As Long As There’s A Constitution, GOP Can’t Win
It’s been a while, but here I am. Illnesses and the vagaries of the gypsy life have taken a toll, frazzled my brain, and, if you can believe it, have led me to thinking about things other than the state of the nation. During my enforced R&R I read a few novels, watched a few movies, spent time with friends, marveled at scenery, and all-around de-fragged. I hung around on the edges of the political debates, but found myself thinking the unthinkable: “Who cares?”
Now I’m back.
So. . .
What the devil has gotten into those Republicans? Are there no grownups left in that party? It’s as if, this past January, they all just got out of juvie, where they were plotting their mischief, and now’s the time to put their malicious but childishly goofy plans into action.
They’re fussing about bakers having to bake cakes for gay weddings, or, worse, cater the damn things. Entire Republican-oriented states are busy working up laws that’ll put a stop to it without looking like they’re trying to put a stop to it, because, you know. . .discrimination. It’s all the media talked about for days. As if the future of our country rested on whether or not gays are entitled to food or dry goods sold by, you know, Christians.
(About those Religious Freedom Restoration Acts: Presumably they mean restoring religious freedoms to those given the Pilgrims before they fled Britain’s shores and headed for what would become the land of the free and the home of the brave. Because who has more religious freedom than Americans?)
Meanwhile, the latest polls show more Americans (many, many, many of them Christians) favor gay marriage than don’t. It’s getting to the point where, one of these days, the mainstream media might have to recognize a dead issue when they see it and stop pandering to the bigots for stories that bring the greatest ratings.
And speaking of great, the great state of Tennessee is moving toward making the Bible the State Book. (What is a State Book, you ask? It’s a book any state designates as a State Book. Notice the caps. That makes it official.) The closest I could come to finding other state books is a whimsical, non-binding list Kristen Iversen put together for Brooklyn Magazine last October. Interesting selections–so interesting I forgot I was writing a blog and spent an hour over there, mulling them over, looking some of them up, arguing against some choices and cheering others on. (Eudora Welty would have been a good choice for Mississippi, and Garrison Keillor for Minnesota, but in Michigan, my Michigan, it’s Elmore Leonard all the way. And what’s with New York City having a place of its own among the states?)
As wonderful as some of those books might be, none of them is on a scale with The Bible. No getting away from it, The Bible is a Big Book in some circles. It’s been at the top of the best seller lists for so long it’s no longer even listed. But we know it’s there. (Brooklyn Mag’s choice for Tennessee, by the way, is Cormac McCarthy’s “Child of God.” Gives you chills, doesn’t it?) But good luck, Tennessee. (You do realize you’re a state and not the protestant equivalent of the Vatican, right?) By the way, Mississippi is thinking about it, and Louisiana gave this same thing some thought last year and then scrapped the whole idea. But don’t let that stop you. Please.
Food stamps are a big issue these days. According to the Republicans, nobody should be on food stamps, but since they can’t stop it entirely, the next best thing is to shame the recipients into dropping out voluntarily. Turn the masses against them. Make them grovel for what little they get. Pretend they’re using it for lobster and filet mignon and Haagen Daz. But understand this: Since children should be unseen and unheard, except for those in the womb, tightening the food stamp belt will have no affect on the little kiddies. None. None at all.
To this new and nasty bunch of GOPers, welfare and Medicaid are tools of the devil, causing huge deficits in our coffers because the poor would rather live off the taxpayer’s teat than work at any kind of job. (What? What’s that you say? Some people on welfare and Medicaid are working? At jobs? I can’t HEAR you!)
As Dana Milbank wrote in The Rush To Humiliate The Poor:
Last week, the Kansas legislature passed House Bill 2258, punishing the poor by limiting their cash withdrawals of welfare benefits to $25 per day and forbidding them to use their benefits “in any retail liquor store, casino, gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor, massage parlor, body piercing parlor, spa, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, vapor cigarette store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility, pari-mutuel facility, or sexually oriented business . . . or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted.”
