Refine & Enlarge
If the New York Times' editorial page is the voce of liberal America, its reaction to the incoming House GOP's focus on the Constitution is telling. The editors' cannot find words to express their contempt for the GOP's intent to open the new session by reading aloud the Constitution and requiring that every bill cite its constitutional authority. These proposals are called a "theatrical production of unusual pomposity," a "Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification," "empty gestures," "presumptuous and self-righteous," "simply eyewash" and "vacuous fundamentalism."
First, the editors mockingly ask if Republicans are "suggest[ing] that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?" Well, the Democrats haven't set the bar very high.
Second, the editors mock Republicans for "suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation." Ironically, this revisionist ode to the "living Constitution" expresses exquisitely that Republicans do indeed understand the text better than the NY Times and their leftist allies. The Founders established a formidable amendment process for future generations - not a license for casual reinterpretation. The editors invoke the three-fifths clause as proof of their assertions (and Republican racism, of course), even though, ironically again, the example proves exactly the opposite - the three-fifths clause was corrected by the 13th and 14th Amendments - not "reinterpretation."
Finally, the editors chide House Republicans for forgetting that "it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker's chair." Of course, this is entirely untrue. It is the transitory strategy of the left to rely upon courts to impose a liberal agenda whenever America rejects such policy in Congress. Let the courts shift to the right and see how long the NY Times maintains this view of the courts. Congress has an absolute duty to ensure it acts within the scope of the powers vested therein by the Constitution.
Whether born of ignorance or hostility, the left's partisan view of the Constitution and its role in American politics is surely at odds with the Founders' view, the Republican view and, I expect, the view of the American people.
P.S. Powerline takes a similar view.
Republicans should have been better prepared. While it might have made sense to read the Constitution as currently amended (thus omitting the 3/5 clause, etc.), this would also be a good time to play offense on these clauses. Rush distorted... Read More
I quite concur. Nothing could more clearly demonstrate the Left's contempt for our nation as constituted (pun intended).
Of course, I think it is important to point out that the Constitution only matters because it was AGREED TO. The entities that did that agreeing (the States) have long since been subjugated by an overweening Federal government, a pattern which began with Lincoln.
It's only one short step from this realization to the notion that 1) the Constitution doesn't really matter because 2) the signatories don't have the power to enforce compliance. We need to rediscover and reinvigorate States' Rights, which is the true legacy of our grand experiment. Without the massive power base of the States, there aren't enough checks and balances on Federal power (and this is the true importance of Arizona's struggle with the Obama Administration over immigration).
Of course! The Judiciary...give me a break!!
Let’s check out that 2007 coverage of Speaker Pelosi …
"But first comes Pelosi-palooza. In a three-day stretch of whirlwind events beginning on Wednesday, Mrs. Pelosi will celebrate her heritage, her faith, her education, her childhood and her current home."
Funny how the Times reviled in “Pelosi-palooza"
It's amazing that the idea that the judiciary is the final arbiter of the Constitution is like Scripture today. When Bush signed McCain-Feingold into law, he said that though he thought it was unconstitutional it was up to the courts to decide that question. Makes one wonder why the other two branches have to take an oath to uphold the Constitution in the first place.
EVERY branch of the national government is a legitimate interpreter of the Constitution, and must do so when writing laws, deciding cases, and executing the law to see that its actions and decisions are indeed constitutional.
It's an abomination that the NYT would actually mock and scorn the Republicans and ordinary Americans for actually wanting to follow the Constitution especially with anti-religious language about "fundamentalism." It's shocking. Not surprising, but shocking.
Me wanted to read the part about niggerz? Why no niggerz in constitution reading! Three fifths of a piece of shit looking shitstain! Now, me amend constitution to kill da fags! No more faggs in Washington! Me read big ol constitution. But want da parts abot nigerz. Great founders wrote nigra-enslaving constitution. haley barbour ancestor fight die to whip nigras. Ordinary Americans want their niggers back!!!!!!!
The Constitution is very well thought out and intelligent and our founding fathers wrote it up to insure America's freedoms and stand in the world always lasted!! It is what any president, senator or representative takes an oath to uphold when they enter office!! Everyone needs to remember these important statements!!
I'm not sure that it *began* with Lincoln...
Oh, no doubt it might have "begun" with Madison or Jackson (both had secession kerfuffles), but ultimately it fell to Lincoln to respond. He did, and here we are.