Opinions/Editorials
See other Opinions/Editorials Articles
Title: Tea Party, Conservatives Revere Constitution (Except When They Don't)
Source:
POLITICS DAILY
URL Source: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/0 ... cherish-the-constitution-exce/
Published: Aug 22, 2010
Author: POLITICS DAILY
Post Date: 2010-08-22 18:48:52 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 2341
Comments: 1
The Constitution has been a frequent rallying cry at Republican and Tea Party events this summer. Except when it isn't.
If you ask Sarah Palin, Sharron Angle, Rand Paul and other conservative politicians, defending that sacred document written by the founders and amended by the people of the United States of America, is No. 1 on their national agenda.
For instance, there's wiggle room on that 14th Amendment -- the one adopted after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to blacks and anyone born on U.S. soil. (it also says the Bill of Rights must be upheld by state and local governments, and requires equal protection of all people.)
Some conservatives now want to amend the amendment. 
In July, the Washington Post wrote about Chinese travel and visa services that help wealthy Chinese women come to the U.S. to have their children so they'll be American citizens. Before long, senators were calling for hearings and one Texas congressman was telling CNN's Anderson Cooper about a plot by terrorist organizations to send pregnant women to the U.S. to birth "terror babies." (Thanks, Jon Stewart, for fighting back with "hero babies.")
If children born in this country aren't automatically granted citizenship, what would be the standard? Perhaps we should all take the INS test immigrants must pass? (Warning, more than one-fourth of Americans surveyed last summer couldn't tell you from what country we declared independence in 1776.)
The 17th Amendment, allowing for direct election of U.S. senators, has also come under criticism. In Colorado, Ken Buck, GOP candidate for the job, has advocated doing away with it. He backed away from that stance recently, though a New York Times editorial criticizes him for it.
Then there's that pesky, persistent First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and an uncensored press. Dr. Laura Schlessinger recently announced she's leaving her long-running radio talk show to "regain my First Amendment rights." Her free speech includes berating her callers and articulating (all the way out) racial slurs. My colleague Mary C. Curtis eloquently noted, the First Amendment right of those who object to Dr. Laura's rant, includes boycotting her sponsors. Meanwhile Sarah Palin, exercising her First Amendment rights, offered a vocal defense of the radio host, advising her to "reload," not retreat. (I wonder if she was referring to the Second Amendment?).
Suffragettes, whose victory 90 years ago last week resulted in the 19th Amendment guaranteeing women the right to vote, may be rolling over in their graves this election season at some of the partisan back and forth. A video posted briefly last week on a GOP Web site rudely contrasted pictures of hot GOP babes -- Palin included, of course -- to images of seasoned Democratic women. The Republican women were serenaded by "She's a Lady," while the theme for the second group was, "Who Let the Dogs Out."
And there's the feud between Palin and abortion rights advocate EMILY's list over Mama Grizzlies. My colleague Suzi Parker tells both sides of the grizzly war to "Get a grip" (though they do have that First Amendment right to air their opposing crazy commercials).
That same First Amendment also guarantees our free exercise of religion. Our forefathers and founders were trying to avoid the official government sanction of a single faith. Apparently, many would prefer to look beyond that right when it comes to a Muslim community center planned for Lower Manhattan. The objection there, despite the fact there are already two mosques in the neighborhood (and, by the way, a weekly Islamic prayer meeting at the Pentagon) is its proposed location near the site of the World Trade Center that was destroyed by Islamic terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001.
Speaking of religious freedom (and the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state first referenced by President Thomas Jefferson), why is it necessary to debate the president's -- or anyone's -- religious faith? There are now public opinion polls asking what faith President Barack Obama practices. Can we not take him at his Christian word, just as we accepted the faith of prior presidents without asking the public to decide? Did anyone ever ask for a debate on whether John F. Kennedy was really Roman Catholic?
Frankly, a lot of this controversy is only political fear-mongering. But the sad truth is, there's far more scary stuff out there than "terror babies," a Muslim community center, what anyone's religion is, or whether a given candidate is physically attractive. There are devastating floods in Pakistan, we're still at war in Afghanistan, and even if the Gulf oil spill is successfully capped, oil is still in the water. Israel feels threatened by Iran and our unemployment continues to be an intractable concern.
When American voters go to the polls Nov. 2 (that day can't come soon enough), the top issues on their minds will be jobs and the economy. Our elected and wanna-be-elected officials of all stripes should be offering up their solutions on those issues. Whatever you all propose, please don't tinker with the document that's served this nation well for almost 223 years.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
The fourteenth never really passed. The South had puppet Senators who were not lawfull elected. Secondly the fourteenth doesn't apply to illegals born here. As they are subject to a foreign jurisdiction.
For instance, there's wiggle room on that 14th Amendment -- the one adopted after the Civil War to guarantee citizenship to blacks and anyone born on U.S. soil. (it also says the Bill of Rights must be upheld by state and local governments, and requires equal protection of all people.)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]