Conservatives vs The Constitution, Make Up Your Minds
For the better part of the last couple of decades, conservatives took a fairly aggressive approach to constitutional amendments: they wanted several more.
Indeed, by the mid-point of his presidency, George W. Bush was on record supporting at least six different proposed amendments to the Constitution: (1) prohibiting flag burning; (2) victims’ rights; (3) banning abortion; (4) requiring a balanced budget; (5) prohibiting same-sex marriage; and (6) allowing state-endorsed prayer in public schools. As a wise blogger noted at the time, Bush “really seems to think the Constitution is just a rough draft.”
But that was several years ago, and the right’s approach has shifted. Conservatives no longer prioritize adding new amendments to the Constitution; they now believe it’s time to start repealing some of the old ones.
We talked last month about the growing demands among Tea Partiers to repeal the 17th amendment — the constitutional provision that empowers the electorate to choose their own senators, rather than state legislatures doing it, as the Constitution originally mandated. Zaid Jilani noted one right-wing congressman who agrees, and wants to go even further.
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) has been touring his northeast Georgia district as part of the Republican Party’s “America Speaking Out” tour, discussing his ideas with his constituents. During a stop in Athens, Georgia, the congressman revealed some of his more radical ideas about where he wants to take the country. At one point, Broun told a constituent that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson “started this process of socializing America” by passing the 16th and 17th amendments and endorsed repealing both of them.
Note, Broun wasn’t ambiguous about his intentions. He conceded it would be “a long process,” but said he wants both amendments “to be repealed fully.” (The 16th amendment, by the way, created a progressive federal income tax. Nevada’s Sharron Angle has also called for its repeal.)
This is becoming more and more common. On CNN yesterday, Utah’s Mike Lee, the Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate this year, called the 17th Amendment “a mistake,” and though he doesn’t think repeal is realistic, Lee is on record supporting the idea of repeal.
What’s more, remember that the right has also targeted the 14th Amendment for its language mandating birthright citizenship for Americans. Some conservatives — including Republicans Rand Paul (Ky.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), and Louie Gohmert (Texas) — have suggested an additional amendment to “modify” this language may be necessary.
The Constitutional Accountability Center’s Elizabeth Wydra recently noted, “It is encouraging that so many Americans are now discussing and debating the Constitution. It is, after all, the People’s document. But before Tea Party repeal efforts gather steam, ‘We the People’ should take a sober look at the text, history, and principles behind the amendments the Tea Party would like to do away with. Amending the Constitution is not an easy task, and generations of Americans poured blood, sweat, and treasure into adopting the amendments that Tea Party activists would now like to repeal.”
If this were limited to right-wing activists, it’d be easier to dismiss. Alas, Republican officeholders and several statewide candidates are echoing the same ridiculous demands.
Given the alleged reverence for the Constitution in far-right circles, the irony is rich.
Original Article: IF ONLY THE RIGHT WOULD LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE – The Political Animal
It’s all fine and good to say “Repeal the 17th” but no one here has seriously asked themselves why there was a 17th in the first place. The election of Senators by the electoral college was one of the most corrupt processes that our country ever endured. Political machines minted state legislators like the Treasury department mints pennies making senatorial offices the most vulnerable to Blagoiavich style wheeling and dealing. Fast forward to the present where gerrymandering at the state level has moved from an art to an exacting science that would make legitimate representation in the Senate even more laughable then it already is. Until a way to fix the creation of congressional districts comes along any change to the 17th amendment is a fools errand.
[Reply]
Great article. For awhile we were letting conservatives yell, “We want the constitution interpreted literally and we want to write it!” Its not surprise that conservatives have switched from adding amendments to removing amendments. Recent moves by the supreme court suggest they can get the policies they want with less “constitution” being in the way.
[Reply]
What’s unconstitional about adding or repealing amendments? That’s part of the constitution (ability to add ammendments).
As for the 17th, when you really think about it, it never should have been passed:
1) People already have representatives elected by the people in house of representatives. Why do we just randomly tack on 2 more per state. Why not just let them choose 2 from each district and disband the senate completely.
