After two years of ranting about unconstitutional government and legislators who vote on bills they haven’t read, the Tea Party Reps have finally decided to read and study the Constitution. Obviously the grandstanding benefit must outweigh the admission they didn’t know what they were talking about with their previous unstudied statements.
This is political theatrics, though, and because the “Constitutionalist” shtick is no less part of their costume than the cute little Colonial outfits it’s easy to predict the result of their study -- they were right! How lucky can they be to discover their previous unstudied statements turned out to be an exact match with the Constitution’s meaning and Founder’s intent? These Tea people must be natural constitutional geniuses!
Snark aside, I can make this accurate prediction because I’ve seen this show already, several times. The plot of this fictional melodrama is fairly simple:
Imagine the Founders intent and Constitution are reflections of that contradictory Tea Party beast – the Conservative-Libertarian Pushmi-pullyu. Once that’s done, it’s easy to create convenient interpretations and scratch out a few lines to “prove” the Constitution and Founders are On Their Side.
Here are a few popular revisionism revisions used to transform the Constitution into the Tea Party Manifesto:
- Promote the General Welfare means the government should be enthusiastic about the General Welfare, not that it should actually do anything for the Common Good, which is Marxist. This valentine from the Founders is only there to remind us that if things go well, that’s really nice, and they would be pleased.
- Regulate, in the Commerce Clause, doesn’t mean to apply rules to commerce between the states. As Fox News’ Judge Napolitano explains, in our Founder’s America, the only meaning of "regulate" was to keep regular -- make sure commerce moves when it should. This is one element of the Illiterate Founders Theory, which assumes they had a problem with the English language, and meant to write "keep regular." However, from the Latin root regula - "rule" to Webster's 1828 dictionary to now, the "to apply rules" meaning is prominent. The keep regular definition ignores that to effect even that limited task, rules must be applied. The Supreme Court never has seen it that way, but the idea the Constitution contains a Laxative Clause is an interesting concept.
- The Enumerated Powers of Congress are the only powers of Congress...after you erase the last Art. 1 Sec. 8 clause: To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Now you see it – now you don’t. This deletion is necessary to properly set up this revision:
- The 10th amendment -- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. The Tea spin is to claim the states have all the powers of governing except for the Enumerated Powers of Congress. To arrive at this revision, it helps to ignore that both houses of Congress refused to include the word “expressly” before “delegated” when writing the 10th. That doesn’t mean the powers of Congress are unlimited, but that they aren’t nearly as limited as the Tea peeps claim. The 10th simply affirms the broad scope of federal options, and the inclusion of or to the people implies a power ultimately expressed through Congress. That the 10th does more to limit than expand state power might upset the Tea People, but it helps to remember this is the Constitution, not the Articles of Confederation.
The Tea Party is interesting political theater, but they are no more representative of the original Tea Party patriots than they are of the Founding Fathers, who were so "ignorant" of Constitutional limits they enacted America's first federal, single payer health care insurance plan in 1798.
The Founders weren't Libertarians or Conservatives, though one could claim some had more conservative interpretations of our Liberal Constitution than others. The Tea Party's interpretation of what the Constitution means is most generously an opinion, and most obviously a gaudy display of ideological self gratification.
The Tea Party wants what it wants because it wants it, and should go about the business of governing without claiming some “new” old and superior knowledge of the Constitution to justify their agenda.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ted Frier
The Flylooper
Ben Sen
mishima666
Paul Nevins
Ron Robinson
Salon.com
Comments
The Conservatarian movement has long ago crossed the ideological Rubicon, so the means justify the ends, and dishonesty is accepted as a method for achieving The Right Thing.
YW, Stellaa, and thank you.
Kanuk,
The article was very good, and goes into much more detail. However, this isn't my planned post on Libertarianism, which will get more into the weeds of ideology, but hopefully will be succinct enough to maintain general interest.
Perhaps the most entertaining part of the show will be the Repubs - v -Tea Peeps. The Tea 300 will defend the pass, but in the end will be taken out by the larger forces of pay-for-view politics.
I promise you a true hatchet job. Stay tuned. It will be bloody.
Those two posts on the 1798 law have more than 42K p-views and were reproduced on a lot of websites. I even prompted some Rwing revisionism theories to "counter" the truth.
Lefty,
I didn't see it, but wonder if Boehner cried when the 14,16 and 17th amendments were read.
I heard Boehner was going to read the whole thing himself, but if he stays up more than 4 hours they have to consult a physician.
The Tea Party, et al, proves yet again that conservatives aren't. You and I are true Conservatives in that we understand govt is necessary to protect the least of us from the worst of us -- just as true Conservatives like Hobbes and Adam Smith wrote long, long ago.
I've said it before -- these rtwng nutjobs aren't as smart as my 22 yr-old son who said: "Libertarianism is the Scientology of politics."
Your amazing level of stupidity encourages all the anti-statists. We can see 2012 through your empty skulls. You will lose the Senate you know. Because you are all so amazingly stupid.
Poor man. I would feel sorry for these people if they weren't destroying our country with their crazyass shit.
It seems you would want to counter my stupidity with a display of your intelligence, as that attempt would be seen as noble, even in failure. I'm betting that you do want that, but aren't capable of even making an acceptable weak argument.
You couldn't put a dent in me on your best day. Back to the chatrooms, ye wet-eared nihilistic nincompoop!
I was appalled at the version of "reading the constitution" that was done. I keep thinking there has to be some way to lift the veil of ignorance so that the tea party and the republicans may be seen clearly by those they are misleading. Call me an incurable believer in what the FF meant for this nation to be!
You're right about the 10th Amendment, which Hamilton used to pass his Bank bill (Implied powers), however Madison, et al. wrote the principles of the Constitution were no different than under the Articles, and were to implement the principles carried out in the Declaration of Independence. That said, the Federal govt. were not to interfere in areas of individual liberties, to which were left to the States (Federalist 45).
An insurance plan is not welfare.