Guest post by Camillus
Camillus, a former Republican Party officer in his home state in the Northeastern United States who was involved in campaigns at both the local, state, and federal levels during the 2010 elections.
Disclaimer: All guest posts are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration. M-H
“Restore the Constitution!” It’s a cry, in various iterations, that one commonly hears from the Tea Party. There have been “Restore the Constitution” rallies calling for “restoring the rule of law,” there are “Restore the Constitution” petitions circulating online, and there are “Restore the Constitution” blog sites. Politically, the Tea Party movement portrays itself as the defenders of the Constitution keeping faith with the original intent of the Founding Fathers.
This is ironic. A deeper examination of positions held by the Tea Party, particularly regarding the scope of the 10th Amendment, the repeal or modification of the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, and the support for various nullification proposals, reflects a hostility to aspects of the Constitution as well as opposition to well-established principles in our Constitutional jurisprudence. In the end, the vision of our Constitution expressed by the Tea Party movement is often fundamentally at odds with that of many of our leading Founders, including Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay, Marshall, and Madison (prior to his 1791 break with Hamilton).
A telling omission: The Tea Party and the 10th Amendment
The 10th Amendment features prominently in the Constitutionalism of the Tea Party. It provides that: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” To the Tea Party, the 10th Amendment is a forgotten (or ignored) restriction limiting the powers of the federal government to those explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. What is actually ignored is the history of the 10th Amendment. During the debates in Congress over what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, James Madison successfully defeated a motion to add the word “expressly”- as in “the powers not expressly delegated”- to the 10th Amendment, because, in his words, “it [is] impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication.” Ignoring Madison’s logic, the Tea Party would write the word “expressly” back into the 10th Amendment though its narrow interpretation.
The Tea Party’s vision of the 10th Amendment also ignores the jurisprudential legacy of one of our earliest, and most consequential, Chief Justices- John Marshall. According to public television reporter Chris Satullo, “John Marshall, as much as any man save for the great James Madison, determined what our founding charter really meant, and did so in ways that enabled the American experiment to thrive.” In this regard, note that “thriving” is inextricably intertwined with a vigorous and capable federal government.
Fundamentally, Marshall:
“[I]interpreted the Constitution in a way opposite to the Tea Partiers and libertarians who now cite the 10th Amendment as cause to roll back the clock to 1850.
Marshall led the Supreme Court over 34 years, deciding the key cases that established the court as an equal branch and shaped the role of the federal government.
One of those cases is McCulloch v. Maryland. Apparently the Tea Partiers now carrying on about the 10th Amendment never heard of McCulloch or think it wrongly decided…
Tea Partiers today insist, following their hero Jefferson (no fan of the Constitution), that this clause limits Congress and the President only to those powers specifically named. They would have our leaders hamstrung in the face of any event not anticipated in 1787. They would declare illegal most of modern government, from the Tennessee Valley Authority to Social Security to the EPA.
But Marshall decided McCulloch, the great test of this question, in precisely the opposite way, establishing that the federal government has implicit powers to “ensure the general welfare”…
In the end, as one legal scholar has concluded, the Tea Party’s narrow reading of the 10th Amendment “is without support in [its] legislative history or [in] Supreme Court” precedent.
“Constitutional graffiti”
At the same time, some Congressional Republicans, including Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann, have been busy proposing a veritable blizzard of Constitutional edits and fixes. These include: repeal of the 17th Amendment (ending the direct election of Senators), amending the 14th Amendment (to end birthright citizenship), a prohibition on government ownership of private corporate stock, a “Parental Rights Amendment,” various proposed term-limits amendments, an amendment prohibiting flag burning, various balanced-budget amendments, a national prohibition on gay marriage, an amendment requiring a supermajority vote for any tax increases, and an amendment restricting the President’s authority to negotiate treaties. Reaching back to the antebellum “nullification” debates, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA), has even called for a “Repeal Amendment” which would provide for the nullification of federal laws by a two-thirds majority of the states, and there have been other calls for “nullification” as well.
