the agenda I voted for. You are entitled to believe Republicans are damaging the constitutional system; I am entitled to disagree.
What concerns me is that the DSA openly advocates a different long-term political order. I don’t want to wait until democratic socialists control enough elections, institutions, state governments, Congress, or eventually the presidency before deciding their larger agenda deserves attention.
And I am hardly the only person concerned about the direction of the socialist/progressive wing. Bill Maher recently said his 2028 vote is “in play” and indicated he could support JD Vance rather than a sufficiently far-left Democratic nominee. Democrats themselves are also dealing with a real ideological fight between establishment figures and progressive/socialist challengers, with recent socialist-backed victories alarming some party leaders and donors.
That does not mean Maher or every worried Democrat agrees with every argument I make about the DSA. It does mean that concern about the growing political influence of the socialist left is hardly something I invented because I’m “paranoid.”
And you yourself have already acknowledged that you can envision socialists eventually gaining enough power to reshape institutions in their favor. So we are not really disagreeing over whether that possibility can exist.
We disagree over whether Americans should take that possibility seriously before it becomes imminent.
My answer is yes. Yours is apparently no. That is the actual disagreement.
that is the category unconstitutional. before they could dissolve the court- unless by force like 1917! -the court would say: based on constitution prevented.