The Kansas legislators must be pleased that they have protected their swimming pools from those nasty welfare recipients. But the gratuitous nature of the law becomes obvious when you consider that it also bans all out-of-state spending of welfare dollars — so the inclusion of a cruise-ship ban is redundant in landlocked Kansas.
Now we’re hearing that some states are officially banning climate change talk in any state agency having to do with the environment where they might, on the off-chance, find themselves discussing that sort of thing. They’re not even making it a secret. It’s as if they don’t know it’s something no normal government body would do. It’s as if they think nobody has ever heard of their sugar daddies, the Koch brothers, and their vested interests in the fossil fuel industries. (I wonder what happens to anyone who defies that ban? Boiled in oil? Stretched on a rack? Tongues cut out?)
Oh, there’s more. Of course there’s more. Misogyny, racism, collusion, corruption, adultery, Downton Abbey. . .it never ends. But what might save us is not the Good Book but our country’s most important document. As Thom Hartmann reminds us in a brilliant article called Why the Right Hates American History, our rights are, in fact, inalienable, not because we’re Americans or Oklahomans or Kansans or Michiganders, but because we’re humans:
The simple reality is that there are many “rights” that are not specified in the Constitution, but which we daily enjoy and cannot be taken away from us by the government. But if that’s the case. . .why doesn’t the Constitution list those rights in the Bill of Rights?
If you know your history, you know that the reason is simple: the Constitution wasn’t written as a vehicle to grant us rights. We don’t derive our rights from the constitution.
Rather, in the minds of the Founders, human rights are inalienable—inseparable—from humans themselves. We are born with rights by simple fact of existence, as defined by John Locke and written by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” the Founders wrote.
Humans are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights….” These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.
The job of the Constitution was to define a legal framework within which government and business could operate in a manner least intrusive to “We, The People,” who are the holders of the rights. In its first draft it didn’t even have a Bill of Rights, because the Framers felt it wasn’t necessary to state out loud that human rights came from something greater, larger, and older than government. They all knew this; it was simply obvious.
Thomas Jefferson, however, foreseeing a time when the concepts fundamental to the founding of America were forgotten, strongly argued that the Constitution must contain at least a rudimentary statement of rights,laying out those main areas where government could, at the minimum, never intrude into our lives.
We can’t stop now. I can’t stop now. Not as long as the Republicans insist on doing their nasty work out in the open, for everyone to see. They’re trying to create a new and terrible normal, using dirty money given to them by people who seek to profit by bringing our country down.
Hands on the Constitution, by the power vested in us, we cannot let it happen.
(Cross-posted at Ramona’s Voices)
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2015 Liberaland
By: Ramona Grigg
Ramona Grigg is a freelance columnist and blogger living in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.. She owns the liberal-leaning blog, Ramona's Voices, and is a contributor to Liberaland and on the masthead at Dagblog.
41 responses to As Long As There’s A Constitution, GOP Can’t Win
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hirightnow April 12th, 2015 at 22:23
It has been said that any democracy will eventually fail, because the people will vote “bread and circuses”, and ruin it from within. The opposite is likely true as well: the U.S. might relenquish its freedoms for conformity and safety.
While I don’t consider him to be a prophet by any means, R.A.Heinlein posited that through sheer cussedness, violent activism, and appealing to the basic desire of people to relinquish control of their fate to some force that must know better, a religious dictatorship could emerge in the U.S…the Constitution can be scrapped, because it was written by sinful men who had no true notion of God’s desires.
I used to think that he was just being a doomsayer…nowadays, I can honestly see it happening.
But I’ll be damned if I hide under the bed while it happens.
Ramona April 12th, 2015 at 22:28
No, I won’t be hiding, either. That may be foolish of me somewhere down the road, but there it is. I have to say, though, when Chomsky gets scared, I get terrified.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/noam_chomsky_has_never_seen_anything_like_this_20100419
Hirightnow April 12th, 2015 at 22:33
He’s ignored, because he’s an obvious librul elitist.
