Leftist author Elie Mystal from “The Nation” has sparked nationwide controversy by calling the American Constitution a “piece of crap.” Mystal didn’t stop at criticism, going further to advocate for the South African Constitution as a superior alternative for modern governance concerns. How effective has South Africa’s progressive constitution been at improving living conditions?
Controversial Constitutional Criticism
Elie Mystal, a prominent columnist for “The Nation,” recently ignited debate by describing the U.S. Constitution as a “piece of crap” while appearing on “The Breakfast Club” radio program. The legal commentator used his platform to contrast America’s founding document with South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution, which he lauded for its more comprehensive approach to rights and representation.
Elie Mystal calls the Constitution a piece of crap and calls for Americans to replace it with the South African system. pic.twitter.com/B1glsmPOcs
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) April 4, 2025
Mystal’s critique centers on the historical context of both documents, highlighting that South Africa created a new constitution with input from all citizens following apartheid. This stands in contrast to the American approach of maintaining the original 18th-century document while adding amendments over time to address changing social values and needs.
Elie Mystal: “Voter fraud does not exist. We shouldn't make laws based on protecting us from things that don't exist."
If it doesn’t exist then he should have no issue with it.
— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) April 3, 2025
South African Model vs. American Tradition
In promoting the South African Constitution, Mystal points to its explicit provisions for economic and social rights that aren’t directly addressed in America’s founding document. The South African Constitution includes specific rights to housing, healthcare, education, and social security that reflect modern conceptions of human rights beyond the civil liberties focus of the U.S. Constitution.
However, critics note that despite these constitutional guarantees, many South Africans continue to live in poverty with limited access to the very rights enshrined in their constitution. South Africa’s document also includes controversial elements like race-based policies for affirmative action and land redistribution from white to black citizens, alongside restrictions on freedom of expression that criminalize “advocacy of hatred.”
Elie Mystal: “We live in a country where you can get snatched up off the street for writing an article in the newspaper.”
— The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) April 3, 2025
Broader Implications for American Governance
Mystal’s comments reflect growing tensions in American legal thought between traditionalists who view the Constitution as requiring modest interpretation and progressives seeking more dramatic constitutional change. His perspective challenges the reverence typically afforded to America’s founding document, suggesting that its provisions may be fundamentally inadequate for addressing modern human rights concerns and social challenges.
During the same discussion, Mystal made additional controversial claims, including that voter fraud in the United States “does not exist” and that laws shouldn’t be made to protect against non-existent problems. He also expressed concerns about potential repercussions for his writings critical of established American legal traditions, highlighting the contentious nature of constitutional reform debates.
While South Africa’s constitution has been praised for its progressive elements, critics point to the country’s ongoing struggles with high crime rates, including violence targeting white citizens, as evidence that constitutional language alone doesn’t guarantee societal harmony. This raises questions about whether America would benefit more from constitutional reform or improved implementation of existing constitutional principles.