One of the guiding principles of the tea-party movement is based on a myth

[RandomGuy]

Tell me which Founding Father thought the federal war on drugs was cons utional? This article is total bull . None fot eh Founding Fathers supported the war on terror either, or foreign wars of aggression without a declaration of war, or the war on terror. None supported a Fed with the vast powers of today's Fed, including the electronic creation of fiat currency.

So?

Why should we care what the Founding Fathers really would think about the FAA?

[RandomGuy]

I can find examples, but I don't have the time. How about a few comedy skits from the "1/2 hr news hr," based on facts.

If I had a dime for every movie about Bigfoot or pink unicorns "based on facts".

Not that skits can't be good satire, but I would not expect satire to really give me the whole view.

Unless it was Jon Stewart, of course. HA.

[Marcus Bryant]

Essentially the amendment process was taken over by the SC, roughly in the 30s. The ultimate arbiter is the people and thusfar they'd rather watch football, drink ty beer, and abdicate their role to someone else.

Further, I'm not sure what is that problematic about holding the original text in high regard. It's an American pastime across the ideological spectrum to do that for certain parts of the do ent when it is comfortable and to dismiss or downplay it when it is not. The "Tea Party" adherents are not doing anything new in this regard. If the issues of the day were not budgetary and regulatory but rather involved freedom of conscience and freedom of expression I'm sure we'd be regaled with quotes from various esteemed bull ters about the timeless truths enshrined in the Cons ution and the threat to civilization posed by the Congress.

[Galileo]

The perils of cons ution-worship

WOULDN’T it be splendid if the solutions to America’s problems could be written down in a slim book no bigger than a passport that you could slip into your breast pocket? That, more or less, is the big idea of the tea-party movement, the grassroots mutiny against big government that has mounted an internal takeover of the Republican Party and changed the face of American politics. Listen to Michele Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota and tea-party heroine, as she addressed the conservative Value Voters’ Summit in Washington, DC, last week:

To those who would spread lies, and to those who would spread falsehoods and rumours about the tea-party movement, let me be very clear to them. If you are scared of the tea-party movement, you are afraid of Thomas Jefferson who penned our mission statement, and, by the way, you may have heard of it, it’s called the Declaration of Independence. [Cheers, applause.] So what are these revolutionary ideas that make up and undergird the tea-party movement? Well, it’s this: All men and all women are created equal. We are endowed by our creator—that’s God, not government [applause]—with certain inalienable rights…

The Declaration of Independence and the cons ution have been venerated for two centuries. But thanks to the tea-party movement they are enjoying a dramatic revival. The day after this September’s cons ution-day anniversary, people all over the country congregated to read every word together aloud, a “profoundly moving exercise that will take less than one hour”, according to the gatherings’ organisers. At almost any tea-party meeting you can expect to see some patriot brandishing a copy of the hallowed texts and calling, with trembling voice, for a prodigal America to redeem itself by returning to its “founding principles”. The Washington Post reports that Colonial Williamsburg has been crowded with tea-partiers, asking the actors who play George Washington and his fellow founders for advice on how to cast off a tyrannical government.

Conservative think-tanks have the same dream of return to a prelapsarian innocence. The Heritage Foundation is running a “first principles” project “to save America by reclaiming its truths and its promises and conserving its liberating principles for ourselves and our posterity”. A Heritage book and video (“We Still Hold These Truths”) promotes the old verities as a panacea for present ills. America, such conservatives say, took a wrong turn when Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt fell under the spell of progressive ideas and expanded the scope of government beyond both the founders’ imaginings and the competence of any state. Under the cover of war and recession (never let a crisis go to waste, said Barack Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel), Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson and now Mr Obama continued the bad work. Thus has mankind’s greatest experiment in self-government been crushed by a monstrous Leviathan.

Accept for argument’s sake that those who argue this way have identified the right problem. The cons ution, on its own, does not provide the solution. Indeed, there is something infantile in the belief of the cons ution-worshippers that the complex political arguments of today can be settled by simple fidelity to a do ent written in the 18th century. Michael Klarman of the Harvard Law School has a label for this urge to seek revealed truth in the sacred texts. He calls it “cons utional idolatry”.

The cons ution is a thing of wonder, all the more miraculous for having been written when the rest of the world’s peoples were still under the boot of kings and emperors (with the magnificent exception of Britain’s cons utional monarchy, of course). But many of the tea-partiers have invented a strangely ahistorical version of it. For example, they say that the framers’ aim was to check the central government and protect the rights of the states. In fact the cons ution of 1787 set out to do the opposite: to bolster the centre and weaken the power the states had briefly enjoyed under the new republic’s Articles of Confederation of 1777.

