Tuesday, January 11, 2011


Michael Lind wrote the following in an article entitled Let's stop pretending the Constitution is sacred:

"Will conservatives restore America to constitutional government? The new Republican leadership in the House of Representatives has promised not only to begin the new congressional session by reading the Constitution in its entirety, but also to require that every new piece of legislation cite the passage in the federal Constitution that authorizes it.

"These gestures are certain to please the conservatives of the Tea Party movement who are the ascendant force in Republican primary elections. But Tea Party constitutionalism represents a deeply flawed understanding of America's founding, which ought to be based on the revolutionary idea of the power of the sovereign people to make and unmake constitutions of their design, not on superstitious veneration of particular constitutions handed down by wise demigods."

So, the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives is deemed to be inappropriate or superstitious?

I know of no one, Republican, Tea Party member or conservative, who believes that the Constitution is "sacred" in the usual sense of the word.

But the word "Sacred" is defined as:

•concerned with religion or religious purposes; "sacred texts"; "sacred rites"; "sacred music"
•worthy of respect or dedication; "saw motherhood as woman's sacred calling"
•consecrated: made or declared or believed to be holy; devoted to a deity or some religious ceremony or use; "a consecrated church"; "the sacred mosque"; "sacred elephants"; "sacred bread and wine"; "sanctified wine"
•hallowed: worthy of religious veneration; "the sacred name of Jesus"; "Jerusalem's hallowed soil"
•(often followed by `to') devoted exclusively to a single use or purpose or person; "a fund sacred to charity"; "a morning hour sacred to study"; "a private office sacred to the President"

According to some of those definitions, the Constitution certainly can be considered sacred.

Nevertheless, for this discussion, let's agree that it is not "sacred" in the religious sense.

It is, at the very least, the document that brought into being the United States of America, and that far too many in government have never read or applied it to lawmaking is a travesty.

The liberal/progressive may argue that it is a "living, breathing" document that is designed to change with the times.

That is a half-truth, and a half-truth is a lie.

The Constitution is designed to live and breathe, but very, very slowly.

It is breathes by the amendment process, not by judicial decision or decree.

Furthermore, it is the basis upon which our laws are supposed to be made.

Ours is the only constitution among nations that is specifically restrictive of government power, and that is by design.

President BO complained that it tells us what the government can't do, but fails to tell us what the government can do.

He sees that as a flaw.

It is not a flaw.

That's the whole point!

The suggestion that a law being considered "...cite the passage in the federal Constitution that authorizes it..." is a pretty good idea.

First of all it will slow the process of lawmaking down, as congresspersons who never have will now have to read the document to determine whether or not the proposed legislation is legal.

Secondly, in order to prevent legislative chaos, it will encourage "one bill, one subject," something I have championed for decades.

Thirdly, it will reduce the number of court cases filed that challenge laws' constitutionality, that having already been tacitly established by the citing thereof. That can only frighten lawyers, and should bother the average American not at all.

Finally (and I say "finally" only for the purposes of this post, as there may be many other reasons), it will force Congress to think through proposed legislation before passing it (something that would have been appropriate before passing the "we have to pass the bill so we can know what's in it" horrible bill that has become known as "Obamacare.")

I wonder what liberal/progressives are so afraid of, with regard to the reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives?

Why should they even care?

Most of them have never read it. How do they know it's so scary?

Is it sacred?

Not in the religious sense, only the Bible fits that definition.

(Yeah, yeah, I know...Koran is held sacred by many, but it is not sacred at all. It is a vicious, anti-societal, malevolent book that is exclusive and hate-filled at best.)

But it is in the "specific" sense.

For having read it, I say, "Good on them."

Now let's follow it.

We'll all be "libertized" by it.

Trust me, LIBERTY is a good thing.


Lisa said...

they are all for interpreting the constitution at their whim.
A bunch of lawyers running the country who made the Health Care industry a money maker for them?

They are so fast to twist it to their convenience yet they hold sacred the 14th amendment which was put in place for slaves not for those who come here illegally breaking the law to get here.
If it isn't' sacred why do they swear to uphold it when they are sworn in?

tha malcontent said...

The Constitution?

The Liberals don't need no Constitution! They already have their Manifest der Kommunistischen!

Scotty said...

It's just not the left, it's the right too. The RNC chair candidate, Saul Anuzis, needs to be looked at really hard too.

He'd like to revamp how the electoral college works....