Socialist Movement Debates America’s Constitutional System

Walter Jones speaks at a rally podium with a crowd and flags in the background — Photo: Jeffery Edwards / Shutterstock

Several Democratic Socialists of America chapters now openly call for a new constitution, putting America’s current charter squarely in the political crosshairs.

Story Snapshot

Some DSA materials urge replacing the Constitution with a new socialist framework.
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis says these goals clash with core American institutions and freedoms.
Scholars note many “democratic socialist” policies can be lawful if pursued democratically.
Voters face a real test: rhetoric versus what candidates would actually try to pass.

What DSA Chapters and Leaders Are Stating Publicly

Democratic Socialists of America national program language says members aim to “draft a new constitution” and build a “democratic socialist republic,” signaling an explicit desire to change America’s governing order. A Cleveland chapter essay argues the United States is “no democracy at all,” and urges opposition to the current constitutional structure. A San Diego resolution calls the Constitution “antidemocratic and oppressive,” and presses for a “new constitution” as a core socialist aim. These texts show a direct challenge to the present system.

New York City politician Zohran Mamdani has said, “I am a socialist,” underscoring how candidates embrace the label in plain terms. Supporters’ essays describe the Constitution as a system designed to protect elites, and frame change as necessary to deliver working-class power. These positions rally people who feel locked out by rising costs, stagnant wages, and unequal influence. But they also spark alarms for those who fear a break with checks and balances would invite one-party rule.

How Critics in Congress Are Framing the Stakes

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis argues the agenda tied to Democratic Socialists of America stands “in direct contrast to our republic,” citing ideas like ending the Senate or easing voting rules for noncitizens as inconsistent with the Constitution. She led a House push to denounce socialism, which passed in 2026, reflecting a clear message from the Republican majority about where they draw the line. Her case blends personal history, public warnings, and a challenge to the movement’s institutional goals.

Malliotakis and allies say the danger is not only policy size, like bigger welfare programs. They point to proposals that would rewrite the rules of government itself. They warn that when leaders weaken police, borders, courts, or the Senate, power can tilt to a smaller group. For many on the right and left who distrust Washington “elites,” that warning resonates. They worry that rapid structural change could entrench a new set of insiders, not empower everyday people.

What the Law and History Suggest About Change Pathways

Stanford constitutional analysis finds most policies labeled “democratic socialism” can be legal if passed through normal lawmaking and court review, without violence or coercion. That includes public ownership in some areas, stronger labor rights, and larger safety nets. Replacing the Constitution, however, is a different path. That would require overwhelming political consent using the amendment process or a convention. In practice, it is extremely hard, which is why activists often focus on elections first.

Voters now face a concrete test: separate hard-edged slogans from actual bills that candidates would file on day one. Ask for clear plans, not just broad calls to “seize” power for the people or to “crush” socialism. Demand cost estimates, legal paths, and timelines. This is not a left-versus-right reflex fight. It is about whether those in power will guard core liberties while tackling real pain points—housing, healthcare costs, wages—without breaking the guardrails that protect everyone.