Other Tea Party candidates weighed in offering their own Constitutional tweaks during the election campaign. For example, Joe Miller in Alaska announced that unemployment benefits were unconstitutional (despite the fact that he formerly received them), while Rand Paul said the same thing about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Meanwhile, both Glen Beck (“the most highly regarded individual among Tea Party supporters,” according to one recent poll by Democracy Corps- he is viewed as an “educator”) and Sharron Angle have called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment (which established the federal income tax).
The movements to repeal or amend the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, and the ghoulish return of “nullification” from its Civil War-era grave, warrant further analysis, as they illuminate the populist/libertarian assault on the Constitution, and federal authority, presently underway.
The Tea Party has become the political home of modern nativism. This finds expression in calls for the modification of the 14th Amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship. The 14th Amendment is a legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction. It plainly states that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, and entitled to the equal protection of the law: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The Tea Party would strike from the Constitution one of the most seminal statements elucidating the concept of human freedom ever written in the history of the world. The movement to amend the 14th Amendment is an ominous harbinger of other dangers ahead.
Calls for the repeal of the 16th Amendment are particularly reckless and irresponsible. The 16th Amendment, ratified in 1913, gives Congress the “power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived . . . .” The power to tax, however, was not a 20th Century addition to the Constitution- Article I, Section 8 vests Congress with the “[p]ower to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . .” Given this clear language, one might ask, why was the 16th Amendment needed? The answer is simple- it was necessary in order to reverse a Supreme Court decision, Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., holding that the federal income tax was unconstitutional. The Pollock case is significant in that the Court broke with its own prior precedent affirming the constitutionality of the federal income tax, such as Springer v. United States (an 1889 case upholding the Constitutionality of a federal income tax), and ignored the clear language of Article I, Section 8.
While the level of the federal income tax, and its structure, is open to debate, there can be no dispute that it was an essential element in the creation of a stronger America. And that was an essential predicate to America’s world-saving role in the 20th Century- both from the spectre of Nazism, and from Communist tyranny. Those who would gut our national power, like Glen Beck and Sharron Angle, either imagine that similar dangers will never arise in the future, or worse, simply do not care. If the Tea Party succeeds in stripping Congress of its power to tax income, how will the federal government fulfill its Constitutional mandate to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States . . . .”?
The 17th Amendment provides for the direct election of United States Senators. Under the original Constitution, they were appointed directly by state legislatures. Like the 16th Amendment, it was also ratified in 1913. Astonishingly, its repeal has become a favorite cause of Tea Party candidates across America. For example, speaking in July, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) informed a Tea Party crowd that the 16th (the federal income tax) and 17th Amendments began the “process of socializing America,” and that both should be repealed. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rep. Jeff Landry (R-LA), and Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), also expressed support for repealing the 17th Amendment during the election campaign (in an ironic twist illuminating the subject of this article, Sen. Lee’s web page features the slogan “Join us in restoring Constitutional government to Washington!”).
The direct election of Senators by the people might sound innocuous, but in the view of the Tea Party, it’s ratification “dealt a blow to the Framers’ vision of the Constitution from which we have yet to recover.” In the view of the Tea Party, repealing it would enhance “states’ rights.” This puts the Tea Party in the awkward position of arguing that democracy isn’t a good thing. It also illuminates the real motivation in play- weakening the federal government, weakening the Union, and empowering State governments- which is separate and distinct from empowering citizens. To illustrate this point, consider: is it better to have United States Senators representing your state legislature, or representing you?
The sweet smell of Magnolias is discernable in much of the Tea Party’s Constitutionalism. This is particularly true in the calls for state nullification, largely centered on objections to “Obamacare.” Nullification, of course, was a doctrine conjured up and utilized by leaders in the South in the antebellum period. It has essentially laid dormant in its grave since the end of the Civil War (except for a brief dusting off during the Civil Rights era) but has now arisen, zombie-like, to haunt the political landscape again.
