« | »

AP Mocks GOP Hypocrisy On Constitution

From the DNC’s lickspittle minions at the Associated Press:

SPIN METER: Republicans hot, cold on Constitution

By Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer
August 23, 2010

WASHINGTON – Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn’t care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.

Gosh, how shocking. And what hypocrisy. Imagine believing in the rule of law based on the original principles of the Constitution, and yet still having objections about its misinterpretation (14th amendment), and abuse (16th amendment).

Imagine honoring the Constitution and yet still believing it can be improved! That’s crazy.

This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.

The GOP is a party of hypocrites. Thank goodness we have the Associated Press to point that out to us on a regular basis.

Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.

Couldn’t the fact that Republicans want to amend the Constitution show that they believe that we as a nation should be bound by it?

That is, they would rather amend the Constitution instead of just passing un-Constitutional laws or relying on legislation from activist judges?

Jackson’s package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.

The Republican proposals, by contrast, tend to be social and political statements, such as the growing movement to repeal the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship.

Gosh, those Democrats are generous and practical. And gosh, those Republicans are crazy and bigoted ideologues.

Republicans like Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the lead Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, argue that immigrants are abusing the right to gain citizenship for their children, something he says the amendment’s authors didn’t intend.

Which is actually true, given that the 14th Amendment was written to make sure freed slaves were given US citizenship.

Sessions, who routinely accuses Democrats of trying to subvert the Constitution and calls for respecting the document’s "plain language," is taking a different approach with the 14th Amendment. "I’m not sure exactly what the drafters of the amendment had in mind," he said, "but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen."

Obviously, the Associated Press knows that the founders did have this in mind, and that it is clear in the “plain language” of the Constitution.

Other widely supported Republican amendments would prohibit government ownership of private companies, bar same-sex marriage, require a two-thirds vote in Congress to raise taxes, and — an old favorite — prohibit desecration of the American flag

What a laundry list of ridiculously old-fashioned ideas. The framers would be spinning in their graves at the thought of anyone opposing same-sex marriage. (And never mind that these same framers put anti-sodomy laws in their home state legislation.)

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who founded a tea party caucus in Congress honoring the growing conservative movement that focuses on Constitutional governance, wants to restrict the president’s ability to sign international treaties because she fears the Obama administration might replace the dollar with some sort of global currency.

Broun, who is among the most conservative members of Congress, said he sees no contradiction in his devotion to the Constitution and his desire to rewrite parts of it. He said the Founding Fathers never imagined the size and scope of today’s federal government and that he’s simply resurrecting their vision by trying to amend it.

"It’s not picking and choosing," he said. "We need to do a lot of tweaking to make the Constitution as it was originally intended, instead of some perverse idea of what the Constitution says and does."

More laughable crackpots who think they understand the Constitution better than the “writers” at the Associated Press.

The problem with such a view, says constitutional law scholar Mark Kende, is that divining what the framers intended involves subjective judgments shaded with politics. Holding up the 2nd Amendment as sacrosanct, for example, while dismissing other parts of the Constitution is "cherry picking," said Kende, director of Drake University’s Constitutional Law Center.

Well, if Mr. Kende of Drake University says so.

Virginia Sloan, an attorney who directs the nonpartisan Constitution Project, agreed.

"There are a lot of people who obviously don’t like income taxes. That’s a political position," she said of criticism of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the modern federal income tax more than a century ago. "But it’s in the Constitution … and I don’t think you can go around saying something is unconstitutional just because you don’t like it."

Sloan said that while some proposals to alter the Constitution have merit, most are little more than posturing by politicians trying to connect with voters.

"People are responding to the politics of the day, and that’s not what the framers intended," she said. "They intended exactly the opposite — that the Constitution not be used as a political tool."

The good news, Sloan and Kende said, is that such proposals rarely go anywhere

Still, it gives the AP and the rest of our betters something to laugh about.

By the way, the AP fails to note that the so-called nonpartisan Constitution Project is actually yet another radical left Soros front.

Among other things, the Constitution Project demands that the United States abandon its post-9/11 anti-terrorism and anti-crime measures on the grounds that such measures are misguided “government proposals that [have] jeopardized civil liberties.”

Specifically, the Constitution Project:

    * opposes President Bush’s decision to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals rather than in civilian courts
    * opposes “the use of profiling” in law-enforcement and intelligence work alike
    * holds that state and local law-enforcement agencies should be uninvolved in pursuing suspected terrorists
    * opposes government efforts to “conduct surveillance of religious and political organizations”
    * opposes “increased federal and state wiretap authority and increased video surveillance”
    * calls for the creation of a commission “to investigate the abuse of people held at detention facilities such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay”

And these are just some of their positions on the ‘War On Terror.’ But, you see, they don’t believe the Constitution should be “used as a political tool.”

Isn’t it funny the way the Associated Press always manages to find these kind of experts?

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, August 23rd, 2010. Comments are currently closed.

9 Responses to “AP Mocks GOP Hypocrisy On Constitution”

  1. seandougsnyder says:

    Why is it that the press and their PAC (the Dem Party) can’t seem to tell the difference between respecting the constitution and and pushing for reforms under the rules for changes to the constitution, and hating the constitution and doing everything possible to change it without following any of the rules. Maybe its just me

  2. JohnMG says:

    …..”There are a lot of people who obviously don’t like income taxes. That’s a political position,” she said of criticism of the 16th Amendment, which authorized the modern federal income tax more than a century ago. “But it’s in the Constitution …”

    There were also a lot of people who didn’t like prohibition, too, and THAT was, repeat WAS, in the Constitution. But we got rid of it because it was a piece-of-s#it legislation.

