Thread by @SethCotlar

"Every constitution...naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." Thomas Jefferson writing to James Madison, 6 September 1789. jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/selected-docum…

For more on Jefferson's anti-originalism, via Peter Onuf's insightful analysis of the subject.

https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1403761865335865344?s=20&t=FmnJsSjJhsWfKikPTVLaVw

You can agree or disagree with TJ's take on the Constitution (James Madison sure didn't buy it in its entirety in 1789), but anyone who knows anything about the founding era would know that it's not "spitting in the face" of the founders to talk about Constitutions evolving.

For folks pointing out that the Constitution was designed to have amendments, a smarter version of Boebert would have an answer to that. They'd say "yes, amendments are fine, so if you want to do something new, get an amendment passed. Anything else is unconstitutional."

This is where "strict Constructionism" fades into radical anti-government/nullification territory. They'll basically say any power the federal government has accrued through non-Amendment means is illegitimate. It's totally nuts, but the logic works if you want to believe it.

This is where the whole "constitution-in-exile" nuttiness that is fairly popular in some circles on the right comes into play. Basically, the theory goes, the New Deal was unconstitutional and we need to repeal it.

https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1017084164602904576?s=20&t=FmnJsSjJhsWfKikPTVLaVw

Some modern conservatives like Glenn Beck even push this back further, to Wilson and the Progressives (i.e. the federal income tax and the federal reserve) as the moment when the US stopped operating inside the bounds of "the true Constitution."

https://twitter.com/SethCotlar/status/1365714570082275330?s=20&t=FmnJsSjJhsWfKikPTVLaVw