An entire essay could be written on the pernicious and destructive nature of nullification. For present purposes, it is enough to say that (to paraphrase Lincoln), it is in many ways the essence of anarchy. It utterly destroys federal authority, and is more appropriate for a confederation of independent states than a union (smell the Magnolias again?). If it were ever adopted, it would mean that there would be no uniform national law- different federal laws would be enforced in different states. Thus, it is a step towards Balkanization- towards eventual disunion.
It is also fundamentally antithetical to the Constitution of the Founders- indeed, it is a direct assault upon it. Article VI of the Constitution, after all, provides that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States and of the several states, shall be the Supreme Law of the Land, and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In the end, it is one thing to argue that an act of Congress is unconstitutional, but another thing entirely to arge that States have the authority to nullify otherwise constitutional acts of Congress. And the Tea Party seems to be taking the latter approach.
An objective observer would call all of this “re-writing,” not “restoring.” And there is no remotely comparable activity occuring on the political left. As one author has noted, “the self-proclaimed party of conservatism has become a constitutional graffiti movement.”
Our modern Anti-Federalists
In its attempt to portray itself as the defenders of the Constitution, the Tea Party appropriates the legacy of the Founding Fathers. However, the Federalist Papers, and the actions of Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Marshall in office, reflect a rather different view of federalism and the nature of the Constitutional compact. That’s not surprising. They knew that the Constitution created a strong national government- indeed, that was the point of the entire process of calling the Constitutional convention in Philadelphia in the first place. Such a vision is fundamentally at odds with reading the 10th Amendment as a veritable straight jacket restricting national power, with support for Cantor’s Repeal Amendment and state “nullification” laws, or with repealing the 16th Amendment.
Indeed, a common thread running through much of the Tea Party’s view of the Constitution is a desire to eviscerate the power of the federal government. In their dogmatic opposition to a vigorous central governing authority, the Tea Party actually voices views similar to those expressed by opponents of the Constitution during the ratification debates. They are the modern heirs of the Anti-Federalists, and not of the Founders. And that’s problematic, because if the Anti-Federalists had prevailed in the early years of the Republic, it is unlikely America would have grown into the prosperous, free, powerful, and united nation spanning an entire continent that it ultimately became… or perhaps, even survived.
“Facts are stubborn things”
These facts frame what the Tea Party means by “Restore the Constitution.” They do not mean the document that we have actually had during the course of our history. They do not mean the document we have lived with for the past two hundred years- the one that helped our nation achieve hitherto unprecedented levels of prosperity and freedom. And however loudly they may say they love the Constitution and the Founders, the truth is that they would amend or repeal crucial elements of it, effectively jettison more then two centuries’ of jurisprudence, and redefine federalism in a way that reverses the outcome of the Constitutional ratification debates, and even of the Civil War.
In the end, I don’t think it’s the Constitution that the Tea Party wants to restore; it’s the Articles of Confederation.
Camillus is a former Republican Party officer who was involved in campaigns at both the local, state, and federal levels during the 2010 elections.
@Camillus
You may be a conservative. I know you only through what you support here. From your writings, it appears to me that you support the expansion of federal authority into whatever area might advance the “general welfare” or any laws that state that the goal is constitutional but the laws themselves may have a few unconstitutional problems…..
Conservatism IS not doctrinaire. But, neither is it a philosophy that expands centralized power.
I too miss Buckely. Think of how he would skewer those in Congress today.
Here’s a few more amendments that one blogger has proposed:
http://thevailspot.blogspot.com/2010/12/constitional-amendment.html
My proposal for the 28th Amendment: (limits Kelo)
My proposal for the 29th Amendment: (limits recess appointments and balances that by limiting filibusters of nominees)
My proposal for the 30th Amendment: (read the damned bills!)
