Steven LaChance Blog

Lately, I’ve been watching interviews with MAGA supporters, and whenever the question comes up—“Do you believe in the Constitution?”—the response is invariably, “Yes, I’m a constitutionalist.” Yet how can someone honestly claim that title while backing an ideology that not only betrays the very document meant to protect our freedoms but, in many cases, actively seeks to undermine it? This glaring hypocrisy deserves immediate scrutiny.

Take the First Amendment, for example. During the Trump administration, there hasbeen a concerted effort to delegitimize the press by dismissing critical coverage as “fake news.” Major outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post documented these tactics in detail, arguing that such attacks on free expression strike at the heart of constitutional guarantees. A true constitutionalist, after all, would see a free and independent press as a cornerstone of democracy, not as an inconvenient adversary.

Judicial independence offers another clear case. Following several controversial court decisions in 2020, some MAGA supporters began openly questioning the legitimacy of judicial rulings simply because those decisions didn’t align with their political goals. Legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar has warned that politicizing the courts in this way endangers the balance of powers that the Constitution so carefully established. Reports from the American Bar Association and various academic journals reinforce Amar’s point, noting that undermining the judiciary not only erodes public trust but also weakens the very safeguards that protect individual rights.

Immigration policy further highlights this contradiction. Certain proposals endorsed by self-described constitutionalists have raised red flags among legal experts. For instance, a report from the Cato Institute criticized policies that involve the mass detention of individuals based solely on their national origin. Such measures, critics argue, fly in the face of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, which are meant to ensure fairness and protect liberty. A real constitutionalist would recognize that these clauses are not negotiable—they are fundamental to the principles of justice embedded in the Constitution.

Even publications like The Atlantic have observed how selective readings of the Constitution are often employed to justify partisan agendas. Instead of engaging with the full text and historical context of the document, some politicians and pundits isolate specific clauses to support their views while ignoring the broader, more inclusive vision the Founding Fathers intended. This cherry-picking undermines the idea of constitutionalism, which should be about a steadfast commitment to all the values and protections the document enshrines.

All these examples bring us back to the central question: Can someone truly be a constitutionalist if their actions and rhetoric serve to dismantle the very principles they claim to uphold? A genuine constitutionalist isn’t just someone who wears the label—it’s someone who lives by the Constitution, defending every right and safeguard it provides. In an era where political labels are often used as convenient covers, it’s crucial to ask whether proclaimed values align with actions. The research, historical records, and expert analyses all point to one thing: if you’re willing to undermine the free press, the judiciary, and the fundamental rights guaranteed to every citizen, then you’re not upholding the Constitution—you’re betraying it.