As much as I think the tea-partiers are a joke, I do want to defend them a little bit.
Okay, not quite defend them. But I do want to quibble with one criticism about them: that they are apparently hypocritical in defending certain parts of the Constitution while opposing other parts of it. The argument goes like this: if the tea-partiers claim to revere the Constitution, why do some of them want to get rid of parts of it like the Sixteenth Amendment (allowing an income tax) or the Seventeenth Amendment (instituting direct election of U.S. Senators)? And how can they revere a document that legitimized slavery through the three-fifths clause?
As an example, the New York Times yesterday said in an editorial that the Republicans’ desire to read the Constitution aloud on the House floor “is a presumptuous and self-righteous act, suggesting that they alone understand the true meaning of a text that the founders wisely left open to generations of reinterpretation. Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person.”
As another example, Talking Points Memo, a site I read almost every day, is making fun of the Republicans for reading an “amended, slavery-free” version of the Constitution today. The argument again is: look at their hypocrisy! If they love the Constitution so much, why don’t they read the whole thing?
Here’s where I part ways with the Times and TPM.
The thing is, it’s possible to revere the Constitution without thinking that it’s a perfect document. Why? Because it is not really about revering the Constitution; it is about revering constitutional process.
Nobody is saying that the original Constitution was flawless. What they are saying is: look, the Constitution itself includes a mechanism for changing it: Article V, which shows you how to amend it.
Much of legal argument in this country is not about substantive issues, but about procedural ones. In fact, “respecting the process” is itself a substantive value. Look at all the back-and-forth in the Prop 8 case about standing: it’s a procedural issue, but procedural issues are important in our society, because we are not an anarchy or even a pure democracy; we are a constitutional democracy. We respect rules and laws. There’s nothing wrong with changing things, as long as you do it in the right way. You can even change the right way to change things, as long as you do it the right way.
So what the tea-partiers are saying — or at least what they could say — is this: it’s perfectly fine to change the Constitution, as long as you do it the way you’re supposed to. Of course the three-fifths clause was unconscionable — and look, we got rid of it in a way prescribed by the Constitution itself: the Thirteenth Amendment! And nobody is saying to just flat-out ignore the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments; they’re saying, let’s repeal them, in the way the Constitution allows, just as the Eighteenth Amendment (Prohibition) was repealed by the Twenty-second Amendment. (I happen to think the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments are great ideas and that it would be harmful and/or stupid to repeal them.)
What I do think is silly and a bit insulting is for the Republicans and tea-partiers to say that they’re the only ones who respect the Constitution. The Constitution contains lots of vague clauses that can be interpreted in many different ways. There are entire semester-long courses taught about the different ways to interpret the Constitution.
I still think the tea-partiers are a joke, and I don’t know how many of them think about the Constitution this way. But the Times and TPM are being a bit silly here.
The only problem is that the Tea Partiers do NOT revere the constitutional process. They don’t like the concept that there exists a “process” at all, because that process leads to things like the transfer of the presidency to a candidate they don’t like or the Judicial Branch exercising the power of judicial review in ways they don’t like.
The claim to revere the system when things go their way, but they raise holy hell — and accuse their opponents of treason and worse – if they don’t get what they want. Where we see the majority of them now is deciding that they alone know what the real meaning of the Constitution is, and voting and campaigning to defend the Constitution against the liberals/Marxists/Muslim extremists who are taking over the country. So they are still working within the system because the system currently works for them – even as they disparage the Constitutional process.
What will happen if the system doesn’t get them what they want? Will they resort to “2nd Amendment solutions?”
The most vocal Tea Partiers have a poor understanding of the Constitution and often appear to want to use it the same way Christians use the Bible- to pick and choose whatever portion supports their worldview.
Homer,
Care to cite examples of a specific Tea Partier misunderstanding the Constitution? I bet I can find as much denial of the Constitution on the NY Times editorial page as in the average Wal-Mart parking lot. The average Tea Partier is probably not much different than the average Daily Kos poster in their picking-and-choosing.
FI, sure. Here in Arizona the Tea Party is busy saying that the 14th Amendment does not apply to the children of undocumented immigrants. The United States Supreme Court has already said that it does (e.g., US v Wong Kim Ark, Pyler v Doe, INS v Rios-Pineda).
State Senator Russell Pearce (never met a Mexican that he doesn’t hate) has announced plans for a state bill banning birth certificates for the children born to undocumented women. Doesn’t matter what nationality the father is (US or non-US). The child would be denied citizenship. Meanwhile, an undocumented man could get a legal US citizen pregnant, and that child would still be considered a citizen.
Another example that bugs me: the claim that any given federal department or policy [Department of Education, health care reform, what-have-you] is “unconstitutional” because its not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution as a power delegated to the federal government.
Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to levy taxes to support “the general welfare” of the nation, and the power to make any laws “necessary and proper” toward that end. If a given program or policy is determined to benefit the “general welfare” and if it does not contradict other Constitutional provisions and guarantees, then it is “constitutional.”
Whether the policy in question truly is beneficial and a wise and prudent use of public funds is up for debate, but that is a separate issue from whether it is constitutional.