Lately I’ve noticed the reverence with which the words of the Constitution are spoken by some conservative quarters. Does it seem to others like the words are spoken as though they transcend the works of mortal man but have an eternal quality of Truth? And that like the Bible the words are interpreted selectively and opportunistically and often without really knowing what the words mean?
It’s lucky the composers didn’t include advertising to off-set costs.
‘Buy your wheels at Benjamin Briggs’ Cartwright Emporium of Boston’
‘Drink a Quart of Ale a Day — Thumbling’s Brewery’
‘A Patriot eats Frucker’s Sweetcorn !’
Otherwise the tea-partiers would certainly still financially support such enterprises.
In practical terms, yes, it’s treated like the Bible, in the sense that poeple interpret it a thousand different ways.
Somewhat more formally, the process for amending the Constitution is spelled out a bit more explicitly than for the Bible.
God Wrote the Constitution - Glenn Beck told me so.
Crane
Oh yay…another “Let’s all bash conservatives!” thread.
:rolleyes:
Actually, I’ve noticed that the words of the Constitution are largely ignored in some liberal quarters, as though the words are strictly secondary to whatever meaning the Constitution is thought to have during whichever week the question arises. We hear phrases like “penumbras” and “emanations” of the Constitution when liberals wish to explain how the Constitution means something it doesn’t say at all. We hear words like “evolving standards” to describe how the same words meant one thing fifty years ago and a completely different thing today, despite the fact that the words themselves haven’t changed one jot or tittle.
I guess, if I had a choice, I’d choose “reverence” over “ignore.”
But that’s just me.
In some ways, sure. It’s sometimes bandied about as a sort of trump card, as though by evoking the Constitution (or the Founders) the opponent in an argument is automatically wrong, even if the speaker is wrong. It’s become a rallying cry among the Tea Party set, exemplified by Christine O’Donnell’s absurd claim that the First Amendment doesn’t contain the language “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. I think there’s also a sense, again, mostly within the Tea Party, that what’s in the Constitution is Morally Right, that the Founders are infalliable, and that any attempt to change the Constitution (or have a court rule in an unfavorable way) is tatamount to treason. I don’t think that the Constitution is treated with quite the same reverence as the Bible, but it’s the same sort of thing.
“E Plebnista!”
Yang!
Com!
It amuses me that I understood posts # 8-10 immediately.
Would you mind translating then?
Any chance you might provide some specific examples, with cites, for the purposes of debate? You statement is far too vague and non-specific to lead to a truly substantial debate.
I mean, I could say precisely the same thing about “some conservative quarters.”
It’s a Star Trek thing, magellan.
lol. Me too.
It’s mostly conservatives (though not, I’ll grant, Bricker specifically), not liberals, who insist on the penumbra of a “public policy exception” to the Full Faith and Credit clause. It’s mostly conservatives, not liberals, who insists that the lack of enumeration of a right means that it does not exist, in conflict with the plain language of the Ninth Amendment. It’s conservatives, not liberals, who are currently denying that the federal government has the power to levy taxes to promote the general welfare.
Those are worship words. Yang worship. You will not speak them!
Thanks.
Yes, but not just conservatives. Liberals worship the Constitutional bible too, just in different ways. The ALCU is just as much of a church of the Constitutional as the NRA is. Both worship it’s commandments.
I don’t really see a problem with it though. In theory, the Constitution says how the government is run, what the government can do, and perhaps more importantly what the government can NOT do. I’d rather have politicians that pray at it’s alter than ones that don’t know what it even says. Especially since, unlike the bible, the Constitution can be changed if it needs to be. We don’t have to ignore it’s inconvenient bits like people do with the bible, we can remove/modify the inconvenient bits to suit our needs.
Not to mention that whole flag-burning, “separation of church and state”, and pretty much any part of the first amendment, except of course to let “persons” such as Exxon, ATT, etc. “speak” their mind by throwing money at politicians.