Lock and load, indeed.

This is brilliant on a subject that really pisses me off
Rated with hugs

Fun take on a not so funny subject Kent.

The constitution was certainly not carried down a mountain by Moses nor was it ever meant to be perceived that way much of it is old and obsolete. Having said that if we join the herd in clamoring our opposition to the Mosque how long will it be till the next order of “business”; no church's except for those approved by a renegade and out of control corporate state and its brainwashed minions.

I'm a Muslim, I vote and I am a member of the NRA. Now What?

succinct, dead on

Good one, Kent. The AP reports that Republicans have proposed "42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress". Wow. How's that for strict Constitutionalism?

Good for you.

"Rights are just promises we make to ourselves on our better days, binding us to the conduct we aspire to"
This is a great line!
As to amending the 14th, I'm all for it if it means that soulless deathless vampire corporations arent afforded the same rights as my grandchildren. But good luck getting THAT past the Roberts court.

Oh boy. I can hardly wait to see all those fabulous amendments the Repugs will put forward. The end of female suffrage is one of them, I bet, and probably Christian sharia law.

"Rights are just promises we make to ourselves on our better days, binding us to the conduct we aspire to, hoping that on our worse days we will not be quick enough or powerful enough to undo them before we regain our sanity." I don't think I've ever seen this so well put before Kent. Thank you for your continued truth and clarity.

Either we believe in Freedom of Religion or we don't. It is not "except Islam." As far as I can tell. R-

I don't think I understand your view of rights as "just promises we make to ourselves on our better days, binding us to the conduct we aspire to, hoping that on our worse days we will not be quick enough or powerful enough to undo them before we regain our sanity." I certainly have not heard it stated that way before.

There are those that are considered to be "fundamental" rights (e.g. freedom of speech). There are rights that are not fundamental but granted by the Constitution (e.g., 3rd Amendment banning quartering of soldiers in a dwelling without the consent of the owner). There are "rights" that are thought by many to be good ideas, but that are not contained in the Constitution (e.g., the "right" to health care, the "right" not to be excessively taxed, and possibly the "right" to marry someone of the same sex, which depending on your view of the Constitution is or is not entailed by the Constitution).

So in the variety of kinds of rights, I don't know where your definition fits in. Can you fill that out a little more?

Sorry to all that I was out of town. I'll try to get caught back up in comments, but addressing first Mishima's question:

Rights such as they exist in our system of government are fragile in the sense that no matter how you conceptualize them, they can still be undone—every last one of them”through the constitutional amendment process. So can laws, the threshold created by voting and procedures is lower. But we could, at any time, make an amendment that said “Everything written before now is null and void.” Let's hope we wouldn't. But when people start talking about passing amendments that nullify individual past amendments, one worries.

"But when people start talking about passing amendments that nullify individual past amendments, one worries."

Yeah, I'd worry too, if I was getting my "facts" from cartoon characters that don't resemble any real people I've ever met, heard of, or can even imagine.

I'm extremely impressed with your Mad Comix Skilz! Who knew?? You got any more secret talents you are going to spring on us? If you want to do more of the above, I'd be delighted.

I also completely agree with the sentiment expressed, but that could have gone without saying, I think.

I'm off to go share this with everyone I know now.

Great on Kent!! Some ideas are "more equal" than others...

Brilliant! Thanks for the heads-up Susan!

Coyote and Linda, thanks for the words of support.

Mission, yes, I was a little worried about mixing humor with seriousness, but sometimes different modalities touch different people. Glad it works for you.

Jack, I agree with you that there is a real risk of feeding the frenzy they're trying to whip up because indeed there may be next steps of one or another kind. I sort of wonder if it's really a push so much for religious tightening or if it's just a “whatever will rally their fears” thing that could result in non-religion-related powergrabbing if we believe and elect these people.

OE, I don't know how to advise you but it sounds complicated. The simplest thing is probably to stop voting. (Just kidding. Though it is probably easier to stop than the other two.)

Rob, I wonder how many of these proposals are serious. They might actually not want some of these. They just need to rally their base. An irate voting base among one party will show up in disproportionate numbers and vote for other things that are correlated with, but not causally related to, these things.

