The question is not whether or not there is a procedure to change the constitution. The question is does the DSA platform align with the constitution as it exists? Is very apparent a relatively small group of radical activists want to change this country into something it was never intended to be. Such change if allowed to happen will destroy the pursuit of life , liberty and happiness as was intended by the founding fathers and documents.
Except if one looks at the stuff they're suggested, we'll see a lot of these were things that some of the founders
wanted. The President chosen by congress? The Supreme Court chosen by congress? The Senate having its representatives per state decided by state population rather than each state getting the same number regardless of population? As far as I can tell, all of that's in the Virginia Plan that James Madison and Edmund Randolph put together and various other people at the Constitutional Convention were in support of.
Sure, those specific ideas weren't the ones that won out in the end (various other things in the Virginia Plan did make it, though). But the Constitution was not something made by a bunch of people with a fully unified vision; it was the result of a ton of compromises that I believe left no one fully satisfied at the end. Even when
arguing for the Constitution in
the Federalist Papers, one can still see James Madison was
not a fan of the equal representation of states in the Senate (note him calling it a "lesser evil" and a "sacrifice"), and basically said they needed to do it to get the smaller states to agree:
A government founded on principles more consonant to the wishes of the larger States, is not likely to be obtained from the smaller States. The only option, then, for the former, lies between the proposed government and a government still more objectionable. Under this alternative, the advice of prudence must be to embrace the lesser evil; and, instead of indulging a fruitless anticipation of the possible mischiefs which may ensue, to contemplate rather the advantageous consequences which may qualify the sacrifice.
It also feels a bit odd to talk about how such changes "will destroy the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness as was intended by the founding fathers and documents" when one considers the fact it's pretty obvious the pursuit of liberty was
not intended by them, given the fact they made the deliberate choice to not only
not outlaw slavery in the Constitution, but even give the system some positive support in the Fugitive Slave Clause and the prohibition on stopping the importation of slaves prior to 1808. Sure, you can point to how a lot of them were against slavery, but they didn't end up putting that into the Constitution. It is of course true that the accommodations granted to the institution of slavery may have been necessary to get all of the states to sign on... but one can say the same thing about the Senate as it existed at the time, that it came out not so much because it was good as it was necessary. (notably, what they had then is not even the Senate we have today--the 17th Amendment altered it significantly by making Senators chosen by popular vote)
Now, personally, I think the Senate should stay. I don't particularly care that much about the equal representation part--though changing that is actually even harder than regular constitutional amendments--but I think it's a good design to have the lower house be completely up for election every 2 years, but only 1/3 of the Senate every 2 years. This allows for changing political winds to be reflected promptly in the House, but to still insulate the government from passing fads by requiring more time to fully build them up i the Senate. So I'm definitely not with the DSA on this one (actually I'm not with them on a ton of things, but I do have some sympathies for their other suggestions on governmental structure). Still, rhetoric like how this would somehow "destroy" life/liberty/pursuit of happiness (which the original Constitution, again, didn't even protect in regards to state law, hence slavery) is overblown, especially when it's not actually stated with an explanation as to
why it's bad outside of vague references to the founders.
