NYT publishes piece calling US Constitution a “broken,” “dead end,” that “aids the right”

The New York Time published an opinion piece by Ryan D. Doerfler and Samuel Moyn attacking the US Constitution. They say the Supreme Court is now irredeemably broken.

Doerfler teaches law at Harvard and Moyn teaches law at Yale. The pair espouse far-left “progressive” ideologies. They say the US constitution is a tool of “the right” and needs to be done away with.

From New York Times…

The real need is not to reclaim the Constitution, as many would have it, but instead to reclaim America from constitutionalism.
…
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. This aids the right, which insists on sticking with what it claims to be the original meaning of the past.
…
It is a breath of fresh air to witness progressives offering bold new proposals to reform courts and shift power to elected officials. But even such proposals raise the question: Why justify our politics by the Constitution or by calls for some renovated constitutional tradition?
…
More aggressively, Congress could simply pass a Congress Act, reorganizing our legislature in ways that are more fairly representative of where people actually live and vote, and perhaps even reducing the Senate to a mere “council of revision” (a term Jamelle Bouie used to describe the Canadian Senate), without the power to obstruct laws.

In so doing, Congress would be pretty openly defying the Constitution to get to a more democratic order — and for that reason would need to insulate the law from judicial review. Fundamental values like racial equality or environmental justice would be protected not by law that stands apart from politics but — as they typically are — by ordinary expressions of popular will. And the basic structure of government, like whether to elect the president by majority vote or to limit judges to fixed terms, would be decided by the present electorate, as opposed to one from some foggy past.

A politics of the American future like this would make clear our ability to engage in the constant reinvention of our society under our own power, without the illusion that the past stands in the way.