Karin, the 14th amendment is (compared to many) quite long and contains a number of administrative cleanups, but the one that is making noise has to do with whether anyone born in the US should be considered a citizen. It was passed specifically to address the issue of whether slaves could be counted as citizens, but it has much broader implications (some of them only through court cases and some of them actually not yet tested in court but only assumed).

anna, thanks for stopping by to support the cause.

Tim, it's true that when you haven't seen specific wording, you never know what amendment might be done. In fact, I don't think they intend anything at all. I think it's just a way to create a flurry of xenophobic discussion that rallies the base. (Some have opined that the 14th amendment actually is not in conflict with a ruling they'd like to see the Supreme Court do on what they're calling anchor babies. If that's so, then this just becomes a shorthand for a set of other possible actions. But I think they've learned as a meta-strategy that anything that sounds like it's about “managing” the Constitution sounds very much like the turf they've claimed in the modern political wars. It's like Mom and Apple Pie, claiming you're for the Constitution, and so it's an easy political sell, I suspect.)

Lefty, it's a pity the article Rob mentioned doesn't contain a list.

Sparking, thanks for the praise. It felt right as I wrote it. I'm glad you agree.

Dave, that's my reading as well. But I do often hear revisionists trying to allege that in fact all there was were Christians and that they just thought they didn't have to say that, etc. That is, of course, not supported by the history either. It's really just more code for racism, I fear. Race seems to be what sells all too often, especially in hard economic times when people need someone to blame.

Retablo, none of this is offered as first source facts. I'm assuming a literate audience capable of digging up original source material elsewhere. This is analysis and commentary.

Susan, thanks for helping drum up readers. That's always appreciated.

Gary, always good to see you. Thanks for the positive words.

Lainey, glad to hear both that Susan's plan is working and that you found her referral worthwhile.

I wonder if the right to citizenship in virtue of being born in the country is a constitutional protection in most other countries? This issue just sounds like anotehr case of the right-wingers trying to whip up frenzy.

Abrawang, it varies by nation. The US Government has a summary of the citizenship laws of the world in case you're curious.

Anecdotally acquired trivia (possibly error-prone): I'm pretty sure it's possible to be born in some rare cases satisfying none of these criteria, and to have to be naturalized; such a case can occur, I believe, if for example the father is of a country that thinks the mother's country provides citizenship and the mother is of a country that thinks the father's country does—or so someone once told me.

Kent writes: "But when people start talking about passing amendments that nullify individual past amendments, one worries."

How about the 18th Amendment -- prohibition of alcohol?

Mishima, perhaps I should have referred to worrying about restricting rights. If memory serves, the prohibition amendment was the only amendment that ever restricted rights, and so its later nullification makes sense as a special case. The rest of the amendments, I believe, are either neutral or they add rights, so removing them is cause for concern.

"Rights are just promises we make to ourselves on our better days, binding us to the conduct we aspire to, hoping that on our worse days we will not be quick enough or powerful enough to undo them before we regain our sanity."

Exactly, Kent. And getting many of the people who live here, employ here, and generally attempt to shun you in blatant disregard for these ideas, on page, is like herding cats. xox

And I was also thinking, Kent, that in this way our rights read as religion. And we often walk blithely along as true believers only to be repeatedly in touch with those who do not believe...or they do...except when it comes to gays or Muslims or women or whatever thing on the list they don't believe in...

I have actually heard those words..."I don't believe that applies to...fill in the blank...sort of like the picking and choosing of the bible that goes on...against gays due to the bible, but not really applicable to the eating of yeast...yes for freedom of religion, as long as it isn't Muslim...xox

Robin, yes, people often decide what they're going to believe and then use the words as after-the-fact justification for as long as it serves them. But when push comes to shove, you find out what they really believe. Terrorism is scary. Aids is scary. But we have to learn not to be ruled by our fears or else we are just sheep who can be easily herded any old way because there are too many scary things in the world. Freedom is not a promise of safety. Safety you can get easier under other forms of government. (I usually cite William Gibson's 1993 Wired article “Disneyland with the Death Penalty” here.) Freedom means the risk someone will exercise their rights in a bad way, but it is a gamble that they will instead choose to do wondrously good things. The day we think that gamble is a bad one, the American Experiment is over.

