NEW YORK, NY Sept 6 (DPI) – The New York Times op-ed page last month hosted law professors from Harvard and Yale, of all places, who with radically straight faces declared the 235-year-old US Constitution “broken” and the American Left, including judges, should ignore its precepts.

“Liberals have been attempting to reclaim the Constitution for 50 years — with agonizingly little to show for it. It’s time for them to radically alter the basic rules of the game,” wrote the professors, 40-year-old Ryan Doerfler of Harvard and 50-year-old Samuel Moyn of Yale.

The Aug. 19 op-ed triggered about 2,000 reader comments, most of them reflecting sentiments of dismay, derision and general head-scratching about what the two legal scholars have in mind for an alternative to a political document that’s spawned perhaps the greatest degree of health, wealth and freedom to pursue happiness in human history.

Many, of not most, readers gave it back to the professors. Among the most popular comments:

Yes, let’s jettison the government structure of almost two and a half centuries that the vast majority of Americans support and that gave us unprecedented benefits and governmental stability despite regular leadership changes. Today, it blocks progressives from getting every single thing on their wishlist, so it’s worthless. Nothing could possibly go wrong.

This is a deeply irresponsible proposal. Whatever weapon you devise can and will be used against you much more than you will be able to use it to help in the ways you want.

Here’s an idea – let Americans vote on the salaries of tenured Yale professors, based on their perceptions of their value to society, or even let the undergrads vote. That would be democracy, but no doubt not popular in the faculty lounge. All of these “suggestions” are borne from a deeply held progressive belief that they are smarter than the rest of us, and our entire system needs to be rebooted to accommodate their politics. America is not New Haven, thank heavens, and perhaps the answer is to convince people to vote in a particular manner rather than gaming the system.

So just think how this would have played out 2016-2020 with trump freed from the bounds of the Constitution. Still think it’s a good idea?

If pretentious urban Progressives can’t convince the rest of us to make changes to the rules, like their fore-bearers did – civil rights, female suffrage, prohibition, etc. – they don’t deserve those changes, and, frankly, should stay in the faculty lounge. The constitution was written specifically to keep these kind of radical democrats out of power, and ensure “progressive changes” are approved by the overwhelming majority of citizens.

“But constitutions — especially the broken one we have now — inevitably orient us to the past and misdirect the present into a dispute over what people agreed on once upon a time, not on what the present and future demand for and from those who live now.” The Constitution is the set of basic principles. The principles are eternal in nature, without the past or the future, or an expiration date. If those basic principle were bad, unfair and unjust, the people would be fleeing from here. Instead, we have dozens and dozens millions individuals being constantly attracted to America. It isn’t our personality, ethnicity, race or language that attracts them but exactly those founding principles. Why would we change something that is extremely good? If anybody develops something better, implement it in a different country and prove the working concept in the field. That’s exactly how the USA was created. Without the proof of something superior, there is no need to change the founding principles…