GOP Occupied with Amending the Constitution (Guest Voice)
GOP Occupied with Amending the Constitution
by Tina Dupuy
A perfect summary of the Grand Old Party’s relationship with the U.S. Constitution comes from Texas Governor Rick Perry at Mike Huckabee’s candidate forum on Fox News last Saturday. Governor Perry claimed as president he could overturn a law passed by Congress by executive order (he can’t), and then to show his bona fides on the subject ,he pulled out a copy of the Constitution from his breast pocket — displaying it proudly to the national audience.
Of course, he held his prop upside down.
And said, “It’s all right here.”
Indeed.
Republicans love to worship the Constitution as scripture. Perry keeps his next to his heart. They also love to talk about adding some “Even Newer Testaments” to this sacred document. They’re strict constructionists believing in the original intent, but they’d prefer to see it improved drastically. Translation: It’s so perfect they’d like to see it changed.
Saturday, candidates talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw abortion, keep marriage heterosexual, term limit the Supreme Court and take away citizenship from children born to illegal immigrants.
English author Samuel Johnson famously said patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For Republicans, talking about amending the Constitution is the first defense against having actual policy discussions. The 112th Congress has grinded to an all out halt by GOP obstructionism and instead of having an authentic plan to help the country that elected them, they opted to vote in (among other symbolic bills) a Balance Budget Amendment. This of course, like the majority of the bills the House will pass this year, will never become law.
This is bureaucratic busy work. A great display of government waste Republicans love to spend their time on the federal payroll talking about.
In order to amend the Constitution you have to get two-thirds majority in both Houses, and then it has to be approved by three-fourths of state legislatures. Meaning: You have to build a broad consensus to change the founding document of our nation.
Republicans are not consensus builders — they’re talking point pounders. They’re re-branders. They’re more likely to ram through laws on the fly – like Ohio Governor John Kasich’s union busting law which was months later overturned by voters – than super majority-sized popular things like taxing the rich. The middle-class will see a tax hike this year due to the payroll tax expiring. It appears Republicans are going to allow this to happen in order to protect the wealthiest Americans from paying more of their easier-earned cash to the federal government. Those who are being squeezed? Tax hike! Those who are squeezing? Lowest tax rate in two generations. Not a popular stance – but Republicans are taking it.
A Constitutional amendment demands wide support, something Republicans don’t bother themselves with.
Face it: they will never amend the Constitution even though it’s their favorite go-to non-starter.
However, a group that’s all about consensus building — at least at their meetings I’ve sat in on across the nation — is the Occupy movement. And their list of grievances includes money in politics and corporate personhood.
To Occupiers, corporations are like robots in every sci-fi movie ever made: they’re created by man, having taken on human traits (or in this case legal rights) and are turning on their makers … to eventually destroy the world. The Occupiers don’t see one party or another as an answer. They’re not like the tea party, who are just a voting bloc for conservatives. They see both parties as being hostages to corporate money and complicit in the extreme economic inequality in the country.
How do they plan to tackle this? By calling for an amendment to end corporate personhood — to in effect overturn Citizens United. You’ll hear whispers of this among activists as a way to solve the problems that have prompted nearly 5,000 Americans to be arrested for nonviolent civil disobedience all across the country. Some polls show that over two-thirds of Americans would like to see the Constitution amended to overturn that decision.
The problem is we’re very used to this empty go-no-where non-solution of a Constitutional amendment from Republicans who know theirs will never happen; in that way Republicans have already preempted any earnest campaigns for an amendment.
I’ve brought this up to Occupiers and they are undeterred. They tell me they are, after all, the 99 percent, and there’s power in those numbers. They replied with what I’ve heard them say before: “We’re not going fast. We’re going far.”
© Copyright 2011 TinaDupuy.com, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Tina Dupuy is an award-winning writer and the managing editor of Crooks and Liars. Tina can be reached at tinadupuy@yahoo.com. This column is licensed to run on TMV in full.
5 Responses to “GOP Occupied with Amending the Constitution (Guest Voice)”
A clear understanding of what the GOP is all about.
In 220 odd years we have passed 27 Amendments, 10 of them being the bill of rights, 3 being the consequences of the civil war, and two of them nullifying each other, I would not hold my breath waiting for any constitutional amendments coming down the pike.
From Andrew Sullivan today:
“Bad Fiction: GOP ’12
by WILL TRUMAN on DECEMBER 6, 2011
The prospect of Donald Trump moderating a debate is what finally made things click.
It occurred to me the other day as I was leaving a comment elsewhere: if someone had written a TV show and the plot followed the current Republican primary, I would have some serious problems with it. Namely, I would pan the show as unrealistic. A joke. Liberal Hollywood’s parody of what the Republican Party is.”
Do you really want more campaign laws? Unconstitutional campaign laws are prior restraints on flesh and blood citizen’s rights to participate and create “State approved” “corporate” presses.
Amendment 1
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Only Congress can violate the 1st Amendment. Freedom of assembly, speech and press are the tools of political campaigns and existing campaign laws abridge all three.
Following reports of serious financial abuses in the 1972 Presidential campaign, Congress amended the FECA in 1974 to set limits on contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. But politicians exempted the commercial media and created a State approved press.
2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i) The term “expenditure” does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate;
If the United States Supreme Court defined freedom of religion using the same logic that campaign laws use to define a free press only the church or synagogue “as an institution” would enjoy freedom of religion, not its parishioners!
The NRA bought a radio station to get around existing campaign laws. But flesh and blood citizens who share views on candidates and issues should not have to buy a media outlet to enjoy their 1st Amendment rights of assembly, speech and press. But people should be free to assemble their money and talents to make their voices heard and offset the voices of billionaires and corporations.
We cannot rely on the commercial press to be unbiased and provide the information we need to remain free. Both Republicans and Democrats agree the press is biased and only differ on which networks and newspapers lack balance.
In my opinion the idea of media being objective was a marketing ploy to sell newspapers:
“It was not until the 1920s that you really get the notion of professional journalists, the way we think about them today,” says Michael Delli Carpini, dean of the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. “A lot of different schools of journalism started, codes of ethics were developed, the whole notion of the journalist as objective came into play …. of standing outside the story, telling both sides, of being factual rather than opinionated.”
A newspaper must at all times antagonize the selfish interests of that very class which furnishes the larger part of a newspaper’s income… The press in this country is dominated by the wealthy few…that it cannot be depended upon to give the great mass of the people that correct information concerning political, economical and social subjects which it is necessary that the mass of people Shall have in order that they vote…in the best way to protect themselves from the brutal force and chicanery of the ruling and employing classes. (E.W. Scripps).
To restore equal protection under law, the “press exemption”, 2 USC 431 (9) (B) (i), should be modified to read: “The term expenditure does not include any news story, commentary, or editorial distributed by any candidate, political party, citizen, citizens group, non-profit corporation, broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine, or other periodical publication.”
What bothers me is this stuff is their priority, not getting people back to work. On that issue, they are all but silent (beyond the Underpants Gnome principle of “trickle down”).