Dwain Northey (Gen X)

There was a time—not that long ago—when the job description of Attorney General involved something quaint like “upholding the Constitution.” A dusty, ceremonial idea, like using coasters or reading the terms and conditions. But here we are, in this bold new era, where the position has evolved into something far more efficient: personal counsel to Donald Trump, now available in a convenient, government-funded format.

And so, farewell (but not really farewell, because these things never truly end) to Pam Bondi—a figure who, for all her many… contributions, at least aimed her constitutional experiments at something as modest as birthright citizenship. You know, just a small tweak to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nothing too ambitious—just overturning a foundational pillar of American law that has stood since 1868. Light housekeeping.

And yet, even that effort appears to be getting the legal equivalent of a polite chuckle and a swift escort out the door, perhaps with the ghost of United States v. Wong Kim Ark gently reminding everyone, “We’ve already been over this.”

But now comes the exciting part. The sequel. The reboot nobody asked for. With Bondi stepping aside, we’re treated to a new act: the Attorney General not as a lawyer for the people, but as a lawyer for one very specific client with very specific grievances. It’s less “Department of Justice” and more “Department of Personal Legal Strategy,” now featuring Donnie’s own handpicked defender stepping into the role like it’s a late-night infomercial: Why hire outside counsel when you can simply become the government?

Naturally, this raises the question: what’s next on the constitutional chopping block?

Birthright citizenship was a warm-up. A stretch, sure—but still within the realm of amendments people have heard of. Now that we’ve tested the waters of rewriting the United States Constitution like it’s a Yelp review, why stop there?

The Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution feels a bit… generous, doesn’t it? Voting rights for women—very 1920s. Perhaps it’s time to revisit that, just to make sure it still aligns with current “priorities.” After all, if citizenship itself is negotiable, suffrage seems practically optional.

And while we’re in a nostalgic mood, why not go full historical reenactment? Let’s dust off the prequel to democracy: voting rights exclusively for white male landowners. It’s got that vintage feel, like vinyl records or polio. Sure, it’s wildly incompatible with modern law and morality, but when has that ever stopped a good legal theory from getting its day in court?

Meanwhile, immigrants—especially those under programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals—can look forward to their status being treated like a seasonal item at a fast-food chain: available for a limited time only, subject to sudden cancellation, and always one court ruling away from disappearing entirely. Nothing says stability like building your life on a legal foundation that gets re-argued every election cycle.

Of course, the real genius of this approach is its efficiency. Why bother passing laws through Congress, debating policy, or engaging in the slow, tedious process of democracy when you can simply reinterpret the Constitution until it says what you need it to say this week? It’s constitutional law as improv theater: bold, unpredictable, and occasionally terrifying.

And somewhere, one imagines the framers of the Constitution watching all this unfold like bewildered audience members at a play that has completely lost the plot. They wrote a document designed to endure centuries of change. They did not anticipate it being treated like a rough draft with aggressive editorial notes.

So yes, Bondi is out, and the personal lawyer era is in. The question is no longer whether the Constitution will be challenged, but which part gets the spotlight next. Freedom of the press? Due process? The radical notion that laws should apply equally to everyone?

Stay tuned. At this point, the only amendment that seems truly safe is the one guaranteeing the right to watch it all happen in real time—and even that might be up for reconsideration once someone decides it’s been interpreted a little too broadly.