“Chomsky”….sounds ferrin ta me!
Dwendt44 April 13th, 2015 at 00:35
Some ignore him ’cause he makes good sense.
Chinese Democracy April 13th, 2015 at 14:57
Chomsky sounds Russian.. That is reason enough to be scared
bpollen April 13th, 2015 at 03:46
Revolt in 2100 and If This Goes On.
Certainly makes it seem plausible.
So does The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood.
burqa April 12th, 2015 at 22:53
It’s wonderful having you back, Ms. Grigg!
Unfortunately, I have to respectfully disagree with the headline. The GOP candidate may indeed be able to win. As they say in sports, “That’s why they play the game,” and in this case, that’s why we have an election.
Imagine if John Edwards’ scandal never came out and he was our candidate and was trouncing the GOP nominee until, 2 weeks out, the Edwards scandal came out.
We saw – oh shoot, I forget his name – the Democrat who uttered that awful sounding squawking scream at the end of a speech in the primaries in, what, 2004? His campaign ended right there and he was ahead.
It is possible Hillary could blow it.
We’d better hope not, for obvious reasons, including being able to select the successor to Ruth Bader Ginsberg and perhaps another Supreme Court justice.
Another reason we need this one is something lurking in conservative thought that I think would reemerge should they win the White House and maintain congressional majorities.
The Republicans did very well in state legislatures before the last 2 censuses and gerrymandered districts to give them a decided advantage in succeeding elections. The proposal we would have to watch out for is one in which they would change the way the electoral college functions. They want it to reflect more the advantage they have in state legislatures and governorships. It’s been quite a while since I read about it, so I can’t recall the details of just what they would do, but it’s out there.
Larry Schmitt April 13th, 2015 at 06:54
Howard Dean is the guy you were thinking of.
burqa April 14th, 2015 at 22:49
Thanks, man. I just cpouldn’t pull it. I could picture his face but couldn’t recall anything else…
Ramona Grigg April 13th, 2015 at 07:41
Thanks, Burqa. I guess I should have been clearer in my headline. I didn’t necessarily mean winning elections, I meant winning the war overall. They may win a seat at the table–even at the head of the table–but their ideas go against all that we stand for and ultimately, because enough of us understand our constitutional roots, the tide will turn and we’ll prevail.
They’re at the point where they’ve pushed the boundaries almost to the breaking point. The money and thus the power may be on their side now but I predict a healthy populist movement is about to explode, and when it does, they’re done.
(I hope.)
burqa April 14th, 2015 at 22:48
Yes ma’am, I think you are right.
Our Founding Fathers were on the Left side of the political spectrum and they gave us a decidedly radical form of government. They set us on a liberal path.
For all this time the Right has been able to delay progress at times, but they eventually lose.
We are seeing it now with gay rights. The Right is fighting a losing, rear-guard action as liberalism continues its advance.
They are delaying America getting better, but durnit, we WILL get better and they will continue to lose on this issue.
It’s so nice having you back. I really enjoy your columns. I understand how sometimes we can get beatn down and worn out by things and need to recharge the batteries. Life is for enjoying, and we should enjoy all kinds of things as we deal with various issues.
And look, thy’re all still here even after your lil’ vacation….
Kick Frenzy April 13th, 2015 at 01:00
I thought this was an excellent post.
It does a good job of wrapping up the “WTF?!?” of recent politics (almost exclusively on the Republican side, of course).
Thanks!
Ramona Grigg April 13th, 2015 at 07:43
Thank you. (And thanks for visiting Ramona’s Voices. I appreciate it.)
Kick Frenzy April 13th, 2015 at 12:53
You’re welcome, my pleasure and I was glad to see a “share on G+” button! :)
Chinese Democracy April 13th, 2015 at 14:55
I have yet to figure out G+ lol
Kick Frenzy April 13th, 2015 at 15:11
lol… I don’t use it much.
