What do you think of this AP article: Republicans Hot and Cold on the Constitution?I was honestly shocked at how poorly written this article was. The author seems to think ALL the amendments following the first 10 are untouchable. (Except the repealing of the 18th which the author fails to mention as an example of a constitutional amendment being repealed).
Then the "constitutional law scholar" takes the insane position that constitutional amendments are never politically motivated. He then goes on to claim supporting the 2nd amendment (included in the original bill of rights written by framers of constitution) and wanting to repeal a later amendment (federal income tax for instance) is the equivalent of "cherry picking". (despite the fact repealing the federal income tax would be done via the amendment process which is exactly how the 18th amendment was repealed.....making it perfectly constitutional and legitimate if you can get enough votes).
What do you think? Shouldn't this be labeled an Op-Ed piece?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_republicans_constitutional_amendments#mwpphu-container
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.
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.............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."
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.
mr. wolf........"I do not need to read that article to know the right-wing is hypocrites when it comes to the U.S. Constitution."
Even if you believe that, surely you don't support such shoddy "journalism" being passed off as unbiased "news". Read the article. It's either very well crafted propaganda or pure garbage that was very poorly researched.
Posted by Rocky Mtn High
It sucked. The Demonrats are worse than the Repugnants when it comes to the Constitution.
Posted by Mr. Wolf ©
I do not need to read that article to know the right-wing is hypocrites when it comes to the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by Michael M
As the article points out, most of these proposed Amendments go nowhere and are just political gestures trying to connect with somewhat fickle voters.
And some of it is ridiculous, railing at parts of the Constitution as "unconstitutional". Only lawyers and politicians can survive that sort of mental gymnastics.
Posted by Cleetus
Election time is near and they are marshaling the troops and spreading the propaganda. The sad thing is that the media is so filled with these leftist twits.
Posted by Don sack
I think it does an ok job of pointing out the hypocrisy of many candidates for office. The candidate claims he is a "strict defender of the Constitution", yet wants to eliminate many of the portions he doesn't agree with. You are only a defender of the constitution if you are trying to defend all portions, including those you don't agree with.
By definition he is cherry picking; getting rid of specific parts you don't care for while keeping the parts you do agree with. That is essentially word for word the definition of cherry picking. He is trying to use his values to make the Constitution what he envisions the Founders wanted it to be, exactly what people like him complain about the other side doing, and also the opposite of what a strict constructionist would stand for.
When it talks about Bachmann and treaties it shows that many of these "Constitutional defenders" who are Republicans don't understand the Constitution in even the most basic manner, or don't care--it is especially disturbing that someone in her position would have no understanding of how treaties word since she is supposed to be an official representative of the people.
Orignal From: What do you think of this AP article: Republicans Hot and Cold on the Constitution?
Post a Comment