A New Fetish - The Constitution

[X Factor]

No, not respecting the constitution, and I'd appreciate not putting words in my mouth which would be much easier for you if you had actually read my post. All of the silly little things the republicans are aiming at like reading it aloud to start off the new congress and forcing all legislation to explain where it is prohibited in the constitution are meaningless symbolism (that's even been admitted to by some conservatives) much like them offering up the repeal obamacare bill that doesn't have a chance of passing. Meaningless symbolism.

I really hate it when people tell me things like "some conservatives agree with me" as if that's a compelling argument. The left just knows they'll never be able to find a Constitutional basis for much of what they want to pass, and they resent being called on it. That's all that's going on here.

 

[Barbbtx]

The fact is the Constitution is a legal document, it's not some mystical, magical talisman of power that fights corruption in it's time off from curing small children of cancer.

It absolutely does have the power to fight corruption. It's about time we got back to it.

 

[spud_meister]

If I'm mistaken was that a root in your pants Spud? Or were you happy to see him too? :mrgreen:

He did have very soft hands.

 

[Barbbtx]

You are referring to Spud here, right?

I was referring to those in the media.

 

[X Factor]

The fact is the Constitution is a legal document, it's not some mystical, magical talisman of power that fights corruption in it's time off from curing small children of cancer.

The Constitution is our governing document. That's been forgotten for too long.

 

[haymarket]

I see, so respecting the Constitution is "meaningless symbolism"? I heard a clip (and I'll try to find it later) where some pundit siggested that there was something insidious about pushing the Constitution. Some on the left are really coming off anti-Constitution.

What the GOP is doing with the Constitution is what the right did with the American flag back in the Viet Nam era. They appropriated the flag and it became their symbol. The left, foolishly allowed them to do this unchallenged and it cost them in valuable public support not to mention plain old PR image. So now the right is attempting to do the same thing with the Constitution to gain some sort of public relations high ground. I suspect the scorn you detect from some on the left is not for the actual Constitution but directed at two things
1- the GOP twisting of the document to tell the world what they think it means and does not mean to justify their own positions, views and ideology
2- the neglect by the GOP for parts of the COnstitution that they generally oppose like the power to place a tariff on foreign made goods which they seem to despise.

I suspect the left feels that , in the end, we all respect the Constitution but know we see it a little differently.

 

[ptif219]

If the democrats take an oath to uphold the constitution why are they complaining about it being read?

It seems the constitution only matters to democrats when they can use it to further their agenda

Reading between Constitution's lines

 

[spud_meister]

The Constitution is our governing document. That's been forgotten for too long.

Exactly, it's a document, it is the the governing document, but it's nothing more, to venerate it like it's some religious symbol is ridiculous.

 

[cpwill]

I seems now left wing pundits on the left have a new speaking point. If you respect the Constitution, want it read outloud and want legislatures to cite the Constitutional basis for their proposed legislation, you have a Constitutional fetish.

frankly, i find it extremely telling that they think a desire to adhere to the Constitution is "wierd" or a "fetish".


so, what exactly have you people been doing then, for the last few years????

 

[ptif219]

Exactly, it's a document, it is the the governing document, but it's nothing more, to venerate it like it's some religious symbol is ridiculous.

It is a reminder of the oath they take and the document they should use to make laws. Seems the democrats don't want to be reminded about the oath they took.

 

[spud_meister]

It is a reminder of the oath they take and the document they should use to make laws. Seems the democrats don't want to be reminded about the oath they took.

Why don't they recite their oath instead?

 

[X Factor]

Exactly, it's a document, it is the the governing document, but it's nothing more, to venerate it like it's some religious symbol is ridiculous.

I would change how you phrased this, Spud, to say that the Constitution is nothing less than our governing document. I think it's more ridiculous to see the Constitution as if it's nothing more than a city ordinance.

 

[jamesrage]

I seems now left wing pundits on the left have a new speaking point. If you respect the Constitution, want it read outloud and want legislatures to cite the Constitutional basis for their proposed legislation, you have a Constitutional fetish.

The GOP’s Constitutional fetish | The Periscope Post
The Mahablog » More on the Constitution Fetish
How the Tea Party's fetish for the Constitution as written may get it in trouble. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine


Damn straight.

I can't say that I am surprised. Most of these anti-constitutionalists are the same people who claim that the constitution is a living document meant to be reinterpreted while ignoring the fact there is an amendment process to eliminate,add or change rights.

 

[X Factor]

I can't say that I am surprised. Most of these anti-constitutionalists are the same people who claim that the constitution is a living document meant to be reinterpreted while ignoring the fact there is an amendment process to eliminate,add or change rights.

I guess I'm a little bit surprised that some are so open in their contempt for the Constitution.

