A principal tenet of the extreme right wing is that the United States Constitution should be held inviolate. Strict constructionists--those who, like Antonin Scalia, (ostensibly) believe that the founders' will must be obeyed at all times and who therefore (ostensibly) view all matters of civic import through the lens of WWJD (Jefferson, of course!)--are the only ones truly fit to hold public office. Imagine our surprise, then, upon reading that Texas Governor Rick Perry, the latest Great White Hope to enter the GOP race for President, would actually like to change the Constitution,
Our surprise quickly abated, though, when we remembered that Perry is a Republican and that hypocrisy is to Republicanism as carbon is to organic life.
In fairness, Perry's desired changes are quite minor--tweaks, really. He merely wants to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments, eliminating things like the income tax (which we can understand, if not support) and the direct election of senators by the people (senators should be elected by corporations, like everyone else. . . including senators. Oh, never mind). Don't worry, though, he would replace those amendments with two nifty new ones, banning abortion and same-sex marriage. Oh, and he would also eliminate lifetime tenure for federal judges and give Congress the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds majority. It seems hardly worth mentioning his balanced-budget amendment.
So to sum up the right-wing teabagger view of the Constitution: The founding document must never ever be changed or altered or contradicted--except for those parts we don't like.
Conservative: If the constitution doesn't say we can do it, then we can't.
ReplyDeleteLiberal: If the constitution doesn't say we can't do it, then we can.