A recent dinner guest — culturally distinguished, of superb intellect — recently stated that "the" (the United States’) Constitution was "antiquated."
This is not the first time I’ve heard this sentiment from an intellectual, many of whom to me seem left listing, some capsized to portside.
He said "antiquated" in such a casual, matter-of-fact tone that I’m guessing that "antiquated" is considered a self-evident truth by most progressives. I, admittedly unfairly, asked him if he had read any constitutional history, most notably Madison’s "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787", a primary source for "original intent."
Madison’s "Notes" are even more "originalist" than the "Federalist Papers," themselves an admirable exercise in high quality pro-ratification propaganda. Madison’s "Notes" reveal the thinking of those writing the Constitution as extremely, well, contemporary.
The dinner guest admitted he had never heard of James Madison’s near verbatim transcripts of the arguments of those who were writing the Constitution. Dashedly unfair of me, a lawyer unusually well-versed in the Constitution, to cite a source that even most lawyers consider obscure.
That said, all’s fair in love and (perhaps slightly tipsy) dinner table talk!
I digress.
Our disagreement — his belief the Constitution is antiquated, mine that it wonderfully addresses the complexities and internal contradictions of classical (small l) liberal (small r) republicanism — points to a paradox.
And as Niels Bohr once said, "How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress."
Bohr thereby suggested that there are no paradoxes in "reality." In encountering the appearance of one we can use it to overcome our own blind spots.
I have an abundance of blind spots.
Hence my delight in conversing with, and devouring the literature of, the left.
Guess what? You have blind spots too.
Bemused, I consulted my resident Oxford New American Dictionary as to the definition of "Constitution." There I found two definitions with a superficial resemblance obscuring deep differences.
Turns out that the progressives are right … by their definition of constitution.
And we conservatives also are right … by our definition.
How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.
Most dictionary writers likely lean left and will give precedence to the subversive subtext they are insidiously promoting. So, the first definition of "Constitution" (implying unwritten) leans progressive:
"A body of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is acknowledged to be governed. . . . "
Followed by "the Constitution" (to which we conservatives bitterly cling):
"The basic written set of principles and precedents of federal government in the U.S., which came into operation in 1789 and has since been modified by 27 amendments."
Hard to miss the irony that progressives are bound by the conservative ethos of "fundamental principles or established precedents" while conservatives are committed to a text repeatedly (27 times) modified, most amendments enshrining progressive values such as abolishing slavery, upholding civil rights, establishing the income tax and extending voting rights).
The greatest supply-side rock band, The Kinks, were right. It is a "mixed up, muddled up, shook up world." (Except for "Lola.")
Progressives, not incorrectly, use "Constitution" to mean the rights they believe people should have, prominently including the right of a woman to abort her unborn babies and the right for born babies to be free of gun violence.
I infer they believe these constitutional in the case of abortion because of the fundamental principle that a woman has hegemony over what goes inside her body and because the Supreme Court set a long-lasting precedent.
Conservatives, not incorrectly, use "the Constitution" to mean what is written and ratified (as reasonably interpreted by legitimate authorities) as the "supreme law of the land."
We take exception to the conjuring of new government powers and private rights nowhere mentioned in the text.
What to do? Do my progressive friends really wish to scrap the Constitution as interfering with their aspirations for "progress?"
The Constitution was originally adopted to solve the problem of the original United States government whose Articles of Confederation provided for, for the time, too weak a federal government with too limited tax and regulatory authority.
We conservatives believe that the federal government now is too strong with too much tax and regulatory authority. I have elsewhere proposed repealing the Constitution (keeping the Bill of Rights and associated civil rights amendments such as women’s suffrage), restoring America to its original low-tax, gold standard, decentralized roots.
Progressives? Let’s put your devotion to democracy to the test.
Let’s meet up in Philadelphia and then send for ratification your progressive dream constitution of a more powerful, higher-taxing, federal government along with our restored Articles of Confederation for a decentralized, lower-taxing, federal government.
Game on.
Ralph Benko, co-author of "The Capitalist Manifesto" and chairman and co-founder of "The Capitalist League," is the founder of The Prosperity Caucus and is an original Kemp-era member of the Supply-Side revolution that propelled the Dow from 814 to its current heights and world GDP from $11T to $94T. Read Ralph Benko's reports — More Here.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.