Elon Musk slams New York Times writer for calling the Constitution ‘dangerous’

Billionaire Elon Musk slammed a New York Times writer that wrote an article which claimed the U.S. Constitution can be considered one of the “biggest threats” to the country.

The Times’ book critic Jennifer Szalai claimed that “The United States Constitution is in trouble” due to the fact that former President Trump was able to become president through the Electoral College. 

“Americans have long assumed that the Constitution could save us; a growing chorus now wonders whether we need to be saved from it,” Szalai said. “The document that’s supposed to be a bulwark against authoritarianism can end up fostering the widespread cynicism that helps authoritarianism grow.” 

She went on to attack the originalist interpretations of the Constitution, “calling it “Constitution worship.” 

DEM LAWMAKER CALLS OUT CNN FOR BOTCHING HEADLINE ON HAMAS KILLING HOSTAGES

“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,” Szalai wrote. “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.” 

“One of the biggest threats to America’s politics might be the country’s founding document,” the Times writer added. 

The piece led to criticism from Musk. 

“They want to overthrow The Constitution,” he said on X. 

“Long Live America and our Constitution!” Musk later added. 

KAMALA HARRIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ‘PUSHED HARDER’ ON BIDEN’S MENTAL FITNESS DURING INTERVIEW: WAPO COLUMNISTS

Fox News Channel host Laura Ingraham said, “Does the NYT hate the Constitution? Of course it does.” 

Fox News Digital contacted the New York Times for comment and did not immediately receive a response.