Kent, agreed. Rights are not a promise of safety...this is why I think safety in an illusion...an idea for which I have been pounded on for sharing...xox

I don't see changing the 14th happening anytime soon. Getting the large numbers required would be difficult based on the temporary and largely fabricated anger over "anchor babies."
The Roberts court, though, is very political and ideological. I'm sure somebody can come up with a 14th amendment test case so the Federalist 4 and Kennedy can insert some logic-leaping line in a conservative political ruling.
There's evidence of that leaping in their ruling on partial birth abortion law.
The Heller 2nd amendment ruling was political, but not out of the bounds of logic applied in reading the 2nd.
Citizens United was a blatant political and ideological grab at plutocratic power. It overturned 100 years of law, and over 200 years of wise American tradition, as well as beating the idea of Original Intent into a bloody pulp.

The street level distaste for the 14th is all about inflammatory rhetoric-driven political manipulation.
The Rwing's blather about "Constitutionalism" is actually just a sanitized way of saying they have no respect for democracy and majority rule. One cannot be said to believe in democracy only if their view prevails. This abandonment of respect for the intent of the Constitution is a natural and predictable element of a ideological movement's descent into fanaticism.
Part of that is expressed in your last frame. If they don't get their way, they will apply a 2nd amendment "solution."

Paul, I agree with you that this particular amendment is stable. But the discussion of it is nevertheless toxic for a number of reasons. One is that it sets idle minds and hands (you know, the proverbial devil's playground) to work trying to find ways to chip away at the protections of the Constitution—looking for cutesy dodges and ways of bending things. That's a weird thing for a bunch of alleged strict constructionists to be doing, but so it goes. But the other is that it makes various groups feel panicked that something is closing in on them, and that ups the risk of violence. I doubt there could be organized enough violence to do any of the lofty things they aspire to in their provocative rhetoric, but it could still hurt people and create a political mess.

This is not a time when we need a political mess. It could take years to sort out and Climate Change is not going to wait. We need to get things properly functioning the world over very soon and dive in seriously on that problem or we're all going to be, as Friedman suggests, really sorry. And then people will blame other races even more, just because people who look different than oneself or come from far away are easy scapegoats when times are tough.

"Rights are just promises we make to ourselves on our better days, binding us to the conduct we aspire to, hoping that on our worse days we will not be quick enough or powerful enough to undo them before we regain our sanity... "

Can this be carved in stone somewhere where members of Congress will have to deal with it every day????

Mary, if that could be done, I'd rather see the rights themselves in stone. Maybe that would help them get the hint. But I'm glad you liked the words.

Too funny! You nailed it. R.

I love the way you managed to capture these perversities in such a thought and chuckle provoking way. Thanks Kent and thanks for the PM to tip me off.

The uproar over this is totally ridiculous and once again, mostly stirred up by the RWNJs. Maybe we should adopt a "Selective Bill of Rights" to just use as we please. We could put a nonpartisan committee in charge and...oh wait, that's what the courts are for. Never mind.

Anyway, I think those opposed to the Community Center (not a Mosque) would have a better complaint if they weren't building a new commerce center on the "hollowed ground" of ground zero. If ground zero is truly hollowed ground they should bulldoze the site, throw down some sod and build a Memorial to those who died there, not a billion dollar commerce center. I mean really, how does a commerce center memorialize the dead? Seems crazy. Or maybe it's just me.

Michael, they aren't building it on hallowed ground, unless you mean all of NYC is hallowed ground now. The center is two blocks away, not in view of the site and not able to view the site. It is not a mosque but a regular building, open to all, and with a couple of floors to be allocated to prayer. Right now it's a run down building no one wanted (a Burlington Coat Factory that some debris fell on) in a neighborhood where there are mostly abandoned buildings. It's an investment in rebuilding the community in a way no one else has an interest in. And there are several Christian churches much closer to and in view of Ground Zero. I can't recommend this commentary by Keith Olbermann highly enough. It's worth watching from start to end (12.5 minutes). I hate being told to go watch videos, especially ones that are not really short. But it's really good.