My page is mostly YouTube vids that I’ve commented on and some political stuff mixed in there.
Maybe half’n’half.
Either way, it’s not hard to use, really.
Just start using it and it’s pretty self explanatory.
Chinese Democracy April 13th, 2015 at 14:55
great article .. I love discussion but the article is so well thought out its hard to argue with heh
granpa.usthai April 13th, 2015 at 02:04
got no problem with it
IF
ALL THE BOOKS are included
not the halfass one that was left after King James had them thrown out in 1511.
John Tarter April 13th, 2015 at 02:48
The Constitution exists to LIMIT the government, to keep the government FROM DOING things to us, and that is something you liberals will never understand.
bpollen April 13th, 2015 at 03:42
Tater!
Thanks for giving us the sociopathic libertarian viewpoint.
Leave everyone alone and it will all get worked out.
Anarchy is the opposite of civilization.
eyelashviper April 13th, 2015 at 10:31
Those libertarians do love their fanciful worlds, like the feudal system, Somalia, etc….
StoneyCurtisll April 13th, 2015 at 15:22
High five~!
OldLefty April 13th, 2015 at 05:31
More accurately;
The Constitution exists to LIMIT the Federal government, to keep that government FROM DOING things to us, and that is something you CONSERVATIVES will never understand.
Why do you think that if you make any unfounded accusation and just repeat it endlessly, it will be true?
Or is it that the authoritarian leaders know that their followers will repeat and believe anything as long as the, (as David Frum called it) “Conservative Entertainment Complex, that has been ‘fleecing, exploiting and lying to Republicans” ALL parrot it, just as Newt instructed in his 1996 GOPAC meme, Language; A Key Mechanism of Control”?
Yet again, another example of how whatever the right accuses it’s opponents of, is actually true of them.
EnuffBull April 13th, 2015 at 09:19
The projection-ism that the Right Wing does is so laughable!!
StoneyCurtisll April 13th, 2015 at 15:22
“another example of how whatever the right accuses it’s opponents of, is actually true of them”.
Exactly~!
arc99 April 13th, 2015 at 09:38
The Constitution exists for many reasons.
Right now, one of the more pressing needs is to prevent right wing religious bigots from discriminating against people. Gay people and Muslims are also protected by the Constitution and that is something you right wingers will never understand.
The constant chatter about the President’s real religion, along with the full throated embrace in 2012 of a proposal to administer a loyalty test to any Muslim seeking to work in government (entirely unconstitutional), demonstrate that it is right wingers who are largely ignorant of what the Constitution says and stands for.
What part of ‘no religious test’ do the anti Muslim bigots not understand?
Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but **no religious tes**t shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
eyelashviper April 13th, 2015 at 10:30
Perhaps you missed this part, or do not comprehend the meaning:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States
of America.
mea_mark April 13th, 2015 at 15:37
Maybe if there was something about God, guns or the bible they would be familiar with that part. Heck, I don’t even find the word ‘freedom’ in there. You can’t expect them to know something if it doesn’t contain their favorite things.
eyelashviper April 13th, 2015 at 15:40
If they don’t see freedumb or paytriot, they are suspicious.
Jake April 13th, 2015 at 07:36
“Last week, the Kansas legislature passed House Bill 2258, punishing the poor by limiting their cash withdrawals of welfare benefits to $25 per day and forbidding them to use their benefits “in any retail liquor store, casino, gaming establishment, jewelry store, tattoo parlor, massage parlor, body piercing parlor, spa, nail salon, lingerie shop, tobacco paraphernalia store, vapor cigarette store, psychic or fortune telling business, bail bond company, video arcade, movie theater, swimming pool, cruise ship, theme park, dog or horse racing facility, pari-mutuel facility, or sexually oriented business . . . or in any business or retail establishment where minors under age 18 are not permitted.””