The words of men, not of gods

When history is turned into scripture and men into deities, truth is the victim. The framers were giants, visionaries and polymaths. But they were also aristocrats, creatures of their time fearful of what they considered the excessive democracy taking hold in the states in the 1780s. They did not believe that poor men, or any women, let alone slaves, should have the vote. Many of their decisions, such as giving every state two senators regardless of population, were the product not of Olympian sagacity but of grubby power-struggles and compromises—exactly the sort of backroom dealmaking, in fact, in which today’s Congress excels and which is now so much out of favour with the tea-partiers.

More to the point is that the cons ution provides few answers to the hard questions thrown up by modern politics. Should gays marry? No answer there. Mr Klarman argues that the framers would not even recognise America’s modern government, with its mighty administrative branch and imperial executive. As to what they would have made of the modern welfare state, who can tell? To ask that question after the passage of two centuries, says Pietro Nivola of the Brookings Ins ution, is to pose an impossible thought experiment.

None of this is to say that the modern state is not bloated or over-mighty. There is assuredly a case to be made for reducing its size and ambitions and giving greater responsibilities to individuals. But this is a case that needs to be made and remade from first principles in every political generation, not just by consulting a text put on paper in a bygone age. Pace Ms Bachmann, the cons ution is for all Americans and does not belong to her party alone. Nor did Jefferson write a mission statement for the tea- partiers. They are going to have to write one for themselves.


http://www.economist.com/node/17103701

You don't need to worship the Cons ution, you merely adhere to the plain language of the text, and consult the Founders like James Madison for gray areas.

[Winehole23]

At a very basic level, if you're not gonna stick to it why even have a written cons ution?

[Winehole23]

Essentially the amendment process was taken over by the SC, roughly in the 30s.

Howzat? Cypher to me.

The ultimate arbiter is the people and thus far they'd rather watch football, drink ty beer, and abdicate their role to someone else. Further, I'm not sure what is that problematic about holding the original text in high regard.

A lot of people who watch football, drink ty beer and abdicate their role to someone else...

... were recently reminded that they hold the cons ution in high regard.




(Noise to signal ratio, no bueno.)

[boutons_deux]

"you merely adhere to the plain language of the text,"

which is simple but vague and open to interpretation,like the Bible.

"meaning and intent of the Founders" was extremely varied and controversial, and written for a very different world.

"merely"? GMAFB

Even that 2nd Amendment comma is open to interpretation.

[RandomGuy]

At a very basic level, if you're not gonna stick to it why even have a written cons ution?

I think there is a difference between adhering to the rule of law and the constiution, and outright worship of the framers, who were quite fallible.

One must also account for the vast gulf of time and development of the country in the interim.

Our cons ution is a wonderful do ent and embodies some very noble and worthwhile ideas and ideals.

That said, I worry about the excessive hand-wringing over strict, overly literal interpretation of it.

[boutons_deux]

Trashing ignorant, duped tea baggers is like shooting pit bull es in a barrel.


11 Patriotic Lessons from the Tea Party Guide to American History


By Phil N. Molé, AlterNet
Posted on October 3, 2010, Printed on October 4, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148386/

Hi Patriots:

Tired of textbooks written by liberals who wipe their muddy feet on the American flag and won't be happy until all of our children are vegetarian, atheist, and gay? Then order the new 'Tea Party Guide to American History," and save your child from the siren call of socialist sexuality.

This book will teach your children no more or less than what they need to know to be able to have a defiant, admirably unreflective perspective on their country's history. Things like this:

1. American Prehistory:

In 6,000 BC, the land containing the present-day United States was created, by God. Large masses of land surrounding the current Unites States were also created, for purposes known only in heaven.

The land containing the United States was designated for a special purpose by God – a future safe haven for the teachings of Jesus, and a place where women shouldn’t be able to get abortions and men should never use condoms. However, God’s plan is marred when pockets of original sin develop in parts of the northeastern and Midwestern states and in present-day California – these will later become “blue” states.

2. Colonial Days and Witch Trials

Everyone prayed to God at this time and everything was peaceful. There were those witch trials in 1692, but liberals have made too much of that. No one has told the story about how the witches persecuted the other colonists, so that’s obvious liberal bias right there. And many more people were killed in Europe in witchcraft persecutions, so really, the fact that we only killed 20 makes us look pretty good. Honestly, nothing to worry about here.

3. Indians, aka “Native Americans”

This is as good of a time as any to address the fact that there were people here before the European settlers arrived, namely, Indians. Some people call them “Native Americans,” but that’s a contradiction in terms, because America is a land of immigrants – you selfish, unpatriotic asshole Indians.