He has this in another possible 28th Amendment for term limits but I think it should be a stand alone Amendment:
# Congress shall not exempt itself from any laws of the United States of America, in whole or in part, nor shall any government agency, board, panel or appointed or elected group or person may exempt Congress, individually or collectively, from any law, regulation, policy or action which is applied to the citizens of the United States.
(I like this especially: Section 3. Each bill passed by the Congress into law shall be limited to a single subject, which shall be expressed in its title.)
My proposal for the 31st Amendment: (prevents the courts from meddling in foreign and military affairs, prevents courts from using foreign precedents, and limits the use of the 14th amendment)
My proposal for the 32nd Amendment: (Congress can’t order states to spend money)
Like I said, a constitutional graffiti movement… So again, when we hear the Tea Party should “the Constitution is the solution” or “enforce the constitution”….. ?
And as to my positions, don’t mistake a desire for limited, but vigorous gov’t as a desire for unchecked federal power. I’m actually from the Scalia school of constitutional interpretation when it comes to these sorts of things, and acts of Congress are held unconstitutional all the time. I just think Marshall got it right on the 10th Amendment- and that was critical to the success of the entire nation building project. And I know “states’ rights” isn’t a magical panacea. and I think I explain my objections to the calls for repeal/modification of the 14th, 16th, and 17th in the original post.
Let me return to the 10th Amendment, for this bears repeating- the tea party is advocating a version of it that would, had it prevailed in the early days of our nation, have essentialy emaciated the federal gov’t. and prevented America from becoming… the Atlas holding up the hope the world.
woops, meant “say,” not “should”
Camillus — Hah, no doubt the Founders would indeed react in wonder and awe at that lightbulb and that flush toilet. But after being told that the system of governance which they so carefully crafted had reached a place in which the central government is now so involved in the personal lives of the “people” that it dictates even down to the level of the type of toilet they use —- Well, I can imagine what Franklin would have said about that after his warning about not losing our “republic.”
There is something about you which arouses my curiosity. Moonhowler tells us that you are a “Northeastern Republican” who worked in local, state, and national elections in 2010. Your posts here speak a great deal about your own base philosophy, which is obviously greatly at odds with the Tea Party.
It seems to me that, over the past several years, “Northeastern Republicans” in high national office became almost as scarce as the passenger pigeon. Some have joked that, apart from Collins and Snow and a handful of others, it would take a repeat of Stanley-Livingston to round up enough enough of them for a small bridge tournament. I believe the House totals for 2008 from Pennsylvania to Maine were Democrat 68 Republican 15 and in the Senate Democrat 15 Republicans 3. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and, I believe, Connecticut: total wipeout for Republicans of any stripe. New York and Vermont not much better.
The NE 2011 totals in the House will be Democrat 55 and Republican 28 and in the Senate Democrats 13 and Republicans 5. So, Camillus, just how did that happen? Did “Northeastern Republicans” suddenly “out-liberal” the liberal Democrats and sway the hearts and minds of thousands? Or, did the “Northeastern Republicans” perhaps benefit from the coattails of the Tea Party-inspired wave throughout much of the rest of the country, enabling them to move their own ball not necessarily from liberal to conservative but from liberal to moderate? As a so-called “Northeastern Republican” are you not perhaps biting the hand that gave you a lift out of the political doldrums up your way? Would it not be wiser at this juncture to come to some sort of working accord with Republican conservatives instead of attacking them? If you believe that some of their ideas are a bit overboard, you might be able to have some influence in that regard if you stayed in the same room instead of seeking separate accommodations.
