Podcaster and comedian Joe Rogan blasted a New York Times op-ed in which the author argued that the Constitution is “dangerous.”

The article, written by author Jennifer Szalai, laid out a series of arguments asserting that the Constitution is somehow a threat to democracy and was widely panned by those who read it.

During a recent podcast episode, Rogan slammed the piece.

“What the f*** are you talking about? Yeah. One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be one of the greatest documents that any country has ever found on, if not the greatest ever. That could be a threat to America’s politics. What politics are we talking about? How could you possibly gaslight me enough to go along with you on this?"

Former professor Brett Weinstein, Rogan’s guest during the broadcast, concurred, arguing that such a piece is “completely predictable” because “there’s obviously an authoritarian force there that just grinds its teeth at night over the Constitution and the fact that it prevents it from doing things that it just wants to do last week.”

Rogan responded, explaining that former President Donald Trump’s presence on the political stage is emboldening authoritarian elements on the left. “Well, this is why a person like Trump is so important to them. Because if you don’t have someone that is an imminent threat on the horizon in three months, it’s very difficult to justify all this s***,” the podcaster said.

Watch @JoeRogan EXPLODE on this insane New York Times article that argues the Constitution is “dangerous.”

“What the f—k are you talking about?!”

HEADLINE: “The Constitution is sacred. Is it also dangerous? One of the biggest threats to America's politics might be the country's… pic.twitter.com/GuIhQNmSEm

— The Vigilant Fox 🦊 (@VigilantFox) September 4, 2024

In the piece, Szalai lays out her argument that the Constitution is a threat to democracy and points to Trump’s rise to power despite losing the popular vote in 2016 and his Supreme Court appointments as evidence that the country’s founding document is a threat to freedom. “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,” she wrote.

The author highlighted that the Constitution “was thus born of compromise – with the enslavers getting the better end of the deal” and pointed out that “the fugitive slave clause stipulated that even when enslaved people escaped to free states they would never be free.”

Szalai later discusses the supposed dangers of originalism and quotes an author who claims, “originalism has allowed conservatives to undermine progressive policies while using the soothing language of constitutionalism.”

Szalai’s motivation for writing the piece seems clear: She views the Constitution as a danger because it prevents folks like herself from using the power of the state to force their ideology on the rest of us while allowing people she doesn’t like to occupy positions of power.

Folks making these types of arguments rarely do so because they believe the Constitution does not make us free enough. Rather, they might prefer a document that grants the government even more authority to intrude in our lives and infringe on our natural rights. In the end, any legal document or ideology that limits this authority is dangerous only to those seeking to wield state power to force their will on the rest of us.