Posted on 01/05/2011 9:16:05 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
We have written many times about the Progressive movement and its open hostility toward both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We have also noted that modern progressives have generally had the good political sense to keep their opinions about the Constitution to themselves, beyond whatever critique is implicit in terming it a "living" document that is liable to call forth previously unknown "rights" at any moment.
Today's New York Times editorializes on the Republican takeover of the House. You could paraphrase the editorial as "wah-wah-wah;" the paper basically cries over its party's November defeat. But in the course of doing so, the editorialists are surprisingly open about their contempt for the Constitution:
A theatrical production of unusual pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House chamber.
Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.
Needless to say, the Times did not adopt a similarly surly attitude in January 2007, when Nancy Pelosi took over the helm in the House. The editorial continues:
The empty gestures are officially intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate -- presumably to the Republicans' Tea Party supporters -- that things are about to be done very differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for instance, reading aloud the nation's foundational document. Is this group of Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?
Well, yeah. Actually paying attention to the Constitution would be a change. But now the Times shows its true colors:
In any case, it is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.
Presumptuous to read the Constitution out loud? Seriously? And, in fact, the founders didn't eave the Constitution "open to generations of reinterpretation;" they provided for the document to be changed by amendment. But most revealing is the Times' hauling out the old three/fifths chestnut, much beloved by liberals who despise the Constitution. Never mind that the point of that provision, insisted upon by representatives of the free states, was to limit the influence of pro-slavery states in the House. This is, actually, a good illustration of how the Constitution has changed through amendment rather than "reinterpretation." Once the slaves were freed during and after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment provided that the House would be "apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State...." So the paper's snarky aside is entirely misplaced.
There is a similar air of vacuous fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given to Congress to enact it.
Contemplate that phrase for a moment--"vacuous fundamentalism." So citation of Constitutional authority is "fundamentalism?" And why is it "vacuous" for legislators to consider whether proposed legislation does, in fact, have a basis in the Constitution? Isn't this one of their most basic duties?
The new House leadership says this is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant of the speaker's chair.
Maybe instead of jeering at the Constitution, the Times editors should read it. Nowhere does it say or imply that constitutionality is the sole concern of the judicial branch. On the contrary, the Constitution gives the judiciary no special role with respect to determining the Constitutional validity of legislation or executive actions. Article I says, further, that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This places a clear duty on Congress to determine that the legislation it enacts is consonant with the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States."
The Republicans' antics are a ghastly waste of time at a moment when the nation is expecting real leadership from Congress, and suggest that the new House leadership is still unable to make tough choices. Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to overblown theatrics.
It's nice to see that the Times has such a sense of urgency, but I don't think the paper needs to worry. Reading the Constitution will take considerably less time than the near-filibuster that Nancy Pelosi delivered before handing the House gavel over to Speaker John Boehner. The Republicans will be on to substance soon enough. I doubt, however, that will make the Times editorialists any happier than contemplating the Constitution does.
Agreed. The NYT editorialists are tools of the far left.
You know, I had not even read moodyskeptics reply and yet I described them as evil too.
I guess their nature is just apparently obvious to many of us.
I’d say all of the effete pussies and homos on the NYT editorial staff should be hanged, but only the electric chair would be appropriate punishment for disseminating marxist propaganda, misinformation, and military secrets.
Rush nailed it today when he said that reading the Constitution on the floor of the House chamber amounted to performing an exorcism. Their heads are already spinning. This NYT editorial is like pea soup dribbling down their chins.
On the one hand this sounds all loosey-goosey and liberating and stuff, but OTOH liberals still fight tooth and nail to get their people on the courts so that they can force their understanding of the text down the rest of our throats.
An exorcism? That’s perfect and priceless. It’s unhealthy to agree with someone 100% of the time, but I find it mighty difficult to find a difference of opinion with Rush. So I’ve stopped trying. ;p
Amazing! Totally clueless.
“To be honest, I am stunned that even Dims are getting offended at reading the constitution on the House floor. It’s worse than even I thought....”
I’m stunned that anyone is stunned at their actions re: the Constitution.
Just watch a war protest or, better yet, Jon Stuart’s attempt to take on Glenn Beck with a rally on the mall.
That’s where they really came out of the closet, and that’s when I was stunned...at how open they were with their contempt for this country and what makes it so great.
"When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans ... And so a lot of people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it. That's what we did in the announcement I made last weekend on the public housing projects, about how we're going to have weapon sweeps and more things like that to try to make people safer in their communities."
When I heard a President saying things like this I knew they had only one thing in mind for this country. Complete overthrow.
I knew what a radical Obama was, and I knew what radicals those protesters and rally goers were, but I was surprised at how open they were compared to other protests and rallys they’d attended.
“Complete overthrow.”
Hope and Change, baby!
They are afraid it might educate some watching Cspan.
That was really something coming from a President too.
Yeah... he’s a freakin’ Commie-America-Hatin’-POS.
That was really something coming from a President too.
This sounds like it was coming from a "President" who has a fundamental misunderstanding of our country and its history.
Welp...Dingle let the cat out of the bag when speaking of Obamacare, and controlling the people, so this...coming from the President...doesn’t surprise me.
“This sounds like it was coming from a “President” who has a fundamental misunderstanding of our country and its history”
I don’t think it’s a misunderstanding.
I think it’s wishful thinking.
Yes, he is and so is 0bama. Both of those quotes are Bill Clinton during his Presidency.
Just amazing they say what they truly believe and the dazzled followers don’t hear anything but what they are going to get.
True, and you might even say it's just the projection of their will onto it, despite its language.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.