Kamala Harris Just Revealed Her Plan to Dismantle the Constitution

Kamala Harris finally said the quiet part out loud. Speaking to the Win with Black Women podcast this week, the former vice president and failed presidential candidate laid out what amounts to a constitutional demolition project dressed up in the language of reform. She called it a “no bad ideas brainstorm.” That’s rich. When someone tells you there are no bad ideas, you can bet you’re about to hear some spectacularly terrible ones.

Let’s start with the electoral college, shall we? Harris wants to have a conversation about it, which in progressive speak means she wants to dismantle it entirely. Never mind that this system was designed specifically to prevent a handful of densely populated states from steamrolling the rest of the country. The Founders understood something Harris either doesn’t grasp or doesn’t care about: tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Without the electoral college, candidates would campaign exclusively in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a few other urban centers. The rest of America might as well not exist.

You know what’s interesting? These same people who champion diversity in every other context suddenly hate the idea of geographical diversity in our electoral system. Farmers in Iowa, ranchers in Wyoming, small business owners in Alabama? Their concerns don’t matter in Harris’s vision of America. Only the coastal elites get a say.

Then she pivoted to Supreme Court reform, which is just code for court packing. She wants to expand the number of justices because Democrats can’t win through the legitimate process of appointing qualified judges when vacancies occur. This isn’t reform. It’s a power grab, plain and simple. The moment one party expands the court to get favorable rulings, the other party will do the same when they take power. We’ll end up with a Supreme Court of 47 justices, each one a political operative in robes.

Harris also floated the idea of multi-member districts, another scheme designed to water down Republican voting power. She wants to penalize Supreme Court nominees who supposedly lie during confirmation hearings, as if there’s some objective standard for what constitutes dishonesty when discussing hypothetical future cases. Who decides what’s a lie? Senate Democrats? That’s not justice; that’s a show trial.

The most galling part is her insistence on ethics rules for Supreme Court justices. The court already adopted a formal Code of Conduct in late 2023, but apparently that’s not enough. What Harris really wants is a mechanism to intimidate conservative justices into retirement or silence. She’s not interested in ethics. She’s interested in control.

Here’s the thing about brainstorms with no bad ideas: they’re useful in advertising agencies when you’re trying to come up with a catchy slogan for toothpaste. They’re dangerous when you’re discussing fundamental changes to the constitutional architecture that has sustained the longest-running republic in human history. Some ideas are bad. Really bad. And most of what Harris suggested falls squarely in that category.

The American system wasn’t designed for efficiency or to give one political faction permanent dominance. It was designed with checks and balances, with friction and frustration built right in. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature. Our republic survives because it’s hard to change, because power is distributed, because no single person or party can remake the entire system in their image.

Harris and her allies are frustrated because they can’t simply impose their will on the country. Good. That frustration is the sound of the Constitution working exactly as intended. When politicians start talking about tearing down the guardrails that protect our rights and our votes, we should listen carefully. And then we should tell them no.