E.J. Dionne is a terrible columnist. Not only does he represent the institutionalized "left" in our country (as close to completely insane, wrong, and backward as you can get right now) but he doesn't even argue such a case with nice words. At least with Buckley, Krauthammer, and heck, even Mark Steyn, I enjoy reading them even when I disagree. And I do. But this:
"Thus the new majority will open the next Congress with a full reading of the Constitution and establish a rule requiring that every new bill contain a statement citing the constitutional authority behind it.
My first response was to scoff at this obvious sop to the tea party movement. One can imagine that the rule's primary practical result will be the creation of a small new House bureaucracy responsible for churning out constitutional justifications for whatever gets introduced.
But on reflection, I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows -- and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join.
From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture."
is utter, complete nonsense. The reason conservatives carp about originalism is that the process and the means by which something is accomplished in this country confers legitimacy on it in our republic. The story of the Democratic governance of this country is the story of a carelessness about the will of the people, about the process by which laws are enacted, and a commensurate loss of legitimacy for the political process itself. A teacher of mine once told me that the separation of powers was really an innacurate way of looking at how America's political system works. He said "separate institutions sharing power" was a better description. If that's true, we have exactly the contours of the problem. Our entire political class has been wrangling for the reins of what they view as a giant candy store, while the people (on every side of every issue) say, "We're ruled by idiots, and worse still, corrupt idiots who don't listen." [Rant Once Again Explicating Personal Views Noone Cares To Know: Personally, I think truth as I see it leans right economically, left on foreign policy (sort of, owing to a growing conviction about military non-intervention) and I am what I can only describe as a semi-traditionalist on social issues. Anti-drug war, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, reluctantly in favor of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage (owing to a deference to so-called "natural law"; however, the Defense of Marriage Act violates the plain wording of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution; thus, only a repeal followed by an amendment federally outlawing such unions is just. Anything less would force the states to recognize unions in other states. On the other hand, I'm fairly sure homosexual adoption is less detrimental than children as wards of the state, and much less so than not living at all.] It seems our political class is less intelligent, less forward-thinking, less moral, and less qualified than the average person. And that's saying something, considering. In any case, it is simply slander to say that an originalist view of the Constitution takes one back to the "Dark Ages" of 1789 (oh, the horror!) ; for one, "as amended" must always be added to any invocation of the Constitution. And no, Mr. Dionne, I don't think the "right" will win every argument about the nature of the Constitution. But I do believe the side running roughshod over the Constitution and demeaning it as a part of the process of implementing its "solutions" the last 40 years may have trouble making the case.
"Thus the new majority will open the next Congress with a full reading of the Constitution and establish a rule requiring that every new bill contain a statement citing the constitutional authority behind it.
My first response was to scoff at this obvious sop to the tea party movement. One can imagine that the rule's primary practical result will be the creation of a small new House bureaucracy responsible for churning out constitutional justifications for whatever gets introduced.
But on reflection, I offer the Republicans two cheers for their fealty to their professed ideals. We badly need a full-scale debate over what the Constitution is, means and allows -- and how Americans have argued about these questions since the beginning of the republic. This provision should be the springboard for a discussion all of us should join.
From its inception, the tea party movement has treated the nation's great founding document not as the collection of shrewd political compromises that it is, but as the equivalent of sacred scripture."
is utter, complete nonsense. The reason conservatives carp about originalism is that the process and the means by which something is accomplished in this country confers legitimacy on it in our republic. The story of the Democratic governance of this country is the story of a carelessness about the will of the people, about the process by which laws are enacted, and a commensurate loss of legitimacy for the political process itself. A teacher of mine once told me that the separation of powers was really an innacurate way of looking at how America's political system works. He said "separate institutions sharing power" was a better description. If that's true, we have exactly the contours of the problem. Our entire political class has been wrangling for the reins of what they view as a giant candy store, while the people (on every side of every issue) say, "We're ruled by idiots, and worse still, corrupt idiots who don't listen." [Rant Once Again Explicating Personal Views Noone Cares To Know: Personally, I think truth as I see it leans right economically, left on foreign policy (sort of, owing to a growing conviction about military non-intervention) and I am what I can only describe as a semi-traditionalist on social issues. Anti-drug war, anti-death penalty, anti-abortion, reluctantly in favor of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage (owing to a deference to so-called "natural law"; however, the Defense of Marriage Act violates the plain wording of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution; thus, only a repeal followed by an amendment federally outlawing such unions is just. Anything less would force the states to recognize unions in other states. On the other hand, I'm fairly sure homosexual adoption is less detrimental than children as wards of the state, and much less so than not living at all.] It seems our political class is less intelligent, less forward-thinking, less moral, and less qualified than the average person. And that's saying something, considering. In any case, it is simply slander to say that an originalist view of the Constitution takes one back to the "Dark Ages" of 1789 (oh, the horror!) ; for one, "as amended" must always be added to any invocation of the Constitution. And no, Mr. Dionne, I don't think the "right" will win every argument about the nature of the Constitution. But I do believe the side running roughshod over the Constitution and demeaning it as a part of the process of implementing its "solutions" the last 40 years may have trouble making the case.
Comments