As for personal influence, I must say that the answer about voting in elections is valid but also too simplistic in this modern age. In between those elections comes the level of accessibility, the level of transparency, the watching of government perform at times like a bunch of brawlers in a schoolyard, even a downright rudeness to the “people” who might have something to the contrary to say. Modern electronics has made this whole scene a frustrating one for those who are vitally interesting in seeing good governance. Unless you lock yourself in a closet, you cannot escape the irritating audio and visual. I cannot imagine our grandfathers having the urge to reach through a television screen and grab some pompous congressman by the lapels and shake the Hell out of him. Politics today have become a sort of reality show in which the time between elections seems like a millenium. Throw in the bully tactics of ad hominem attacks simply in response to an opinion, and you have an age of political teeth gnashing and immensely growing anger. Not good.
GM and Chrysler going out of business would have had a domino effect, and caused millions more to be unemployed. It would also have put out of business many parts manufacturers (would would be out of millions of dollars), shifted pension burdens to PBGC (already in the red), and put the US into a depression – never mind the mental image. Do you realize how many manufacturing jobs rely on the auto industry?
Private insurers are notorious for denying procedures, and having you appeal, all in a delay response – talk to someone who needed a bone marrow transplant (or two). And you can fight a government run health plan.
Death Panels – lets talk like adults – giving Granny a lung transplant at 92 is not in anyone’s best interest – hers (quality of life) or ours (cost of procedures). Giving Poppy chemo at 95 may keep him alive a little longer, but the cost of keeping him a live is draining the system. Keeping Terry Shiavo in a nursing home – at my expense – is not a good use of my money. At the population ages, the costs of care increases – and the boomers have the system out of wack, as in the numbers that are coming into Medicare, and they are holding off on procedures such as knee’s and hips until they retire, ie, increased costs to Medicare.
The insurance companies actually like the mandate – it increases the pool, and allows them to charge less to all. The hospitals like the mandate, because their writeoffs will be less.
I know who Camillus is and so does Elena.
He is who he says he is.
the best way to control the cost of healthcare is to mandate that everyone upon reaching the age of 65 is put to sleep, humanely, of course
“The Tea Party has become the political home of modern nativism. ”
Comments like this tend to shut down the debate anymore, IMHO. Wanting to control our borders and assert our national sovereignty is not “nativism”–which has become the not-too-thinly-veiled code word for racism. Like many other nations, we get to decide how many people enter our country and when without being accused of being “anti-immigrant.” It’s the same tired old meme that does nothing but alienate. And many immigrants do shamelessly take advantage of the 14th Amendment to gain a foothold in this country. Granted, it’s not the kids’ fault, but it is done for that reason nevertheless.
And the Tea Party is too disparate to be a “home” for anything, despite the best efforts of the left to paint it otherwise.
“giving Granny a lung transplant at 92 is not in anyone’s best interest”@Pat.Herve
At what specific age do you cut Granny off? 90? 60? 65? My 87-year-old mother-in-law still drives and is very active and vigorous. Would you condemn her to death because she’s “draining the system,” even though she acts younger than many 50-year-olds I know?
Emma,
That is a question for the insurance companies. However, you do pose and interesting conundrum. It’s like giving a new liver to an alcholic. Are there other people that would benefit more and live longer?
democrat party apparatchiks will undeniably be first in the pecking order for that new liver
Yes, Emma, going by age alone is not an answer, but I do know folks whose parents are having procedures done that should not be done based on the medical condition of the patient – and the doctor goes along just to make them all happy. Same as dispensing drugs – the Dr’s dispense antibiotics like it is candy, mostly based on the whine level of the parent. It is very emotional, but when it is time to go, it is time to go, and yes, I have a Living Will in place, so that my wishes of letting me die in peace will be enforced.
My sister sent me this link, I think it demonstrates the foundation of what Camillus has written.
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202448586752&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
“During deliberations of the First Congress about the Bill of Rights, the anti-federalists argued against the grant of powers to the central government in terms remarkably similar to the current contentions of the Tea Party. With the Articles of Confederation still in mind, they proposed that the 10th Amendment reserve to the states all powers not “expressly” delegated to the new federal government. On the House floor, James Madison objected: “it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication.” The proposal was rejected. Chief Justice John Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), thought this bit of negative legislative history profoundly significant: It meant that the federal government had implied powers inferable from those actually granted. A wooden reading of the amendment, favored by grand simplifiers of the Tea Party, would not disclose this hidden truth.”
