I was pondering this while at work tonight.
Has anyone noticed that conservatives are so bent on defending the ignorance within their own movement that they are willing to distort The Constitution? That most sacred of founding documents that the Tea Baggers continually insist must be followed explicitly and to the letter now has a hot new talking point to go along with it:
If the exact words aren't in it, then it doesn't count. If they don't "see" those words, then they simply don't exist and have no relevance to Constitutionality of an issue.
Case in point - Christine O'Donnell's complete lack of understanding that the First Amendment separates The State and Religion.
Once the right-wing noise machine realized they had some serious damage control to do, they fired back with this narrative. But is that really what they want to be doing?
Think about all the talk of healthcare reform being unconstitutional. Where are they getting that? After all, there's no place in the Constitution that states verbatim that legally elected officials can't reform an industry that financially rapes the people of a nation. What happened to the "those words aren't in there" meme?
Careful how you frame your arguments people.
A Blog Version Of The Inside Of My Head. The place where politics, film, the media, music, pop culture, and random topics collide in an orgy of neo-philisophical randomness that would make your mother scream.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
Blog Archive
-
▼
2010
(853)
-
▼
October
(28)
- Happy Halloween
- Keeping Up Appearances
- Remembrances
- Context Free Conservativism
- And Like Clockwork.....
- O'Reilly's Metric
- Loud Noises!!!
- Reality Shifting
- Reading The Tea Leaves
- Scholastic Re-Do
- Randian Responses
- Predictabilities
- Tea Ads
- Who Are The Thugs Again? Part II
- The Freedom To Pledge
- Freedoms, Fears, And Fox
- Why NPR Was Right And Conservatives Are Still Wrong
- Grammatic Agnosticism
- Historic Position Flexible
- Taking His Rhetoric And Going Home
- Becks Time And Tides
- Does "T" Stand For "Tantrum"?
- Who Are The Thugs Again?
- And What Of Children's Rights?
- Defense Mechanisms
- Abstract Distractionism
- Glenn Beck: Stigmata Martyr
- Jack And Rand : A Kentuckian's Perspective
-
▼
October
(28)
3 comments:
Preamble "....to promote the general welfare..." so how is it that health care doesn't fall under that blanket?
It doesn't "promote the general welfare." It promotes specific people's welfare (I don't think it even does that). For something to promote the *general* welfare, it has to help everyone equally and in the same way. Health care and other government programs do not and can not do this.
Now, as for "separation of church and state," the fact of the matter is that it is not in there, and it matters that it is not in there. The 1st Amendment only prevents the federal government from setting up a nation-wide religion. It in fact does not even prevent the states from doing so (as evidenced by the fact that some states for a while did have state-sanctioned religions; Virginia was an exception, with its constitution stating that there would be a clear "separation of church and state" -- oh, is that where that line is at?). It does matter whether the line is in there or not, because it matters as to how one understand the Constitution. Putting things in there that don't exist doesn't strengthen your arguments in the least.
Troy, perhaps you should read my post of Sunday regarding the Bible as "living document" - as virtually every conservative Christian views it - and the Constitution as "non-living" document - even though cases such as with Citizens United have taken a much different stance. Where in the Constitution does it say that "money" is speech?
Post a Comment