Under the Anglo-American systems of separation of powers and checks & balances, a law passed by Congress or a state legislature can be challenged and brought before the Supreme Court—a judicial institution more properly called the Sanhedrin given that one-third of the judges are overseas Israeli. Its job is to determine whether a law is constitutional or not by majority decision. A law ruled unconstitutional is considered void and legally irrelevant. In theory this is a good system because it should prevent laws from being passed that go against the founding principles of the country, and the Constitution is one of the greatest historical governing documents ever written and an integral part of the genesis of the United States.
The Constitution is more than yellowed parchment; it is a document reflecting the folkways and ideals of a people and a system for institutionalizing those traits and demands into law. But like any system, it depends on what you put into it and who is in charge of it. In light of the fact that what we are dealing with is arguably an occupation government (one which works against our interests), using constitutionality as the benchmark for whether or not a law or a proposed law is a good idea—as many conservatives do reflexively—is probably a bad idea.
When we ask ourselves if something is constitutional, we are essentially playing a game of logic in which the Constitution is a premise we assume to be right and true. If the law in question is correct given the Constitution, we can then say it is a valid law. This also assumes that the Sanhedrin’s judgment or expected judgment of the law is right. There are problems with this construct—while constitutional logic may be valid, that doesn’t make it sound.
First of all, the Constitution is a written document—more on that later—from the late 18th century that draws heavily upon Classical models of government, English common law and Enlightenment philosophical thought about the purported "natural rights of man." The Constitution predates nationalism, electoral populism, mass media, universal democracy, the Industrial Revolution in the United States, several wars that hugely transformed American society and government, feminism, mass non-White immigration, deindustrialization, globalization, the resumption of international Islamic jihad after a lull following the decline of the Ottoman Empire, the welfare state and many other forces that have shaped the United States.
And not counting the Bill of Rights, it has been amended thirteen times, proving not so much that it is a “living document,” but that it can be radically altered beyond its original scope and still be called the ship of Theseus. When the Constitution was first ratified, the United States was territorially and demographically a fraction of the size it is today and the government was politically dominated by Northern commercial interests and a slaveholder aristocracy in the South. Today, a myriad number of states, industries, ethnicities, nationalities, cultures, folkways, classes, elites, and group interests thrive and languish in the United States which were not present when this document was first drawn up over two hundred years ago.
In my opinion, the Constitution is not equipped to deal with the problems we face today, chief among them being our racial replacement. When we have to debate whether or not it is "constitutional" to restrict or deport foreigners, we are playing within a losing system and ceding authority to structures which no longer support us. It is our long-standing reliance on this document which has contributed to this problem. When we take the literal Constitution as an infallible premise, we are ascribing qualities to it which it now no longer deserves, regardless of it ever did deserve them in the first place. Additionally, we are also assuming that the written word is an unchanging way of storing and transmitting value. It isn’t. Consider that every generation is said to have “reinterpreted” the Constitution. A document is dependent upon its writer(s) and audience for meaning, and even words themselves change meaning over time. For example, when Enlightenment thinkers wrote about liberty, they meant strongly private ownership of property. Does anyone running for office in the current year talk like that? The taxes we pay now on our purchases, properties and labor would make the heads of colonial Anglo-Americans spin.
We can best respect the Founding Fathers and their intent by recognizing they overturned the first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, on the grounds that it was ineffective in the post-War of Independence world. Instead of deifying the second Constitution and its contextually sensitive words as some inviolate document that is incorruptible, we need to reify the spirit of the Constitution. The goal was to give us a good government, to secure prosperity for the European settlers of North America and succeeding generations—to build a government that would stand the test of time. That government has been completely subverted and no one should feel attached to it because it has the form of something we once benefited from. And given whose job it is to interpret the Constitution nowadays, the attachment is harmful.
The other major problem with the constitutional premise is of course the Sanhedrin of the United States, chief arbiter of what laws we are allowed to enact and enforce. The Sanhedrin is what checks if a law is constitutionally valid or not, and that alone does not make a law sound. It means a law is correct given that the constitutional premise is true. As I argued above, the constitutional premise is not true, but even if it were, there would still be issues with the Sanhedrin as an institution.
Sanhedrin rulings are respected as if the court’s alignment were lawful neutral, while in reality the court is highly politicized, and inescapably so. Justices are considered liberal- or conservative-leaning, since the President who appointed them picked people who would agree with him (why wouldn’t he?). It is then not surprising that such an institution is so easily subverted, and the negative impact of this amplified by its authority. Furthermore, as my snarky nickname for it implies, the Sanhedrin is unrepresentative of the United States. One-third of the highest court in the United States is made up of liberal jews, making it more jewish than New York City. That means only half of the gentiles on the court need to side with them to strike down a law, which is basically the story of the American left in a nutshell—White liberals siding with ethnic or racial minorities to advance their ideology.
The Constitution isn’t “bad” per se, but it is an outdated document and should not be the basis for our decision-making in its current configuration. Just because something is constitutional does not make it sound. On the other hand, there are genuinely good things in our Constitution and for the time being they are worth defending by any means necessary. While it is true that freedom of speech is protected, it is almost meaningless since the social freedom of what can be spoken is much narrower and the economic consequences almost as bad as imprisonment. This was noticeable in even Tocqueville's time, but has only gotten worse. Additionally, the rise of social networks as the new public square, though one subject to ((((Terms of Service)))), means that any speech you want millions of people to access needs to be vetted by a clique of technocrats, businessmen and catladies.
The right to bear arms is also protected, but always under assault from the left. And of course, many states have essentially restricted gun ownership to keeping a handgun inside your house—whereby the right to it is clearly infringed. Meanwhile we have to debate if it is constitutional or not for the US-born children of illegal immigrants to automatically become deportation-protected citizens; it’s not like that causes a huge incentive problem in trying to secure the border. We owe that problem to a Sanhedrin decision about the Fourteenth Amendment. The Constitution does a lot of things for us. But in the hands of our legalistic enemies, it is and will continue to be used against us. It is a tool, not a totem. The constitutional premise is insufficient for our survival.