It looks like the valiant opposition over in the Tea Party wing of conservatism had a pretty rotten night on June 8. They managed to get one candidate on the general ballot, Sharron Angle, in the Nevada Senate race. Otherwise, they went 0-for-Tuesday.
The problem that the Tea Party has is that, despite proclamations that they love the Constitution, Tea Party activists don’t really seem to like it much.
Oh, they love the second and tenth amendments, but the Tea Party does not seem to have much love for the other 25 amendments. The right wing hates the ninth amendment outright, and none of them seem to understand the third. Apparently the whole Founding Fathers respect thing has no traction.
The First Amendment is great when conservatives want to protect the Fox Opinion channel. Who among the Tea Party would accept First Amendment protection for a broadcast network showing The People vs. Larry Flynt, uncut? Yet bigoted, racist, seditious, and even treasonous are okay.
If enough people want to watch an uncut movie about a pornographer on broadcast television, then conservatives are welcome to change the channel, or go read a book.
Special disdain exists for the Fourth through Eighth amendments among the fringe elements of conservative thought. These are areas which may be considered among the greatest controls on the power of governmental intrusion which can be found in American jurisprudence. One would think that people who style themselves libertarian would be in favor of this.
Except that conservatives want exception for certain crimes from these protections. What happens if a quasi-Christian group is accused of planning an attack upon civilians? There was an outcry from conservatives about David Koresh at Waco
The Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas, could at any point decide that it will be the instrument of Divine vengeance against homosexuals. Let’s hold Fred Phelps without trial and subject him to extraordinary rendition, deny him a jury, and tap his phones. While we’re at it, a couple of those self-styled Minuteman vigilantes can go, too. Vigilantism is terrorism’s developmentally disabled sibling.
This primer comes to the point of the 13th through 15th Amendments. If there is a batch of amendments which hacks the Tea Party off worse than this one, please let us know. These are the amendments which ban slavery, assure that anyone, no matter how not white they may be, can be citizens, and allow all citizens to vote.
Amazingly, the Constitution explicitly defines what “Real Americans” are in the 14th Amendment, and how they are to be treated. Oh snap, there is nothing about race, gender, ancestry, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, or political beliefs. No wonder Tea Partiers dislike the 14th Amendment.
As a remedy for the Reconstruction amendments, conservatives led the call for restrictive immigration laws. In times of relative economic prosperity, they saw the need for an expendable, inexpensive labor source. An individual with no rights is better than a slave, which obligates the owner to the cost of maintaining his property. That individual can be worked to death, and who is going to organize or demand treatment which might cut a businesses profit margin?
Businesses are also able to defer the costs of these employees well-being to the taxpayer. Then if things go to hell, send the undocumented back, and get off scot-free. Call this de facto amnesty for flaunting labor, safety, wage, and tax laws. If no amnesty for the undocumented, no amnesty should be countenanced for the individuals and businesses that employed them, either. The businesses made out like bandits.
Of course, there is no love whatsoever for the 16th Amendment, which allows Congress to levy taxes based upon income. Progressives aren’t particularly fond of it either, but it is the best of a bad set of options. Otherwise, any other scheme would be a nanosecond from instituting a New Feudalism.
“Libertarian” Tea Partiers espouse the virtues of the “Fair Tax” scheme, a consumption tax. Does anyone think that the affluent would not defer purchases until absolutely necessary, slowing the economy to a crawl and devastating the middle and lower classes?
The rest of the Constitution, aside from Prohibition, deals with who can vote for President (women, 18-year-olds, the District of Columbia, people not paying poll taxes), some restrictions on who gets elected (direct election of Senators, establishment of electing the President and Vice President together, when the Presidential term starts, how long and under what conditions one can be President), judicial obligations to citizens, and Congressional pay.
It is all important, but pretty dry stuff.
The next time a Tea Partier wishes to regale a progressive with his knowledge of what is and is not constitutional; ask him or her about the 23rd Amendment. It’s the one which allows DC to vote for President, and it does NOT start off with “The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want…”