2) The purpose of senators being elected by the state legislature was to give the states a “voice” in DC. So if Delaware was against bailing out california, it would tell its senators to vote that way.
Today senators’ first move is to go to wall st or Hollywood to collect money to run for office, then vote for whomever buys them. Their state be damned.
We’ve repealed bad amendments before, and we should consider repealing the 17th as well.
[Reply]
You’re missing the point. Back up and don’t look at Republican’s vs. Democrats. Politics is not longer about ideology. It is about us vs. them. So the changes in position you see is due to competitive politics rather than actual ideological stances. Each side will use ideology as a means rather than an ends.
[Reply]
Let’s not forget that there are plenty of “liberals” and Democrats that want to go right to the top and repeal the Second Amendment.
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/5/15/repeal-second-amendment-when-two-thirds-of/
The 2A has been under attack from the “left” for years, with claims that it’s not an individual right… but all of the others are, especially the Fourth and Fourteenth when it comes to protecting illegal immigrants.
Canada will deport immigrants regardless of the citizenship of their children, actually..
[Reply]
You guys are kind of moronic arent you? Thinking the government should follow its own laws isnt a sin. Liberals were all about the constitution when Bush was president. And now that Obama is doing all the same things Bush did, I havent heard a peep from them. Blatant hypocrisy. Remember when Obama wanted to get rid of the 5th and 6th amendments? No? Oh yes, I forgot, no one reported anything about it. They didnt want the hypocrisy to be in plain sight.
The constitution allows amendments. It in fact encourages them. The first 10 amendments are the Bill of Rights (Never mind that politicians ignore those anyways, including liberals and especially Obama). At least true conservatives want to change the law instead of just ignoring it all together. There is a clear difference between lawfully changing the law, and ignoring it. Republicans and Democrats seem to prefer the latter. But what we need is the former. And if we could do the former, we wouldnt have a lot of the problems we have today.
[Reply]
You’re way off base. Most conservatives didn’t support the Bush amendments. Things like Gay Marriage and such are “States Rights” issues.
I suggest you actually learn about the 17th Amendment and what it took from the country. There’s a history of repealing amendments. How about Prohibition? That amendment was repealed so you can once again enjoy an adult beverage.
The 17th Amendment has corrupted the process with big money and special interests. No longer do Senators represent the entire State as originally intended. Senators now represent BP, CitiGroup, etc. The founders wanted to keep politics as local as possible and Senators were supposed to represent the entire state. In California, Senators represent LA and San Francisco. They no longer represent the farmers, ranchers, growers, etc. In Oregon, Senators represent Portland. They no longer represent Timber, Farms, Ranches, Fisherman and the coast.
The original intent was that State legislature appoint Senators so that ALL the legislators (majority of them) would agree who was sent for 6 years. This was the best way to represent the greatest interest of all the people for the entire State. So the Senator from Oregon would balance out the needs of his rural constituents with the needs of the urban constituents. This is the concept of Majority Rule with Minority rights… Majority rule only leads to tyranny. If the “majority” says hey, I’m going to take your house… You have no recourse because Majority rules… Our Republic was founded to avoid that – thus minority rights.
Congress is supposed to represent districts – Senators are supposed to represent the entire state. Congress and Senate were designed to be at odds with each other so that Government would work slowly – and the rights of the minority would be protected at all times.
Repealing the 17th amendment puts a greater State representation back into the Senate. It removes ALL monies and special interests outside the state – and will cease the corrupted election process that has reigned since Wilson.
I suggest you actually read founding documents, letters and original source materials from those who actually conceived the liberty we currently enjoy. You may discover you have more in common with those who want our Constitution restored than you may think.
[Reply]
Great article. For awhile we were letting conservatives yell, “We want the constitution interpreted literally and we want to write it!” Its not surprise that conservatives have switched from adding amendments to removing amendments. Recent moves by the supreme court suggest they can get the policies they want with less “constitution” being in the way.
[Reply]
The Constitution got tossed out the window during the Bush Regime!
