The Lefts Continuing Attack on Religion and the Constitution
MensNewsDaily.com
January 5, 2011
Roger F. Gay
Consider that liberal/socialist/progressives hate
the American Constitution as much as they hate God, Jesus Christ, the bible and
Christians. Between the Declaration of Independence,
the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, much less tossing into the mix the Constitution
of every one of the fifty states – we find these mention God, Jesus Christ as Our
Lord, and that the Constriction from its inception was designed to prevent American
Citizens from become servantile to an ungodly and unjust government. The Constitution
of the
The battle in many ways mirror the battle that was fought over
the bible in the hands of the common believer 1780 years ago in the year of Our
Lord 230 in early Church.
Last week liberal socialist wrote who can understand the constitution
today with all of its old fashion language that was written over “100” years [Actually
over 200 years] ago.
I'm a little amazed at the number
of hits you can get googling for anti-Constitution
arguments. Once past that amazement, I'm
not so amazed by the unimaginative, unthinking, often downright stupidity of
the repeated talking points and mindless personal attacks from the left,
currently aimed against the left's current biggest boogie-man; the TEA Party.
At the War
Room, Michael Lind says Let's stop pretending the Constitution is sacred and claims that Freedom rests on a culture
of constitutionalism, not a particular document. That almost sounds right.
In WSJ, Roger Pilon argues brilliantly that in order to
maintain freedom, there is a need to continue focused debate on the
Constitution. But it's difficult to imagine Michael Lind's vision of a culture
of constitutionalism without a Constitution.
Somewhere in the midst of a circuitous argument
intended to cast TEA Partiers and others who aren't members of his cult as
stupid southern racists – especially if they're Protestant - Lind manages to
choke out just what you'd expect – ye old “living document” dogma. And if
you're not convinced of its wisdom, just ask the foreigners.
The blending of Protestant fundamentalism
and neoclassical Legislator-worship explains the semi-religious reverence with
which the Founders or Framers or Fathers of the Constitution have long been
discussed in the
At Newsweek, where writers
are too cowardly to sign their work, the article America’s Holy Writ
says Tea Party evangelists claim the
Constitution as their sacred text and promises to tell us Why that’s wrong. The words “sacred text”
appear to be from the Newsweek writers themselves, as they are never actually
attributed (in quotes) to anyone. The authors associate their characterization
with 2010 Republican Senate candidate Christine O’Donnell, who says (in quotes)
“American values” and “There are more of us than there are of them.” (Newsweek
writers added – no quotes – “enshrined in our sacred text” after “American
values.”)
But I suppose the only thing more boring than
Newsweek's continuous stream of misrepresentations and twisted attacks is
reading an article explaining them to you. (The link is given above if you want
to read the article yourself.) Don't be surprised when Newsweek also blames
“fundamentalism” - you know, those stupid southern racists that make up the Tea
Party. Like Lind, Newsweek thinks it all wrong because Protestants are stupid.
At The Economist, someone named PRINT EDITION penned an article entitled The perils of
constitution-worship. PRINT EDITION
claims One of the guiding principles of the
tea-party movement is based on a myth. His or her argument is that the
Constitution doesn't say whether homosexuals can marry or what the founding
fathers would have made of the modern welfare state. PRINT EDITION seems
certain this is an intelligent argument, for it is inspired by the writings of
Greg Sargent at The
Washington Post carries on PRINT EDITION's legacy with an article titled The Tea Party does not own the Constitution. Whether the
assertion is correct or not, he makes it no clearer why this would invalidate
the document. Instead, he quotes a “legal scolar”
(sic) who's written some gibberish claiming the Constitution is a “forward
looking” (read politically progressive) document intended to maximize federal
power.