Revisionist, America-hating liberals try to make it look like there were lots of Indians here who had a complex, vibrant culture, so we’d feel ashamed of ourselves for taking their land and eliminating them. But there totally weren’t that many. And according to the earliest do ented evidence we’ve seen of their culture (a John Ford film made in Hollywood in the 1930s), these Indians really don’t come off well at all.

Plus, haven’t we already paid enough homage to Indian culture? We’ve named subdivisions of retirement communities after them, and little league and professional sports teams, and we like drinking beer when a sports mascot in an Indian costume dances during halftime. What more do these ungrateful people want?

(Insert advertisement for Fly Rite American Flag Detergent, for getting the tough blood and spleen stains out of your American flag. Our motto: “Our colors don’t run!”)

4. The Revolutionary War and Early Days of the Republic

Series of illustrations: George Washington and the cherry tree, George Washington in battle, and the American flag, flying high against a blue sky background. Take a moment to reflect on these images, and feel warm and good inside. This concludes the lesson on the Revolutionary Era.

The Cons ution originally included references to the Virgin Mary and Jesus, but those have been taken out by liberals trying to prove the country is not founded on Christianity. Here’s proof: Go right up to the next liberal you see and ask him what he did with the Virgin Mary, and watch his response. That flustered look says it all, doesn’t it?

5. Civil War

The War of Yankee Aggression, waged against helpless Southern states who only wanted limited government, states rights, and a nice sip of sweet tea. It wasn’t about slavery, and in fact, so-called slaves were better treated than most white males are – a trend that continues today. Slavery was possibly a little racist, in retrospect. But slavery ended with the Civil War, and so did racism.

6. World War II

There was a World War before this, and America won it.

We won this one, too, but liberals keep whining about the fact that so many Japanese Americans were interned in camps. But eye witnesses at the time swear that all of the Japanese who were relocated looked A LOT like the perpetrators of the Pearl Harbor attacks. More disturbingly, they were sometimes overheard speaking a language that did not appear to be English. There were no more Pearl Harbor attacks after the internment – think about that. But don’t think about it too long and don’t ask any follow-up questions.

7. Civil Rights Movement

OK, so there was a little racism that hung around after slavery ended. But this Martin Luther King guy came along and totally ended it for good. It wasn’t through attempts to end legalized discrimination against people of color, like housing discrimination and school segregation, because that was just big government in action, and it was all done wrong. It should’ve all just been done with speeches, like the kind King gave in “I Have a Dream,” which is significant because it influenced Glenn Beck. Also, after white people listened to that speech, they never again gave black people a hard time about anything.

Well, there was the assassination of MLK soon afterward, of course. But since racism ended thanks to MLK, assassin James Earl Ray by definition could NOT have been motivated by racism when he shot MLK. He was just a crazy guy with a gun, and no one else thought remotely like him, anywhere.

And of course, his assassination of King also does NOT show that we need tougher gun control laws in our country. Guns save lives. If King himself had been armed with an AK-47, he’d still be alive today.

8. Feminism and Women’s Liberation

Paved the way for Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin, but otherwise an unmitigated disaster. Across the country, dinners languish uncooked, and undersexed men were forced to cheat or to visit pros utes, which they never would have done otherwise, because men are awesome. And lots of women begin talking about how they want men to show their “feelings.” We’d been TRYING to show you how we felt, but then you passed sexual harassment laws.

A growing number of men find themselves in need of both food and of safe places to objectify women. To satisfy these needs, the restaurant chain Hooters would eventually be established.

9. The Reagan Years

For 8 years, all poverty and violence in the United States end. And Reagan says ‘tear down this wall” and the Berlin wall comes down. Millions of sick children are also healed by touching the hem of Reagan’s slacks, and the crumbs from Reagan’s table miraculously feed millions more. And there was this time that a little boy was cornered by a bear, and the bear was really big and mean and was totally going to eat the boy, but then Reagan swooped down out of nowhere and simply smiled, and the bear stopped being mean and licked the little boy and gave him honey instead.

10. The Clinton Years

George H.W. Bush was president before this, but nothing really happened. Clinton gets a blow job, and this shows the public that this is what is wrong with liberalism. It always, inherently, leads to extra-marital, taxpayer subsidized blow jobs.

11. Obama’s Presidency

Barack Hussein Obama is elected president, showing yet again that racism in America has ended.

He proceeds to destroy America with his Kenyan anti-imperialist, Islamophilic socialist agenda. The Cons ution is ground into a fine powder and snorted up Obama’s nose, and Christ and all of the apostles are punched in the face. In response, the Tea Party movement is born to restore America’s purity. This chapter comprises 80% of the total book.

