Okay, so let me get this straight: liberal-fascists screamed bloody murder over Bush supposedly “shredding the Constitution,” right? You remember the Constitution; it’s that document that’s so old — why, at least a hundred years or so, although its origins are obscured by the fog of a history of which we have no reliable knowledge — as to be completely indecipherable. If it has any meaning at all, that meaning must be completely flexible; ie, tethered not to timeless principle, but to contemporary political expedience.
Whenever we have a Republican in the White House, the Constitution is everlasting and inviolate. When socialists are running things, all bets are off.
Is that about it? Or am I missing some sort of “nuance” or other?
Already, House Democrats are lining up to ridicule a closely related rule that the Republican majority has said it will adopt, requiring members to cite the specific constitutional authority for any bill they introduce. “It’s an air kiss they’re blowing to the tea party,” says Barney Frank, outgoing chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Henry Waxman, outgoing chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, all but dismissed any role for Congress in assessing the constitutionality of its actions: “Whether it is constitutional or not is going to be whether the Supreme Court says it is.”
Throughout the 19th century, members of Congress and presidents alike rejected legislation because they believed there was no constitutional authority to enact it. The bedrock presumption of our polity, they understood, was individual liberty. The Constitution gave the federal government the authority to pursue certain limited ends, like national security and ensuring free interstate commerce, but otherwise left us free to pursue our ends either through the states or as private individuals. It did not authorize the federal government to provide us with the vast array of goods and services that today reduce so many of us to government dependents.
Which is why they work so diligently to obscure its meaning and pretend not to “understand” it, declaring of it an impenetrable complexity that doesn’t actually exist.
So again, let’s see if I have this right: the Constitution itself runs, what, six pages or thereabouts, not counting amendments other than the Bill of Rights? And it’s too complex and subtle for most of us to grasp. The health care bill, on the other hand, runs about 2700 pages, if I remember right, and it’s the soul of legal simplicity, easily implementable and presenting no danger to the Republic from unintended consequences or misinterpretation.
Yeah, I think I’ve got it. But I’m damned if I can make any sense of it.
All sarcasm aside, read all of this one for a good hard look at the historical reality liberal-fascists would rather you not know about.