    The founders knew that a mechanism for amending the document was not only necessary, but prudent. They also knew that the separation of powers was just as necessary. That is why the ammending process is as cumbersome and difficult as it is.

    Sessions proposals, like Broun’s seek a return to the original intent of the founders. Jackson’s proposals are based on “rights” conjured up by a radical judiciary, and cannot be supported in the language of the founders.

    But what should we expect from the AP–the official organ of the DNC?

  3. Mithrandir says:

    Jackson’s package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing…

    And it is these same wacky voices that got Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into giving loans to people who can’t afford them [ thank you liberals! ] which partly caused our economic meltdown….Imagine how much faster it would dissolve if expensive unsustainable Constitutional “rights” were enacted and enforced?

    Time to divide the country, 1/2 liberal, 1/2 conservative…..right down the Mississippi!

  4. wardmama4 says:

    Obviously the Associated (with Terrorists) Press does not have any reporters, journalists, Constitution owning individuals on their pay rolls (but apparently have a number of al-qaida sympathizers) –
    1) The Constitution (ratified in June 1788) – the 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights – the first 10 Amendments ratified in 1792 (4 years later). Since the BoR was proposed in 1789 (1 year later) – it is pretty much a part of the original Constitution.
    2) I think it is li(e)bral exaggeration – most people (Rs, conservatives) want to amend the section of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) to close the ‘birthright’ citizenship loophole that came out of a li(e)bral Judge’s statement in a decision that had nothing to do with the14th Amendment.
    3) The 16th (1913) takes away the States Rights that would be the 10th Amendment – looky there an Amendment that destroys an original right in the original Constitution – who’d thunk it could have happened – and oh, btw, who was in charge in 1913?!? That would be Dems with a capital (D) as in destructive.
    and
    4) Once again (wait for it) the 17th – ‘cuz this one is exactly the same as the one above – takes away States Rights, destroys an existing part of the Constitution (Section 3) and oh, btw (again) it was a Dem with a capital (D) as in destructive who did this one too.

    Perhaps A(w/T)P – just perhaps – Rep Broun (R) and others want to RESTORE the Constitution not rewrite it.

  5. confucius says:

    Radio talk show host, Doc Thompson, proclaims himself a tea partier, conservative and Constitutionalist. He has even claimed to “weep” when reading the Constitution.

    Yet, he has stated that he cannot be found “guilty until proven innocent” because of Constitutional protections. In case there is a synthetic conservative reading this post, the legal principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is not in the Constitution. Rather, it is implied.

    The legal principle comes from the Magna Carta.

  6. proreason says:

    more “news”

  7. bill says:

    So what does the AP think when Imam Obama just ignores the Constitution?

    Probably about like they think about Christianity.

  8. seanrobins says:

    I know that this will come as a shocking new development to the Left, but . . .

    The proper way to change the Constitution, if one is so inclined, is through a Constitutional Amendment. But this is obviously shocking and appalling to the Left, which much prefers to change the constitution through judicial fiat.

  9. proreason says:

    62 day plan to restore the United States of America, beginning Jan 22, 2001.

    Day 1 – repeal all legislation passed by the prior Congress
    Day 2 – Obamy vetoes the legislation
    Day 3 – Initiate impeachment proceeding
    Day 30 – Complete impeachment. Biden becomes President, and he vetoes bill to repeal prior legislation.
    Day 31 – Initiate impeachment proceeding
    Day 60 – Complete impeachment. John Boehner becomes President.
    Day 61 –
    1. President Boehner signs the bill ro revoke all legislation passed by the prior congress
    2. Historic State dinner in honor of Benjamin Netanyahu
    3. Boehner announced increase in US combat troops by 1,000,000
    4. Warning to Iran of intent to invade unless they immediately cease nuclear activities
    5. Warning to Taliban to lay down arms immediately
    6. Boehner signs extension of Bush Tax Cuts
    7. Boehner signs bill revoking Corporate Income Tax
    8. Appointments:
    a. Sarah Palin to Dept of Energy
    b. John Bolton to Director of CIA
    c. Jan Brewer to Director oh Homeland Security
    9. Department of Education is disbanded
    10. Congress initiates amendment processes for:
    a. Balanced Budget
    b. Term Limits
    c. Clarification of Commerce Clause
    d. To revoke the 17th amendment
    Day 62 –
    1. Stock market doubles
    2. Corporate America announces plan to hire 3 million Americans within 3 months
    3. Congress initiates impeachment proceedings against Ginsburg, Sotomeyer, Kaplan and Breyer
    4. Debate begins on Paul Ryan’s Roadmap for fiscal solvency
    5. Criminal investigations are announced of Pelosi, Reid, Franks and Dodd
    6. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are dissolved
    7. Boehner announces divestiture in Government Motors
    8. Boehner announces Tarp money and unspent Stimulus money will be returned to the Treasury
    9. Tiny Tim is replaced. Bernacke is replaced. Criminal investigation is announced for Henry Paulsen
    10. Debate begins on real reform for Health Care, including Tort Reform and free market solutions
    11. UN is told to leave NYC. US funding is reduced to minimum
    Day 63 – Stock market doubles. Iran capitulates. Taliban capitulates. Value of the Dollar doubles. US bonds rise to 6%. Money Market interest rates rise to 4%. NBC files for bankruptcy. Rush Limbaugh retires and is appointed Communications Director.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »