- I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
The above is the oath of office all Federal officials, including elected members of the Congress, recite before assuming their official duties. It's a solemn and heavy burden to assume, especially given the size and complexity of the demands on our country.
Yet, in modern political debate and discourse, the right wing of American politics has staked out the Real American© high ground. From there, they claim people like President Obama and his supporters are trying "subvert" the Constitution. They use invective like "usurp", "trod on", or even "ignore" the Constitution. To the right wing, those on the left aren't Real Americans©.
This raises an interesting question. Do right wingers support the Constitution as much as they claim? Chris Coons, in his recent debate with tea party darling Christine O'Donnell asked the question very succinctly:
Which Constitution do right wingers like Louis Gohmert support? The one which includes the 14th and 17th amendments? Or the one without them? If he wants to re-write the Constitution, can he really say he supports it as it stands now? Can he then have any credibility in criticizing President Obama, who hasn't advocated changing the Constitution even once?
What about Ron Paul? Does he support the Constitution which includes the 16th amendment? Or the one previously? If the 16th amendment is there and a legal part of our Constitution, how could he claim it's unconstitutional?
To be clear, folks like Christine O'Donnell, Ron Paul, Louis Gohmert, et al, have the right to lobby for a change to the Constitution. We all do. It's part of the Constitution in itself to allow for changes, amendments, etc. However, in their rush to condemn those who hold only a different interpretational view of the Constitution as it exists as being "usurpers", how do they justify their expressly stated desire to completely amend the Constitution? Merely reading the document differently makes one un-Constitutional but openly desiring to change it does not?
No comments:
Post a Comment