 

[Deuce]

LOL. Cause everyone but conservatives hate the constitution, right? That's very clever of you, very clever indeed. I haven't heard that talking point since about a couple minutes ago...

Of course. We have to get back to what The Founders wanted. Well, the things that conservatives say they wanted, anyway. When they wanted separation of church and state, though, they were drunk or something. Doesn't count.

 

[spud_meister]

I would change how you phrased this, Spud, to say that the Constitution is nothing less than our governing document. I think it's more ridiculous to see the Constitution as if it's nothing more than a city ordinance.

You're right, I don't disagree, and I probably should've worded it better, but I don't think the Constitution is to be worshipped, as though it has the power upon recitation to turn politicians honest, I have no problem with them reciting the oath that they took, and that should be sufficient reminder.

 

[roughdraft274]

I really hate it when people tell me things like "some conservatives agree with me" as if that's a compelling argument. The left just knows they'll never be able to find a Constitutional basis for much of what they want to pass, and they resent being called on it. That's all that's going on here.

Is that why the supreme court has thrown out so many laws written by democrats in recent years? Because none of it was constitutional? Even after this little stunt you do realize that nothing has changed and that the supreme court will still be the ones to decide if something is constitutional, right?

Just figured I would point out that conservatives actually agree with me on that point. No need to whine about it. If you don't like it I'd suggest some thicker skin, even some conservatives agree with me on that issue, lol.

 

[snilloctjc]

IMHO We would be much better off as a nation if respect for the Constitution was ingrained in all our politicians. This constant game of trying to circumvent its limits on Government Power is how we get screwed over so often until the SC gets the shot at checking the other two branches, and even then tehy too go off the tracks (Dred Scott for example, or Plessey Ferguson (is that the separate but equal ruling? I'm getting old and the memory is going)

At the very least I would settle for a consistent respect for the ideals that the Constitution was built upon

 

[X Factor]

You're right, I don't disagree, and I probably should've worded it better, but I don't think the Constitution is to be worshipped, as though it has the power upon recitation to turn politicians honest, I have no problem with them reciting the oath that they took, and that should be sufficient reminder.

I agree that it won't turn any politician honest just by reciting it, but then that's true of religious text. I guess I'm just puzzled by the Dems railing against reading the Constitution as if it's the Satanic Bible. Seems like the better move would be to make a big show of embracing it. Otherwise, they're just giving the right the ammunition to say, "See?! They don't even want to hear it being read."

 

[X Factor]

Is that why the supreme court has thrown out so many laws written by democrats in recent years? Because none of it was constitutional? Even after this little stunt you do realize that nothing has changed and that the supreme court will still be the ones to decide if something is constitutional, right?

Of course, I know, but what's the harm in starting legislation by showing how it's grounded in the Constitution? All, legislation should start that way.

Just figured I would point out that conservatives actually agree with me on that point. No need to whine about it. If you don't like it I'd suggest some thicker skin, even some conservatives agree with me on that issue, lol.

Just a pet peeve of mine. It also is ironic to me that liberals who rail against conservatives would suddenly decide a conservative has all this cred, so long as they agree with them. Karl Rove comes to mind. The left hated him, but when he spoke out against Christine O'Donnell, suddenly he was someone to listen to.

 

[spud_meister]

I agree that it won't turn any politician honest just by reciting it, but then that's true of religious text. I guess I'm just puzzled by the Dems railing against reading the Constitution as if it's the Satanic Bible. Seems like the better move would be to make a big show of embracing it. Otherwise, they're just giving the right the ammunition to say, "See?! They don't even want to hear it being read."

Would you want to sit there and listen to 4 pages of 1700's english being read out?

 

[X Factor]

Would you want to sit there and listen to 4 pages of 1700's english being read out?

I've read it, it's not Beowulf.

 

[snilloctjc]

Would you want to sit there and listen to 4 pages of 1700's english being read out?

Exactly what about the Constitution or if central role in our form of government are you against?

 

[snilloctjc]

Would you want to sit there and listen to 4 pages of 1700's english being read out?

Never mind just realized you aren't even from the US.

 

[roughdraft274]

Of course, I know, but what's the harm in starting legislation by showing how it's grounded in the Constitution? All, legislation should start that way.

Just a pet peeve of mine. It also is ironic to me that liberals who rail against conservatives would suddenly decide a conservative has all this cred, so long as they agree with them. Karl Rove comes to mind. The left hated him, but when he spoke out against Christine O'Donnell, suddenly he was someone to listen to.

I'll give you that, the left isn't very fond of Karl Rove, but only a moron would say that he hasn't been a main driving force of republicanism in the last decade. When someone like that steps up and says that about someone in their own party it's noteworthy. You might not like it but it is.