It seems like when ever the courts rule against a Republican sacred cow, the right wing clamors for a Constitutional amendment to enshrine and protect some narrow plank in the party’s platform. Most recently, it has been the anti-gay marriage amendment that was introduced in the Senate, but in recent years, Republicans have proposed the following:
Off the top of my head, the only proposed amendment that could be considered a liberal cause is the Equal Rights Amendment, and if you want to go back 80 years or so, perhaps the 19th amendment that granted women the right to vote. Is this because the Constitution is an inherently liberal document that Democrats are satisfied with, but Republicans are determined to change to conform to their own values?
Why is it that many conservative Republicans cannot accept that their hot button issues are contrary to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? What is the point of proposing new amendments that are in direct opposition to some of the old ones? Even with 7 of 9 Supreme Court justices nominated by Republican administrations, similar legislation adopted by the Congress is overturned. This desperate end run around SCOTUS is a fool’s errand, doomed from the start, yet they persist. Why? Are they sincere in trying to change the Constitution, or is it just a cynical play for the conservative vote?
It is well that passing new amendments is a difficult process, it prevents the Constitution from being littered with faddish amendments that will not stand the test of time. Even the Republican Party now recognizes that their anti-abortion amendment plank in the 1980 election was ill-advised, and contrary to the will of the nation. Yet they continue to propose inane amendments with a narrow appeal and no hope of passage. It is unfortunate that they lack the vision of the founding fathers when they seek to disfigure the document that has served us for 200+ years; it is criminal that they waste the taxpayers time and money with these pointless partisan ploys.
because we hateses it we does! Nasty filthy civil rightses!
channeling Gollum
Actually, while I think many of these conservative/Republican proposed amendments are either wrongheaded or unnecessary, they usually come about as responses to liberal judiciary opinions that either create rights or government mandates or infringe on some other rights which up to that time had been considered perfectly Constitutional.
Actually, most of the amendments after XII were “liberal” causes that were adopted – with the Radical Republicans of the late 1860s accounting for XIII, XIV, and XV, the Progressives (a bipartisan movement) being responsible for XVI, XVII, XVIII, and XIX. George Norris was the principal architect of the “Lame Duck” amendment, XX. And amendments XXIII, XXIV, and XXVI were pushed by the liberals of the time.
The only truly reactionary amendment was XXII, the Presidential terms limitation amendment, passed by the Republican-dominated 80th Congress in reaction to FDR’s four terms.
That I include Prohibition as “liberal” may surprise some people, but it was an effort to cure a known social evil. With major businesses profiting from it, the solution (as with a lot of other problems) was to pass a law removing temptation from people.
I would also note that the typical conservative has a very high opinion of the Constitution itself, though often a very low opinion of the jurisprudence that, in his eyes, leads people to understand a set of supposed rights that he believes not to be found within its text. He is also, often, very hot for the importance of the interrelationship between rights and responsibilities.
CONGRATULATIONS, on your 2,000th post, and for pointing out the tragedy of the lengths that we the people must go to in order to counter a legislating judicial system gone mad. CONGRATULATIONS.
Good morning, Milum. You will of course forgive me if I ask you what in the Hell you mean by “a legislating judicial system gone mad.” In other words, Cite!!
If one understands the Consitution as a document limiting the powers of Government and one fiathfully abides by the dictates of her conscience then she necessarily must limit governmental action in order to be constituional.
One who understands the constitution or not, yet maintains a direction in direct conflict with the constitution is slighted when prohibted by challenges to unconstituional activity. For example a congrees that passes a burning flag statute that applies penal sanctions for flag burning violations, reacts angrily, and even vicious and publically humiliated when the statute is juducially nullified.
The anger comes from a restraint of one desire to interfer in the business of others as in violatiing the civil rights of others by punishing conduct tf whichn they do not approve.
