We know what’s coming and we are prepared.
🇺🇸 The Constitution Is Sacred. Is It Also Dangerous? — NYT
One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document.
The United States Constitution is in trouble. After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, he called for the “termination of all rules, regulations and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” Outraged critics denounced him for threatening a document that is supposed to be “sacrosanct.” By announcing his desire to throw off constitutional constraints in order to satisfy his personal ambitions, Trump was making his authoritarian inclinations abundantly clear.
It’s no surprise, then, that liberals charge Trump with being a menace to the Constitution. But his presidency and the prospect of his re-election have also generated another, very different, argument: that Trump owes his political ascent to the Constitution, making him a beneficiary of a document that is essentially antidemocratic and, in this day and age, increasingly dysfunctional.
After all, Trump became president in 2016 after losing the popular vote but winning the Electoral College (Article II). He appointed three justices to the Supreme Court (Article III), two of whom were confirmed by senators representing just 44 percent of the population (Article I). Those three justices helped overturn Roe v. Wade, a reversal with which most Americans disagreed. The eminent legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, worried about opinion polls showing “a dramatic loss of faith in democracy,” writes in his new book, “No Democracy Lasts Forever”: “It is important for Americans to see that these failures stem from the Constitution itself.”
Back in 2018, Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley’s law school, still seemed to place considerable faith in the Constitution, pleading with fellow progressives in his book “We the People” “not to turn their back on the Constitution and the courts.” By contrast, “No Democracy Lasts Forever” is markedly pessimistic. Asserting that the Constitution, which is famously difficult to amend, has put the country “in grave danger,” Chemerinsky lays out what would need to happen for a new constitutional convention — and, in the book’s more somber moments, he entertains the possibility of secession. West Coast states might form a nation called “Pacifica.” Red states might form their own country. He hopes that any divorce, if it comes, will be peaceful.
The prospect of secession sounds extreme, but in suggesting that the Constitution could hasten the end of American democracy, Chemerinsky is far from alone. The argument that what ails the country’s politics isn’t simply the president, or Congress, or the Supreme Court, but the founding document that presides over all three, has been gaining traction, especially among liberals. Books and op-eds critiquing the Constitution have proliferated. Scholars are arguing that the Constitution has incentivized what Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt call a “Tyranny of the Minority.”
The anguish is, in some sense, a flip side of veneration. Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it.
Speaking at the WEF, Savor CEO Kathleen Alexander boasts about how her company is "saving the planet" from the evils of agriculture by replacing real butters and oils with synthetic versions made from carbon dioxide and methane. 😳
"Savor is part of bringing transformation to the food system by re-imagining how we make an entire macronutrient—fats and oils."
"The result is that we can dramatically lower the planetary footprint of our food system."
"Our food system today uses about 50% of the habitable land on the planet. It's 20-30% of our greenhouse gas emissions."
"And we can reduce all of those by 50-100%."
Source
Follow @RealWideAwakeMedia for more content like this!
Merch: https://wideawake.clothing
X | YT | IG | Rumble
🌆 Market News Digest
[July 3, 2026 EST]
🔥 Top Stories
• Middle East risk flares — IDF hits Hezbollah sites in south Lebanon; Houthis threaten Saudi assets; France deploys naval/mine-countermeasure assets near Hormuz.
• U.S. oil market scrutiny — DOJ/FTC say they’re monitoring crude for price-fixing/collusion as Brent settles at $72.12/bbl.
• Trump pardons saga — Trump signs pardons for six and faces fresh scrutiny after NBC reported undisclosed stock purchases before tariff pause.
⛽ Oil & Energy
• Gulf crude exports topped 10M bpd in June but remain ~40% below pre-conflict levels; Fitch flags ongoing Iran/Mideast risk to corporates and oil forecasts.
• CMA CGM warns Hormuz transit charges would be “devastating”; Airbus says defense cooperation remains pressured.
📊 Markets & Macro
• Germany’s 2027 draft budget lifts borrowing to €203.7B and spending to €555.4B; euro equities firm with DAX +0.85%.
• ECB/BoE message: inflation still the focus, but Bailey says UK ...
🇮🇷🏆🇺🇸 Iran Is a Bigger Defeat Than Vietnam | Foreign Policy
At his second inaugural, U.S. President Donald Trump pronounced his hope “that our recent presidential election will be remembered as the greatest and most consequential election in the history of our country.” By losing his Gulf war, Trump has achieved that goal. His choice to launch a campaign against Iran was encouraged by others, but fully his own. It has led to a reversal that marks a strategic calamity far greater than the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War.
Defeat in the Iranian war looks, on the surface, nothing like other U.S. military defeats. The speed of the war and its remoteness have lent an air of unreality to the whole endeavor. The White House has not been burned, as it was in 1814; there have not been protests against a nonexistent draft. The absence of substantial U.S. casualties in this conflict also masks the scale of the U.S. defeat. To be sure, the war has been deadly: Thousands of Iranians, ...
According to The Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump reviewed military options for a full-scale war against Iran to “finish the job,” but has decided, for now, not to move forward.
The report says Trump is concerned that renewed military conflict could hurt the chances of a diplomatic resolution and of dismantling Iran’s nuclear program, and that he’s shown willingness to let indirect talks in Qatar run past the August 18 deadline. He is said to be fine with continuing limited strikes on Iranian targets if Tehran violates the current temporary deal - as it already has, repeatedly.
How are those negotiations going?
Not well. It seems JD Vance’s “historic” face-to-face achievement was a one-off. Washington has been quietly downgraded from talking to the Great Satan to negotiating with the Little Satan instead - a senior Qatari official confirmed that U.S. envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner met Qatari officials in Doha, but there are currently no high-level U.S.-Iran meetings ...
