Justice correspondent Elie Mystal of The Nation made controversial statements Tuesday on ABC’s “The View,” claiming that every U.S. law enacted before the 1965 Voting Rights Act should be considered “presumptively unconstitutional.” Mystal’s comments reflect a growing sentiment on the far left that American legal tradition should be torn down and rebuilt to align with modern progressive ideology.
Mystal’s remarks came during a segment promoting his latest political project, which he referred to as “Project 2029.” Rather than proposing constitutional reforms, Mystal stated that Democrats should aim to “smash” laws he believes are “holding this country back,” including long-standing statutes not just updated or reformed but fully eliminated. He openly criticized the Republican approach to governance as forceful and destructive, and urged the political left to adopt similar tactics.
Among the laws Mystal targeted is the Immigration and Nationality Act, originally passed in 1952. The Act has come under renewed scrutiny as the Biden administration uses it to justify the detention and possible deportation of certain green card and visa holders deemed threats to national security. Co-host Sunny Hostin raised concerns that these actions may set up a legal clash over First Amendment rights, particularly if political speech becomes a factor in immigration enforcement.
In response, Mystal dismissed the law’s legitimacy outright due to its origin before 1965, arguing that the U.S. prior to the Voting Rights Act functioned as an “apartheid country.” He questioned why Americans today should respect laws “some old white man passed in the 1920s,” emphasizing a radical rejection of the legal framework built by previous generations.
His remarks triggered immediate backlash from constitutional scholars and conservative legal analysts, who argue that the Constitution itself predates 1965, and that wholesale dismissal of American legal precedent threatens the rule of law. The idea that laws should be invalidated based on the era in which they were passed—rather than on their merit or constitutionality—raises concerns about judicial activism and historical revisionism.
Critics say Mystal’s rhetoric undermines national unity and disrespects the foundational principles of the Republic. By rejecting laws based on the race or era of the legislators who passed them, such views risk promoting division rather than reform. His stance also minimizes the sacrifices of Americans who worked within the system to enact landmark civil rights legislation like the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