As a companion to the book, we also offer an “I Want My Country Back!” protest kit that includes a stylish slave costume, a DVD of Obama’s greatest bloopers, and a pitchfork and torch.

As a tie-in with your students science classes, we also offer a book burning experiment kit. Students can mass books such as “Fahrenheit 451,” “Their Eyes Were Watching God,” “Brave New World,” and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” on the enclosed scale, and then burn the books in the included oven. Then, they mass the ashes. The difference in mass before and after the burning is the amount of evil the book contained.

History is too important to be left to people who’ve read history books to teach. Take our history back, and our country back, by ordering now!!

Phil Mole' lives in Chicago, and sometimes contributes to Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer magazines.
© 2010 Independent Media Ins ute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/148386/

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, I'm pretty sure all these happened. If I had to guess, I would say these are simply half-truths which dont tell the whole story.

The problem I have with the ACLU is they will stomp on other people's rights just to push what they want.

[Winehole23]

WHose rights got stomped on? Please be specific.

[FromWayDowntown]

The problem I have with the ACLU is they will stomp on other people's rights just to push what they want.

To push the insistence that the civil liberties protected by the Bill of Rights be upheld by ensuring that the majority cannot stomp on the rights of the minority?

[Spurminator]

The problem I have with the ACLU is they will stomp on other people's rights just to push what they want.

Yes, I eagerly await specific examples of this.

[ChumpDumper]

I predict WC won't have the time to "do you work for you."

[MannyIsGod]

Every ing day this guy.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, I eagerly await specific examples of this.

Just Google any of the situations on the YouTubes I posted.

[Spurminator]

Okay I just Googled all of them and could find no examples of anyone's Cons utional rights being stomped on by the ACLU in any of the situations lampooned by those YouTube skits.

[FromWayDowntown]

Okay I just Googled all of them and could find no examples of anyone's Cons utional rights being stomped on by the ACLU in any of the situations lampooned by those YouTube skits.

Curiously, it seems the ACLU mostly argues for the cons utional rights of those who are having their rights "stomped on" by the government.

Really, it should be clear by now that getting in the way of the majoritarian effort to eliminate minority voices and viewpoints is nothing other than an effort to stomp on the rights of that majority. Truly, if the political, social, or economic minority wants its voice, it should have to wait until it gains enough popular or political support; until then, screw off -- we don't want any of your unorthodox crap around here.

[Wild Cobra]

Okay I just Googled all of them and could find no examples of anyone's Cons utional rights being stomped on by the ACLU in any of the situations lampooned by those YouTube skits.

There are too many hits out there, aren't there.

I did a quick search, and that's one problem with the internet. TMI.

It's there, and maybe some day I will take the time required to find some good examples.

[Winehole23]

I did a quick search, and that's one problem with the internet. TMI.

It's there, and maybe some day I will take the time required to find some good examples.

You post in here all day long, but lack the time to back up your own bs. Ok.

[Wild Cobra]

You post in here all day long, but lack the time to back up your own bs. Ok.

If we all backed up 100% of the things we said, we wouldn't have any time to say anything now, would we?

Seriously. Such stories are pounded by one side, and relevant information is hard to find.

Not quite what i was looking for, but consider these:

ACLU Sues to Stop Boy Scout Meetings

ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit to End Preferential Treatment for Boy Scouts in San Diego

ACLU Sues to Remove War Memorial Cross

The ACLU Attacks the Boy Scouts, Defends NAMBLA

ACLU defends child-molester group

ACLU protects NAMBLA's Right to Rape Little Boys

[Winehole23]

Using the court system=trampling the rights of others, something like that?

[RandomGuy]

If we all backed up 100% of the things we said, we wouldn't have any time to say anything now, would we?

Seriously. Such stories are pounded by one side, and relevant information is hard to find.

Not quite what i was looking for, but consider these:

ACLU Sues to Stop Boy Scout Meetings

ACLU Files Federal Lawsuit to End Preferential Treatment for Boy Scouts in San Diego

ACLU Sues to Remove War Memorial Cross

The ACLU Attacks the Boy Scouts, Defends NAMBLA

ACLU defends child-molester group

ACLU protects NAMBLA's Right to Rape Little Boys

Do you really think that anybody at the ACLU supports child rape of any sort?

Or is that simply another in a long line of strawman attacks that pass for logic in conservative world?

[Wild Cobra]

Using the court system=trampling the rights of others, something like that?

What about the Veterans cross that was a symbol for years?

[Winehole23]

What about it?