Repealing Common Sense

The TEA Party: There is more proof that this movement is in disorder and at the very least, and that it’s members are confused. We hear the candidates talk of repealing (enter amendment) and they are stirring the crowd up who are carrying signs that read “Thou Shalt Not Change The Constitution”.TEA Party candidates support legislation aimed at altering the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of automatic citizenship for people born in the United States. Advocates for tougher measures against illegal immigration say such a change would discourage undocumented workers from having children in the United States. The 14th Amendment says “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” are U.S. citizens.

Also TEA Party candidates  publicly criticized the 17th Amendment, which allows voters to elect U.S. senators, a right once reserved to state legislatures. Some changes may be in order. It would be better to repeal the 17th  Amendment, then all this talk of 2/3 of the states would go away. With repeal of the 17th the states would get their voice back at the federal level which is how it worked prior. However, the point is TEA Party it’s hypoctitical in insisting the ‘Constitution’ should never be tampered with and than use it as a campagain promise to change it.

There are also talking about new amendments mandating a balanced budget and imposing term limits on members of Congress.

The conservative mission to destroy the Constitution in order to save it.

By Dahlia Lithwick and Jeff Shesol

A shot heard ’round the legal world it wasn’t. It started quietly enough: In April 2009, constitutional scholar Randy Barnett published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal offering proposals by which the Tea Party might amend the Constitution to “resist the growth of federal power.” The most radical among them was an amendment permitting two-thirds of the states to band together and overturn any federal law they collectively dislike. Very few people noticed. When tea-infused Republican candidates hit the hustings this year, pledging to topple a tyrannical federal government, they did not avail themselves of Barnett’s talking points.

As of September, the most prominent elected leader espousing the idea of a “Repeal Amendment” was Virginia House Speaker Bill Howell.

Now, just two months after the proposal was a twinkle in a Virginia legislator’s eye, the leadership of nine states is showing interest, and the popularity of the amendment’s Web site (they have them nowadays) has “mushroomed.” And this week, completing the proposal’s rapid march from the margins to the mainstream, Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah introduced the amendment in the U.S. House of Representatives, pledging to put “an arrow in the quiver of states.” The soon-to-be House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, said this week that “the Repeal Amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach, and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around.” Fawning editorials in the Wall Street Journal and chest-heaving Fox News interviews quickly followed.

For a party (whether of the Tea or Grand Old variety) that sees the Constitution as something so perfect as to have been divinely inspired, the idea that it needs to be altered fundamentally is beyond crediting, something like putting the Fifth Commandment up to a popular referendum. But the Tea Party vision of the Constitution has never been one of fidelity to the document itself, or even to the Framers. Instead, it’s a devotion to those scraps and snippets of the Constitution they accept, an embrace of only the Framers they admire, and an eagerness to jettison anything that conflicts with or complicates that vision, including the rest of the Constitution.

Here, then, if you needed it, is another indication that the Republican Party—in an act of grand, ongoing, unconscious irony—is assigning true conservatism to the ash heap of history and replacing it with a brand of radicalism in which nothing, not even the Constitution, is sacrosanct.
Traditionally (and what is conservatism if not respect for tradition?) conservatives have railed against “Constitutional tinkering,” while progressives have proposed all manner of amendments—some successful (women’s suffrage), others not (equal rights for women), still others, well, a bit unserious (a ban on “war for any purpose”).

Read More 2 pages


2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Kat
    Dec 06, 2010 @ 05:59:27

    Shouldn’t the headline read “Ripilling Koman Cents? These people are insane AND scary. Thanks Syrin!


  2. Diane
    Dec 06, 2010 @ 06:00:22

    Well, sigh….. at least they are not calling themselves ‘compassionate conservatives anymore. That was an outright lie.

    They don’t know what they want. They are sheeple, thinking they are the leaders, but are being led.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Syrin From Wasilla’s Stats

%d bloggers like this: