Am I the only one who's noticed the rhetoric from the right that is at once decrying liberals for not honoring the constitution (as they see it) while simultaneously promising the make multiple amendments to that same constitution?
Just a few of the proposed amendments:
Declaring marriage to be only between a man and a woman (New Amendment)
Removing the part of the 14th Amendment that declares anyone born in the US to be a citizen
Banning flag burning
Requiring a balanced budget
Banning abortion (Though I haven't really heard much of that this year)
Repealing the 17th Amendment (popular election of senators)
Those are the ones I found in a 10 minute search online. There may be others.
I hope voters realize how very difficult it is to amend the constitution. Since the Bill of Rights was adopted (Amendments 1-10), it has only been amended 17 times. The last three: 27 - preventing congress from giving itself a raise (delaying pay raises until the next congress); 26 - setting the voting age at 18 years; and 25 - dealing with Presidential disability and succession (a reaction to President Kennedy's assassination).
I have several points to make here. First, if your candidate promises you a constitutional amendment on anything, he/she is lying. Amendments are impossible to get passed without an overwhelming consensus (as it should be). So, ignore that campaign pandering and focus on things that actually matter.
Second, amending the constitution is not a serious way to address the real problems our country faces.
Let's assume they prevailed on all these amendments.
(1) You lose your right to directly choose your senators.
(2) We would have legalized discrimination against same-sex couples and banned a form of political protest. (How will that make your life better?)
(3) The return of back-alley abortions and increased death among the women who get them.
(4) The balanced budget amendment would actually cause the government to shut down. Some of you are thinking, "Good!," but you'd be wrong. No matter how conservative you are, when the "fit hits the shan," we all turn to Uncle Sam for help. That is not going to change. Debt is a tool that, if used properly, helps a business, a family, or a government function properly and smoothly. To think otherwise is to be short-sighted IMO. (Think about the things you rely on the federal government for: postal service and protection form our enemies at the very least. Add the interstate highway system, regulatory agencies (that ensure some level of safety when you eat, drive, fly, ride a train, buy a car or other consumer product, etc.), and federal criminal laws that provide some rules for doing business and co-existing, and we already have a pretty full plate. Yet we take all of this for granted.)
(5)And we now have to decide how we determine who is a citizen and who is not. Will there be tests for everyone? Will the government get to decide who is and who is not a citizen?
Scared yet?
In truth, it is difficult for me to imagine myself changing so much to one day wake up and decide to join the GOP, but I can assure you, it will never happen until that party can find some serious people to advocate some serious ideas.
BTW - I'm not buying the "smaller government" and "balanced budget" rhetoric. In the last 30 years, the federal government and the debt have grown more under Republican administrations and leadership than under the Democrats. I'm too old and too smart to fall for that. I just wish more people noticed.
I'm not suggesting that it has always been this way. It has not. But Eisenhower and Nixon would likely be conserva-dems in this political climate. For sure Goldwater would be a as he would likely be vilified by the GOP for being pro-choice.
So, other than pandering to people's fears, and empty words about fiscal responsibility, what do you have to offer me, GOP?
*crickets*
Hey, Heather, at least conservatives admit that the right way to make these changes to the constitutional role of government is to amend the constitution (or leave things as they are if you can't). Liberals believe it is reasonable to make this level of change by reinterpreting the constitution or legislating their view of it from the bench.
ReplyDeleteAs to the amendments you mention, here's some other logical takes:
1) Okay, not one ever on my radar, so I won't say anything about it.
2) I admit trouble with this one due to state's rights issues, but every time I hear a federal judge interfering with a state law defining marriage, I'm ready to see this one passed. We've been round and round on this, so let me just say that personally, I'd prefer a guarantee that states can so define marriage to be between a man and a woman if they like, that one state not have to accept as marriage any union not meeting their law's definition, and--gasp--that for the purposes of direct federal law, the specific term "marriage" will be defined between a man and a woman.
3) The protection of innocent human life against unjustifiable death. Oh yeah, I forgot, the concept of human life doesn't matter when you're not allowing people to be as sexually active as they want without the biological consequences. We must preserve the sexual revolution and provide any excuse against rationally considering all stages of human life to be equally endowed with rights.
4) If I remember correctly, there were actually "outs" for the BBA in cases of war and national emergencies. I wouldn't think a "liberal who understands Ayn Rand" would have a big problem with requiring a reasonable level fiscal responsibility. Shame on every state (but one) for having such previsions in their constitutions. Hmmm... this wouldn't be opposition on your part simply on the basis of the idea's primary source, would it?
5) So you think it's completely reasonable that just because you happen to be within our borders when you have your child that your child automatically becomes a citizen of our country with all the rights and privileges? Can we not rationally wish to reconsider that idea? How about simply requiring that at least one parent be a citizen? Personally, I had this crazy idea once that we should all have to take some form of oath upon turning 18 stating we agree with the basic tenets of innate human equality and freedom in order to become full, voting citizens. I understand that the logistics of dealing with those who refuse would make this likely impracticable, but the idea was that if you disagree with THOSE principles, how can you be expected to uphold our laws and constitution? Requiring the oath would clearly and, IMHO, without bias tell every voting citizen that there is a basic moral principle at the basis of our government's purpose and that part of their personal responsibility as an American is to uphold that principle when dealing with their fellow man.
Finally, while government has grown under GOP, most actual conservatives (ones not in a position of power where humans are susceptible to corruption) don't like it. Imagine that, a group whose steady convictions have caused them to disagree with the actions of the political group who gives them the most hope and power.
So, seeing that democrats NEVER pander to people's fears (cough); have convictions stronger than their political place of power (uh-humph); cherish the basis, solidity, and vision of the constitution (snicker); and prove their fiscal responsibility in their unbiased desire to cut the military (smirk), what could possibly put me off about them?
-Jason