As I pointed out, 7 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court were nominated by Republicans, yet even they can see when legislation crosses the line and tramples individual freedoms guranteed by the Constitution. While you are searching for a shred of justification for your rabid assertion, please tell me how the judiciary forced Republicans to propose these amendments:
Why is it that many libaral Democrats cannot accept that their hot button issues are contrary to the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution? ==> 2nd amendment.
Both sides want to pick and choose which rights we get to keep and which are outdated. Both are equally guilty IMHO.
Please show me gun legislation that has been overturned by SCOTUS as being unconstitutional, or Democrat-proposed Constitutional amendments to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Your personal opinion does not unconstitutionality make.
I have cited 7 proposed constitutional amendments that Republicans want to restrict individual rights, contrary to the present Constitution. Please show me 7 equivalent amendments proposed by Democrats that enlarge the power of the government as Republican amendments would. Until then, your assertion that “both are equally guilty” is baseless, and a transparent defense of the conservative assault on the Constitution.
Conservatives (not “Republicans”, though there’s overlap between the two) prefer to use the actual mechanism prescribed within the Constitution for changing its meaning, rather than selective, creative reinterpretation of the extant text. One would think the former actually shows a higher opinion for the Constitution than the latter.
I would also note that most of the amendments listed in the OP and in this thread have exactly zero chances of ever passing through Congress, much less surviving state ratification, and are thus nothing more than empty political posturing to win votes. Tons of stupid constitutional amendments are proposed every year for precisely that reason – it lets a politician bray about how he’s “doing something” to fix some percieved problem. And that’s just part of our system. You can’t take the politics out of the politicians.
Incidentally, it ain’t just Republicans that proffer amendments to the Constitution. Here’s a list of recent proposals. I’m betting it wasn’t a Republican offering to ban the death penalty, or to guarantee a right to employment opportunity for all citizens, or to protect the environment, or to establish the right to a home, or to allow Congress to enact campaign spending limits on federal and state elections, or to specify a right to “equal high quality” health care.
DCU:
That was an interestin read. You forgot to mention these:
-to specify that progressive income taxes must be used
-to establish the right to a home
Your cite lists 62 proposed amendments, of which you can identify only 6 that are overtly liberal? I should think you would not want to lend such support to my argument. My point was not that Democrats never propose “hot-button” amendments, but that such a propensity is overwhelmingly Republican. I rest my case on your cite.
This is pretty irrelevant, but since I have nothing more worthwhile to add, I’ll just say that it amuses me how similar the constitution is to a religious text.
Fear, you’re right on simply numerical grounds, never mind that the amendments that seem to actually get introduced and debated in Congress are virtually invariably sponsored by conservative Republicans. I suspect it ties into the attitude they’ve cultivated for so long of being an oppressed minority having to uphold their own “civilization” in a sea of cultural barbarism. That stuff is still in place even with full control of the White House and Congress, and no more excuses available. Since secession from society isn’t really an option for the soi-disant “oppressed minority”, at least they can arrange its rules can be changed in a way that the liberal hordes can’t easily overcome - and that’s where amendments in lieu of simple legislation come in.
Let’s be fair. If you look at the list, there are a bunch that defy ideological classification. For example, an amendment “To allow Congress to pass laws for emergency replenishment of its membership should more than a quarter of either house be killed” is not exactly a left or right issue.
There are also a bunch I’m unsure about. Is “Calling for the repeal of the 8th Amendment and its replacement with wording prohibiting incarceration for minor traffic offenses” the work of a lefty civil-rights type or a rabid libertarian? Is a proposal “To bar imposition on the States of unfunded federal mandates” the work of a lefty looking to guarantee social programs are adequately funded or a die-hard states-rights conservative? I dunno.
And several of them are simply variations on the same theme – restricting the ability to raise taxes, for example. I wouldn’t be surprised if those are raised by the same cranky rep every year, with slight variations each time.
There does appear to be more conservative proposals in there than lefty proposals, but the edge isn’t as large as you seem to think.
John Mace: you’re half right – I did pick up the housing proposal.