Lou
http://www.privacy-tools.es.tc
[Reply]
Dear anonymous author of this article,
You are talking about amendments. The Fifth Article of the Constitution provides for amendments. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with adding, removing or changing amendments.
In short, you are a partisan idiot trying to incite angst by writing about something you obviously don’t understand.
[Reply]
Progressives vs. the Constitution, make up your minds. Health care, social security, the warfare state, bailouts, etc.
[Reply]
UncaJoe Reply:
July 12th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
It seem that all those laws you have problems with were covered in the first sentence with promote the general Welfare. Strange how the right forgets that.
[Reply]
On face value, I tend to agree with doing away with the 17th amendment. I didn’t even know that it was done any other way than public election until college history class. In any case, the reason I think it sounds like a good idea is that the way it is now, either real or perceived, the people “we” elect really work for the benefit of those corporations, etc., that gave them big donations, instead of “us”. If our state legislature went back to choosing them we might at least get senators in there who really had our state interest at heart. Plus, it might just get rid of a significant part of the campaign donation money cancer problem.
[Reply]
There is no current living politician qualified to touch the constitution. Outside of Ron Paul I am not sure any of the others have even read the Constitution.
[Reply]
There is nothing wrong with proposing constitutional amendments. That’s how the founders intended for us to make changes.
[Reply]
I am sorry, but you are misguided in your attempt to paint the right-wing movement as extremist in this article. The act of repealing or adding amendments through a legislative process IS constitutional, and it is one of the ways the framers allowed it to be modified overtime to keep it relevant. The other process of changing, constitutional convention, would not be politically correct these days, and most likely nothing would get accomplished.
Where they are hypocrites about the constitution and open to heavy criticism is when they say they love the constitution and it should be followed to the letter, but then don’t follow it when it is inconvenient to their agenda or beliefs.
Progressives should support the Ron Paul faction of the Tea Party rather than confrontational with the Libertarians. He is very progressive on several issues: wants to reduce the size and scope of the US empire (since it is broke and not sustainable); wants to cut military spending; wants to end the war on drugs; wants to legalize marijuana; and he wants to keep the church out of politics and vice versa. Sure I don’t agree with his social policies, but some of his fiscal policies do make sense. He could be a good ally to have, especially if his faction takes some seats in Congress. Progressives have more in common with him than the Palin faction of the tea party.
[Reply]
I hope they abolish the 16th amendment and replace it with something that doesn’t put a drain on our economy. Also why do we need the 17th amendment? I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country’s history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers (the politically correct term is now “framers”) felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments.
[Reply]
So much for self-evident truths.
[Reply]
You mean Conservatives want to change the Constitution the way it was meant to be changed (through the amendment process) rather than just have judges invent their own Constitutional rights (or ignore the ones that are already there) the way Liberals think it should be done?
That’s horrible!
[Reply]
Good article. What’s interesting is that some conservatives seem to think all amendments should be done away with, others have their own favorite amendments, like the second or the tenth. I sometimes they would be quite happy with only these two amendments, whether they understand them or not.
[Reply]
If these people took an oath to protect the constitution, then any comments refering to changing it should be considered impeachment worthy. The reason our country (which exists because of the consitution) has held together for so long is because the politicians, up until the modern day GOP, has respected the brilliance of it. These days the GOP has become a super religious, super corporatist, organization that thrives on lies and money. They don’t give a damn about the consitution. George W. even called it “a God damned piece of paper”, apparently because it got in his way. If we allow these politicians that lack integrity and patriotism to destroy it, Amercian is gone. We are not the land we stand on, we are the Consitution and its laws.
[Reply]
UncaJoe Reply:
July 10th, 2010 at 6:37 pm
I agree with most of your statement except the impeachment for suggesting changes. The constitution sets forth the procedure for amending it so that makes suggesting amendments constitutionally protected.
One of the smartest thing the founding fathers did was realize they couldn’t predict the future and that they could be wrong.
It’s kinda like it’s got it’s own “Catch-22″ clause built in.
[Reply]