The new GOP majority in the House trumpets its devotion to the U. S. Constitution by (1) reading its full text from the floor of the House on the first day; and (2) instigating a new rule that says any bill introduced in the House must contain the section of the Constitution that authorizes such legislation.
OK. That's fine.
The trouble with the reading and the faux devotion to the document, as a New York Times editorial today points out, is that they did not read the original constitution. They read it as it has evolved today, but by obscuring this point they created the false impression that their devotion is to the original wording, to the "intent" of the founders.
Bullshit. If they had read the original version, it would have included:
1. The part where slaves "bound to service" are to be counted as three-fifths of a person;
2. The part where fugitive slaves cannot gain their freedom by escaping to a free state;
3. The part where ordinary citizens do not get to cast a direct vote in chooseing their senators;
4. The part where the right to vote does not include anyone of the female gender.
The United States Constitution is a remarkable historic document, creating an experiment in democracy that has endured. But the Constitution was not perfect, nor finished -- as these faux patriots imply that it was.
Those who decry the "interpretation" of the Constitution as next thing to treason are just blowing smoke. Part of its genius is that is has to be interpreted in each generation according to the times -- and this leads to an evolving, perfectable document.
Let's have a good history lesson for these new zealots. They're blowing smoke and looking in mirrors.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brash, irritating Neil Bortz, conservative radio personality and columnist in Atlanta, tries to turn this liberal criticism of the GOP's "Constitution"-waving into an exercise in ignorance of history and political posturing.
ReplyDeleteBy picking up only on the first point above, he tried to discredit it by saying this had nothing to do with racism but economics, so that those who say the Constitution is racist are just wrong.
He says the 3/5th solution was just that -- a compromise in how population was going to be counted for the awarding of numbers of congressional districts to the states. Southern states wanted all the slave to be counted (so they would get more districts), Northern states wanted them not to be counted at all -- which is the opposite of the intuitive assumption that northerners wanted them to be recognized as fully human beings.
He may be correct in the details and that it was about representative power, not racism. Nevertheless, that does not disprove that the Constitution also took account of the fact of slavery and did nothing to counter it -- at least not until the interpretation of the 14th amendment and Lincoln's emancipation.
Calling the document racist was not the main point anyway: it was calling out the Republicans for clinging to their notion that the Constitution was a perfect and unchanging document, and that all decisions should go back to the original wording.
That is the point, Mr. Bortz. And what then do you say about the lack of including women in very basic declaration that "all men are created equal?"
Bortz uses the tactic that both sides slip into -- currently both the far right and the progressives. Pick up on a minor point in your opponent's argument, take it out of context, fail to consider all the other interconnected factors, and turn the minor point into the main argument.
ReplyDeleteHence we have Bortz trying to discredit Democrats' claim that Repubs are hypocritically wrapping themselves in the original Constitution.
So they pick a minor point (exactly what the 3/5th compromise was about) and avoid the important charge that Repubs extol the original document while avoiding some of what was in the original document that would be embrrassing.
But progressives do it too -- by excoriating Obama for failing this promise or that promise, without considering the totality of what he has to contend with -- having to prioritize issues, when it would be impossible to do everything at once, as well as considering the razor thin margin of votes he has to work with in Congress, as well as the longer range effect of his tactics.
My challenge to progressives is: OK accept that Obama could do a better job of countering the conservative negative spin and controlling the message -- but give him the votes in Congress that he needs, and your head will spin with how fast he gets the legislation we both want.