Emma, I don’t think nativism is simply about sealed borders. I think most of us want our borders as sealed as we can get them. I think we also want to fix what’s broken with our immigration system.
On the other hand, when we start comparing people to animals and dog food, then we are talking nativism. Wanting to block all others out is nativism. And yes, it is a thinly veiled word for racism although nativism can be about attributes other than race.
@Moon-howler I don’t see the Tea Party as being the locus of nativism by its current definition, as Camillus flatly states. I also don’t see where the Tea Party has made any such comparisons as far as animals and dog food. Camillus is using an awfully broad brush to describe what is still a fairly disparate movement.
the discussion about healthcare is really about 2 separate issues: end of life decisions and rationed healthcare which most countries make decisions about. Rationing is the discussion about whether Granny or someone younger gets the transplant, and end of life is a patient and her family making rational choices about what she wants to do presented with vertain medical dilemmas that may come up. Two separate issues.
I’m sorry, but to say,”when it’s time to go, it’s time to go” is a little too casual for me. and I am a believer in being able to peacefully and painlessly remove yourself from the equation if so desired.
Welcome Heidi. I totally agree with you about being about to remove yourself from the equation if so desired. I would go so far to say that Oregon and Washingon are the only 2 civilized states in the union on such topics. This is an area that churches and the state need to back off of.
First, let me say that I abhor “e”‘s expression about “democrat party apparatchiks will undeniably be first in the pecking order for that new liver”. It shows an absurdly chilly feeling for humans beings. Seriously, e, do you think that doctors ask their patients whether they are Democrats or Republicans? DO YOU? – Maybe you have a Living Will stating that you’d never, ever accept an organ from a Democrat. Wouldn’t surprise me.
Personal experience.
– As a teenager, my husband saw his father bedridden for 7 years after a stroke. My husband, was diagnosed with liver cancer at age 78, never in his life having been in a hospital, and given 12-18 months to live, if he did nothing. After a lengthy consultation with an oncologist with me and two of our children in attendance (I suppose that’s what some pleople call “death panel”) learning about what COULD be done, like chemotherapy or extremely invasive surgery which he might not have survived, he decided that the best way for him was to let nature take its course. I think he remembered his father’s long illness and didn’t want to impose such a hardship on his family.
The 15 months he had left were very satisfying. He didn’t suffer effects from chemo and wasn’t incapacitated from surgery. He saw old friends, and family members came to see him.
I think that most of the time it’s the children of old folks who insist on having everything done to keep their parents alive. Or the spouse who can’t stand the thought of letting go, even if it would be easier for both of them.
Pat.Herve
You say doctors dispense antibiotics like it is candy. Maybe so, but look at the full page ads in newspapers and the incredible number of TV ads for pills of all kinds. Have a head ache, sour stomach (take a pill BEFORE you eat!), can’t sleep, can’t get an erection, etc. etc.?
There’s a pill for just about everything. Pharmaceutical companies are right at the top when it comes to lobbying and their profits are pretty darned good. We demand a pill for whatever ails us, it seems.
Sorry about my verbosity. I get worked up about this.
Punchak, thank you for sharing such a deeply personal account. I can certainly see why you get worked up. I agree about drug companies. They are one of the most powerful lobbies in the country. Their influence over politics is tremendous. And don’t get Rick Bentley started on this. He is rabid. Good for him.
@Emma, to my knowledge, they haven’t done that, at least as a group. I was speaking of nativism.
I do believe that the Tea Party concept has taken up the anti immigration mantra. Everyone? Not sure I agree about the Tea Party being a disparate group. I believe there are some common threads that make them not as disparate as some would believe.