I've left the most fanatic, dogmatic, goof-ball
extremist fundamentalists of the left to last. Samuel G. Freedman writes “On Religion” in an article titled; Tea Party Rooted in Religious Fervor for Constitution. Freedman is a
Freedman noted that a reverend who attended a Tea Party activity in
Managing to at least spell “scholars” correctly,
Freedman claims the term du jour is “Constitution worship.” (Maybe his
law professor – see below – can get together with Michael Klarman
on whether it's “worship” or “idolatry”? I think “idolatry” does more to
mocking religious people.) For him, the problems of religion and not being part
of his cult “long predate the Tea Party,” apparently all the way back to the
time of Jesus. “Some trace back to the implicit spirituality of
Freedman's law professor is Sanford Levinson at
the
Well, that proves it I guess. Now if we can just
figure the oil companies into this and work out how George Bush is to blame …
MORE ARTICLES:
Are Liberals
Coming Out of the Closet on the Constitution?
Powerline
01/05/2011
John
We have written many times about the Progressive
movement and its open hostility toward both the Constitution and the
Declaration of Independence. We have also noted that modern progressives have
generally had the good political sense to keep their opinions about the
Constitution to themselves, beyond whatever critique is implicit in terming it
a "living" document that is liable to call forth previously unknown
"rights" at any moment.
Today's New York Times
editorializes on the Republican takeover of the House. You could paraphrase the
editorial as "wah-wah-wah;" the paper
basically cries over its party's November defeat. But in the course of doing
so, the editorialists are surprisingly open about their contempt for the
Constitution:
A theatrical production of unusual
pomposity will open on Wednesday when Republicans assume control of the House
for the 112th Congress. A rule will be passed requiring that every bill cite
its basis in the Constitution. A bill will be introduced to repeal the health
care law. On Thursday, the Constitution will be read aloud in the House
chamber.
Those who had hoped to see a glimpse of the
much-advertised Republican plan to revive the economy and put Americans back to
work will have to wait at least until party leaders finish their Beltway
insider ritual of self-glorification. Then, they may find time for governing.
Needless to say, the Times did not adopt a
similarly surly attitude in January 2007, when Nancy
Pelosi took over the helm in the House. The editorial continues:
The empty gestures are officially
intended to set a new tone in Washington, to demonstrate -- presumably to the
Republicans' Tea Party supporters -- that things are about to be done very
differently. But it is far from clear what message is being sent by, for
instance, reading aloud the nation's foundational document. Is this group of
Republicans really trying to suggest that they care more deeply about the
Constitution than anyone else and will follow it more closely?
Well, yeah. Actually paying attention to the
Constitution would be a change. But now the Times shows
its true colors:
In any case, it 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.
Presumptuous to read the
Constitution out loud? Seriously? And, in fact, the founders didn't eave the
Constitution "open to generations of reinterpretation;" they provided
for the document to be changed by amendment. But most revealing is the Times'
hauling out the old three/fifths chestnut, much beloved by liberals who despise
the Constitution. Never mind that the point of that provision, insisted upon by
representatives of the
There is a similar air of vacuous
fundamentalism in requiring that every bill cite the Constitutional power given
to Congress to enact it.
Contemplate that phrase for a
moment--"vacuous fundamentalism." So citation of Constitutional
authority is "fundamentalism?" And why is it "vacuous" for
legislators to consider whether proposed legislation does, in fact, have a
basis in the Constitution? Isn't this one of their most basic duties?
The new House leadership says this
is necessary because the health care law and other measures that Republicans do
not like have veered from the Constitution. But it is the judiciary that
ultimately decides when a law is unconstitutional, not the transitory occupant
of the speaker's chair.
Maybe instead of jeering at the Constitution, the
Times editors should read it. Nowhere does it say or imply that
constitutionality is the sole concern of the judicial branch. On the contrary,
the Constitution gives the judiciary no special role with respect to
determining the Constitutional validity of legislation or executive actions.
Article I says, further, that Congress may "make all Laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all
other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This places a clear duty
on Congress to determine that the legislation it enacts is consonant with the
"Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
The Republicans' antics are a
ghastly waste of time at a moment when the nation is expecting real leadership
from Congress, and suggest that the new House leadership is still unable to
make tough choices. Voters, no less than drama critics, prefer substance to
overblown theatrics.
It's nice to see that the Times has
such a sense of urgency, but I don't think the paper needs to worry. Reading
the Constitution will take considerably less time than the near-filibuster that
Nancy Pelosi delivered before handing the House gavel over to Speaker John
Boehner. The Republicans will be on to substance soon enough. I doubt, however,
that will make the Times editorialists any happier than contemplating the
Constitution does.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
And the Founders said: Let there be a constitution.