Nice work Kent. I'm no illuminati conspiracy theorist but the "founding fathers" were freemasons, not christians.

It would be funnier if it weren't true.

I wasn't referring to the community center being built on hollowed ground, Kent. I was referring to the buildings that are going up at the actual "ground zero", on the footprint of the WTC. My point being, that if that property is really "hollowed ground", then why are they building a new WTC on the site? Although, I know that a memorial is also planned for the site, I suspect it will take up little actual real estate. If ground zero is indeed "hollowed ground", I believe the entire 16 acre site should be a park and a Memorial dedicated to those who died. I just don't see how building a new trade center is anything more than a building designed with profits in mind. We don't erect monolithic buildings at Arlington or Gettysburg, so why build them at ground zero? Because there is money to be made is the only reason that comes to mind.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, by rebuilding a WTC at ground zero, it cheapens the argument for "hollowed ground" and against the Islamic Community Center. In reality, aren't both groups just erecting buildings?

hatchetface, yes, some of them. I suppose it matters who you count. But any way you cut it, it did seem counter to modern day revisionism, which I'm sure is why the First Amendment is worded in the nicely generic way it is.

Dissed, thanks. Yeah, I knew it was sort of bittersweet humor. As John Stewart so regularly shows us, humor can be a potent conveyor of political discussion in brief form exactly because it's allowed to sketch, and so to be brief.

Michael, thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense to me now.

It's a slippery slope when interpretation goes on and on for years without calibration of the original documents. Lots has changed about our way of life since 1787. Commerce is way different. State borders do little in that regard. (Same concept behind the EC, albeit with sovereign nations rather than states, and hence a bigger quandry... I did a research paper on it while studying in london comparing EC integration to State/Federal evolution commenced with good ol' Marbury V. Madison.)

Gwool, can you expand on your point (and on the comparison paper you wrote, if you like)? My feeling is that the dialog between the Congress (both Laws and Amendments) and the Court (rulings on the basis of Constitution, Amendments, and Laws) represents the calibration of which you speak. So maybe you agree and you mean that original intent is not all it's cracked up to be. Or maybe you're nudging for a new Constitutional Convention because interpretation can get stretched thin. There's a theory of politics that says that what the Courts do is an abomination, and I agree it can be sometimes in the very short term. But (as I argued in a blog about abortion, though the theory is more general) I think in the long-run it's self-correcting. The Republicans don't like to acknowledge but really if a Court ruling stands for decades, it becomes harder to say it's an anomaly since if the public cared, they would change it, and if at some point they have not, one must assume it's because they're not adequately riled up by the ruling. Individuals may be. But even things like Prohibition, for example, got fixed because people wouldn't stand for it persisting. Civil rights did not get fixed for a long time but that's because the public was not really riled up with it, and there has to be some ownership of the fact that it wasn't just the framers of the Constitution that blew that one—society endorsed the result by not calling for a fix sooner. In any case, I can't deduce from what you wrote where you stand on any of this, so feel free to elaborate.

Kent, while you use the phrase "in our legal system" to limit a description of rights, I think your later phrase "conduct we aspire to" shows that you know that the idea of all people having certain rights is something more robust than words in a legal document.

I read lots of history. The evolution of human thinking so that rights, whether deemed natural or god-given, are something more important than governments is critical to the American idea. If we relax our views on why American ideals matter, it will be all the easier for baser human desires to control other people to regain primacy (as was the case for thousands of years).

As to the mosque, I think seeing it as a constitutional issue is misleading. If people felt they had a legal avenue to stop it, they would already be doing so. As it is, the protests show that people realize that they recognize the right of it to go up so they are using their speech to argue against it. Which of course they have a right to do. Having the right to do something doesn't mean that everyone else has to be quiet and approve of whatever it is someone wants to do.