Apparently this is a list of where Republicans – or at least those who drew up this list, like to spend their money unencumbered by the great unwashed. Pretty useful for anyone running against the authors of this bill come election time.
Ramona April 13th, 2015 at 09:49
Lol. I think you’re on to something!
Foundryman April 13th, 2015 at 10:39
Actually, it’s a list the far right religious fanatics will want to eliminate for all of us. I’m impressed they didn’t include mandatory church on sundays for anyone on assistance.
Chris19741949 April 13th, 2015 at 18:56
Knowing the Kansas legislators, I am quite sure someone at least mentioned it. You have no idea how well this bill will play with the connies in rural and western Kansas, who are quite sure that every person who receives a little assistance is a lazy, good-for-nothin’ troll.
Budda April 13th, 2015 at 09:02
Excellent read.
illinoisboy1977 April 13th, 2015 at 11:11
People on the left have been known to disregard the Constitution, when it suits them. It’s not just a right-wing failing. It’s a “people in power” failing. Anyone in power, conservative OR liberal, will “interpret” the Constitution to favor his/her own position, whether that interpretation is correct or not. But, yes, I must admit that the whole anti-gay marriage stance is stupid, in the extreme and likely to fall apart under judicial review.
Kick Frenzy April 13th, 2015 at 15:12
You may be right, but I can’t think of any time when Dems disregarded the Constitution, while it’s like shooting fish in a barrel when looking for ways Republicans have tread all over it.
arc99 April 13th, 2015 at 16:32
There is some merit in what you say. One can argue back and forth on the merits of prosecutorial discretion on immigration law or Health and Human Services regulations changing on the fly, which have been relatively non-controversial until January 2009, even though President Obama has done nothing his predecessors have not done.
But I think for clear-cut indisputable disregard of the Constitution, I think the political right is unparalleled. We had 2012 Presidential candidate Herman Cain openly advocating violating article 6 protections for Muslims seeking government jobs.
We have conservative legislatures proposing to make the Bible the official book in several states. We saw the hysteria when Rep. Keith Ellison D-MN who is a Muslim, sought to take his oath of office on a Koran. There is the conservative opposition to trying 9/11 conspirators in civilian courts despite the fact that Article 3 Section 2 is quite explicit
“””The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in theState where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.””
So while I would agree that when it comes to debatable nuances concerning policy implementation, Constitutional issues arise from both sides of the aisle. However I can think of no example where the left advocates an indisputable violation of Constitutional rights such as advocating that evangelical Christians and only evangelicals be subjected to loyalty tests when seeking government employment, and thereby directly violating Article 6.
In the history of our republic, one of the defining moments was the executive order issued on January 1, 1863 known as the Emancipation Proclamation. Exactly what was the Constitutional basis President Lincoln used? The Constitution would not be amended until two years later when the 13th amendment banned slavery.
Was Lincoln ignoring the Constitution? If so, then why is it not at least theoretically possible that for the good of not just the nation but for humanity as a whole, some future President would also act unilaterally as did President Lincoln?
Bunya April 13th, 2015 at 14:10
Why do the republicans, supposedly fine, Christian folks, in favor of expanding the military industrial complex, yet put all their time and effort into denying subsidies to the poor, denying woman the right to choose and ensuring the “religious” among us aren’t denied their “freedoms”?
pignose4.0 April 13th, 2015 at 15:03
Happy birthday Thomas………and thanks for all the fish.
StoneyCurtisll April 13th, 2015 at 15:16
Excellent article~!
Thank you Ramona Grigg!
fedele April 13th, 2015 at 17:11
“Humans are “endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights….” These rights are clear and obvious, the Founders repeatedly said. They belong to us from birth, as opposed to something the Constitution must hand to us, and are more ancient than any government.”- While this should have been the reality, they wrote this while owning slaves, women had little to no rights and now the gay community is having to fight for their rights. Why do we continue to exploit how genius these men were when in actuality were quite flawed, just like every human. This document was meant to be progressive just as society progresses and moves forward with innovation.