Exactly backwards

July 12th, 2010

This post at Progressive Nation alledges that Conservatives don’t respect the U.S. Constitution because they’ve talked about adding some new amendments and/or repealing others.

But who respects the Constitution more:

Those who want to change it using the amendment process mandated by the Constitution itself?

Or those who want to change it by having the courts simply ignore some amendments (like the 2nd and the 10th) and invent others (penumbra anyone?)?

Entry Filed under: Observations

7 Comments Add your own

  • 1. John Foust  |  July 12th, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    Gee, you mean there are some topics that would be worthy of consideration and some that wouldn’t be? That we’d need to talk with legal experts to help us interpret the history and the precedents, in order to know what can be done the right way and the wrong way? That sounds too wonky and liberal to me. I find that if you just recite the words “strict interpretation” all that heavy thinking is unnecessary.

    Money quote: Indeed, by the mid-point of his presidency, George W. Bush was on record supporting at least six different proposed amendments to the Constitution: (1) prohibiting flag burning; (2) victims’ rights; (3) banning abortion; (4) requiring a balanced budget; (5) prohibiting same-sex marriage; and (6) allowing state-endorsed prayer in public schools. As a wise blogger noted at the time, Bush “really seems to think the Constitution is just a rough draft.”

  • 2. Elliot  |  July 12th, 2010 at 2:14 pm

    I’m sorry, John. I’m confused by your point.

  • 3. John Foust  |  July 12th, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    I thought the point of that article was that politicians have used the dramatic threat of Constitutional amendment for all sorts of relatively minor and pinpoint issues. Why do you think “the courts” aren’t doing their job correctly?

  • 4. David Casper  |  July 12th, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Actually, John, the point of the article was that Conservatives have used the dramatic threat of Constitutional amendment. Considering the source, it would appear that this is being presented as a bad thing. Not that that’s what’s supposed to be done or anything.

  • 5. John Foust  |  July 12th, 2010 at 3:35 pm

    Uhm, yeah, I’m smarter than that, which is why I said “politicians” instead of Conservatives.

  • 6. David Casper  |  July 12th, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    But “politicians” wasn’t the point of the article. Conservative politicians was.

  • 7. John Foust  |  July 12th, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    You think I’m being unfair by suggesting that liberal politicians could be shown to have made suggestions for amendments that were crowd-pleasing or self-serving?

    End of the linked story: “If this were limited to right-wing activists, it’d be easier to dismiss. Alas, Republican officeholders and several statewide candidates are echoing the same ridiculous demands. Given the alleged reverence for the Constitution in far-right circles, the irony is rich.”

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


About

Being in a wheelchair gives you a unique perspective on the world. This blog features many of my views on politics, art, science, and entertainment. My name is Elliot Stearns. More...

The Abortionist

Recent Comments

Categories

Meta