Hey, my steps on Justin turns 27 today. So Justin wishing you a happy birthday. Now coming up, I'm gonna talk about Katangi Brown Jackson.

She seems to be putting on a kind of audition here, but not even so much as a Supreme Court justice.

She seems more like one of these hack performers. Daniel D'Souza-Gill is gonna join me. We're gonna talk about

Jackson's mentor, the radical legal activist Derek Bell.

I want to examine the strange appeal of the most controversial figure in France, and he's running for president Eric Zimor.

I'm also gonna conclude my analysis of Guido da Monte Feltro in Dante's Circle of Fraud. This is the Dineshti Sousa podcast.

America needs this voice. The times are crazy, and the time of confusion, division, and lies. We need a brave voice of reason, understanding, and truth. This is the Dineshti Sousa podcast.

As I follow the hearings with Katangi Brown Jackson, it's got me thinking about her philosophy that the Constitution is something that is in a constant process of change.

So this is the, and I've discussed this before, the podcast, the idea of the living a constitution.

I came across a very eloquent refutation of this idea that was given by Calvin Coolidge almost a, well, almost a century ago.

I just wanted to read it because it so beautifully states why the Constitution and the founding itself are not in some sense living,

but are dead in the sense that they reflect enduring principles that have been put down on paper and put down on paper for a reason.

So here we go. It's often asserted that the world has made great progress in 1776 and that we have new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day.

And that we made therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern.

So see how Coolidge appears so prescient here and talking about things that people are talking about now.

And then says Coolidge, but that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that's final.

If they are in doubt within inalienable rights, that's final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that's final.

No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions of anyone wishes to deny the, to deny their truth or their soundness,

the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people.

Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary.

Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient than those of the revolutionary fathers.

And then he goes on to say, we live in an age of science and of a bounding accumulation of material things. These did not create our declaration, our declaration created them.

...