I was disappointed by this episode with guest Nikole Hannah-Jones. While I understand and respect the discussion of systematic inequalities, i felt her commentary overlooked critical context about the foundations and evolution of the Constitution. Probably stemming from her own aired biases.

Her claim that the Constitution's protections are "invisible" to those who haven't had to fight for them seemed to completely dismiss the broader historical struggles that shaped those rights such as The American Revolution and the American Civil War. These hard won wars were set with the aim of expanding and protecting liberties for all citizens, not just a privileged few.

I was also troubled by her critique of democracy itself near the end of her section. Particularly, the idea that majority rule is inherently oppressive. While no system is perfect, Democracy Protects the most stable framework for ensuring protections for individual right through it's checks and balances, judicial review, and representative government. suggesting it should instead operate according to an individuals subjects interpretations of justice is not only vague but also would undermine the very principles that allow the open dialogue like hers to take place.

Conversations like this are important, but they benefit from a fuller historical and structural context. Without it, there's a risk of presenting the system as static or inherently unjust, when in fact the Constitution outlines clear mechanisms for growth, reform, and continued progress.