My concern is that those claiming to be Tea Party talk of returning to a time they don’t understand and fulfilling the ambitions of a people they don’t understand. People who have spent a lifetime reading and studying the writings of those who helped forge the design for this country do not agree. Yet some pick up a pre-selected book or two and suddenly are great authorities on the founding fathers (I have grown to hate that expression) and their beliefs.
If preserving the Constitution were truly the objective, then there would not be this made dash to amend amendments. It sounds more like a make over to me.
When the Constitution was created, those intellectuals of the time didn’t expect it to last more than 20 years or so. It has done a fabulous job of being flexible enough to accomodate modern times. It has to, if we are to survive as a nation.
Death is a part of the cycle of life, it use to be, ableit some time ago, that you gathered around your family member and “participated” in that final stage. I am not suggesting you eagerly embrace death, I am just saying that concerning Emma’s example of 87 year old needing a liver, given the extreme nature of the surgery and the probability of even surviving such a procedure, that is probably the time to discuss what it really means to fight the inevitable.
From what I have seen of the Tea Party, they do scare me. What “era” do people harken they would like return to? When the country was more “homogenous” ( i.e.WASP’y), before there was the civil rights movement, before women had the right to vote, before there were unions? WHAT era is the TEA party talking about?
I had a comment discussing this HCR thing AGAIN, talking about unconstitutionality, mandates, the slow progress to single payer, etc, etc, etc. And then I had to run an errand with the comments unfinished. And then I realized just how very tired I am of explaining once again, this time to someone that’s supposed to be a conservative, the objections to the growth of government, etc.
Its not worth it. Its been repeated over and over. If a Republican doesn’t get it, and I know that Moon and Co. seem to like the bill, including the mandate….and I won’t change their minds….forget it.
@Cargo, actually, I don’t know how I feel about HCR bill. I do know that we need some change…drastic change regarding pre existing conditions, helath care when unemployed, etc. Additionally, we need something for people who don’t qualify for medicaid and who can’t afford health insurance. We pay for those people whether willingly or unwillingly. I would rather structure the pay than have it show up in continually increasing premiums.
Does this bill take care of all that? I just am not sure. I fear govt intrusion in another way than you do. I fear govt. going back in to reproductive issues and religious issues. While many people on this blog are 2nd amendment nuts, I am a 1st amendment nut….specifically, the establishment clause end of nuthood.
@Elena
Elena, why is it that liberals are always speaking about the Tea Party wanting to return to an era that includes persecution, etc?
Why does the idea that the federal gov’t has grown too intrusive, wastes too much money, exceeds constitutional authority, disregards any semblance of respect for citizens, always return to race or civil rights? Again. What part of the TEA Party statements have called for any such things? Because of the emphasis on Constitutional authority for bills? Because of the respect for the 10th Amendment? The 2nd Amendment? Have you heard of any interest in repealing any law that recognizes the right to vote for women or minorities?
The Tea Party does not want to return to an era in time, but to the ideals of the Constitution, to the ideals of limited government, more freedom. I find it insulting that you still would ask such a question with those implications after all of the information that I and Wolverine and others have put on this blog.
Haven’t you noticed that its WOMEN that are organizing a huge number of Tea Party chapters and its the Tea Party that’s supporting many women that are running for office. That its the Tea Party that is reaching out to conservative minorities, without pandering to race, to run for office?
So, why is it that you continue to base your questions on racist and sexist attitudes that conservatives MUST be advocating a return to the “good ol’ days of white male power.” Right now, two of the most popular politicians/ activists in the Tea Party are Congressman West of Florida and Herman Cain, former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, columnist, and radio host. They are both black men.
What have you seen of the Tea Party other than what the enemies of the Tea Party want you to see? Have you attended a Tea Party rally or meetings? Do Wolverine or I scare you? Why doesn’t the out of control spending, increased debt, more intrusive government, etc, frighten you?