And the Founders looked at the articles and clauses and saw that it was good.
For more than 200 years, Americans have revered the
Constitution as the law of the land, but the GOP and tea party heralding of the
document in recent months - and the planned recitation on the House floor
Thursday - have caused some Democrats to worry that the charter is being
misconstrued as the immutable word of God.
"They
are reading it like a sacred text," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), the outgoing chairman of the House Judiciary subcommittee on the
Constitution, civil rights and civil liberties, who has studied and
memorized the Constitution with talmudic
intensity. Nadler called the "ritualistic
reading"[Of the Constitution] on the floor "total
nonsense" and "propaganda" intended to claim the
document for Republicans. "You read the Torah, you read the Bible, you build a worship service
around it," said Nadler, who argued that the Founders were not
"demigods" and that the document's need for amendments to abolish
slavery and other injustices showed it was "highly imperfect."
"You are not supposed to
worship your constitution. You are supposed to govern your government by
it," he said.
But exalting the Constitution is hardly new.
Constitutional scholars and historians say the document has occupied a nearly
spiritual sphere for Americans practically since its ratification.
"It has an immediate and obvious parallel to
how you interpret the Bible," said Noah Feldman, a law professor and
constitutional scholar at Harvard.
"The Constitution is seen as both the source
and the product of God's blessing on the
In his first presidential inaugural address, George
Washington divined the invisible hand of providence in the nation's creation, a
pervasive belief, Green said, that imbued the Constitution with a
"quasi-scriptural" quality. The perceived majesty of the document has
waxed and waned over time, but after a sweeping Republican Party victory in the
November midterms, it is conservative and tea party members who are most vocal
in extolling its restorative powers.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.),
a frequent exalter of the Constitution, said Thursday's reading is a logical
reaction to a campaign that was explicitly run on its principles. She said she
believes the Constitution is a guide to paring down expansive government
powers. "The words of the Constitution mean what they say they mean,"
she said. She described the Constitution as "the organic, original
document" that "gives life to a nation."
"It's not on the same level as a sacred text
that God would hand down to the faithful," said Bachmann, specifying the the document was "secular" and intended to
provide parameters for the branches of government. But, she added, religious
inspiration had a role in the document's drafting. "Those who wrote the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were themselves devout
individuals - primarily in their Christian faith," she said, arguing that
the product was "reflective of their sincerely held beliefs."
Bruce Ackerman, a Sterling professor of law and
political science at Yale, expressed a different view about the motivating
spirit of the Founders.
"They are steeped in Enlightenment classical
culture. They want a reestablishment of Republicanism through acts of
reason," he said. "This is deeply inconsistent with the rote reading
of a text as if it were handed down from
Differing interpretations of the intentions of the
Founders and the meaning of the text are virtually as old as the Constitution.
The document's genius, according to many scholars,
is its often purposeful ambiguity - what Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and author of "
But some Democrats and constitutional scholars said
the tea party has an atemporal view of the document
that ignores the monumental changes of the Civil War, the New Deal and the
civil rights era.
Ackerman said the events of the constitutional
convention showed that the Constitution resulted from a "pro-tax
rebellion" on the part of Federalists who thought the Articles of
Confederation lacked enough power to raise taxes to pay the nation's
considerable war debts.
Nadler agreed. "A lot of the tea party people,
I wonder how many of them have read the Constitution," he said. "A
lot of them, they seem to think the Constitution is the Articles of
Confederation."
Nadler said he anticipates a raft of "idiotic
amendments" from Republicans, such as an effort to allow states to nullify
acts of Congress, that would blatantly violate the
Constitution.
Suspicious and mocking as Nadler was of the
Republicans' motivation for reading aloud what he affectionately characterized
as "a long, dry, boring document with details about how Congress will have
power to lay imposts and taxes," he agreed with other constitutional
experts, and even the tea party, that there was a potential benefit.
"Maybe," he said, "it will be a
little educational."