@Cargo: not Elena but I have something to say about perception of TP. The idea that the TP wants to return to a different area is evident when watching people parade around in period costume and doing ‘colonial type things.’ Infortunately, those times very much include times when women not only couldn’t vote but often couldn’t own property. Graveyards are filled with young women often in their late teens and 20s. They died in childbirth. Let’s not even get in to slavery, Native Indians etc. How can you go to those times constitutionally and avoid the conflicting issues that have nearly torn our nation apart. I don’t think you can.
Justice for all perhaps includes a more complicated government. The Civil War basically neutered states rights. Perhaps that wasn’t an intention but an actuality.
I don’t want to go back and I will fight to not have that happen.
Of course, the TEA Party label brings out the idea of the era of the Revolution. Colonial era dress was supposed to bring out the idea that this is a revolution against established order and a return to Constitutional ideals.
Remember, a smaller government is a less intrusive government, for either side of that argument. I won’t debate the ideas of abortion here. I know that no matter what I say, nothing would change. However, as for the establishment clause, nothing in the TP says anything about establishing a religion or basing government on anything other than a return to the “natural rights” first mentioned in our founding documents.
@Cargosquid
Cargo, I think I mentioned women dying in childbirth which certainly doesn’t have much to do with abortion but a fact of life from earlier times. But…since you brought it up…less government should not include more abortion restrictions. And that is exactly what is happening. I don’t want to even hear about states rights….states rights means no rights. I have watched special interest groups slam things through state governments too many years. Again, fish in a barrel. I am wise to that one. Reproductive guarantees should never be dependent on where you live.
Maybe its my age, but a checkerboard of laws is not good for Americans. I am not sure about ‘natural rights’ I think that is probably code for something I don’t approve of.
GO MOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@Moon-howler
We have a checkboard of laws now on almost any subject. Gun laws, fishing, digging an oil well, drivers licenses, what (govt) stickers we have on cars, even if it’s legal to have open containers of alcohol in a moving vehicle.
A federal law saying that abortion is legal and leaving it up to the states to implement is what I would like to see. That way if MD wants to allow late term but VA does not…that’s something that the states have decided for themselves.
Federales should be concerned with a framework and let the states fill it in. It’s easier to kick out a state delegate than it is a state congressmen and effect change.
@Marin
The late term stuff is iffy at best. Think about the woman who finds out she must abort for medical reasons…fairly late in the game. She shouldn’t have to fly to Kansas to arrange this procedure that she doesn’t want to do in the first place. Oh wait. some religious nut-case shot and killed Dr. Tiller.
It is also easier to run in a special interest delegate at the state level. Politics sickens me. It is always someone trying to gain power over others, even those who claim to want less government.
As for checkerboard-I don’t mind it on some things–I do mind it on important things. fishing licenses–not so much. Although try to get a drive on the beach permit over on Assateague Island. You will end up paying over $100 if you want to go to both VA and MD beaches and you will have to drive around on the mainland. Yea, states are great.
@Cargosquid
Well Cargo, since you are so against government medical care, are you now ready to give up your government medical care–TRICARE and/or care at a military medical facility and/or the VA? You can’t have it both ways.
Marimn, so, you advocate ending the right of a woman to have control over her ability to regulate her reproductive rights. I wonder, since you will be forcing women to bear and support these children, you must then be willing to provide financial government assistance.
Elena, where did you see me say that?????
My apologies for weighing in a bit late on some of this—-
@ Emma- every human being is unique, and there is always a danger inherent in speaking about groups of people in a general way, but… although my admittedly broad brush misses some subtleties, I think the picture I paint is accurate in a general way. In my experience, the Tea Party is very homogeneous- racially, chronologically, even socio-economically. There is some diversity in viewpoints, the main divisions, in my experience, being between (a) an ultra-libertarian set (think Ron Paul here), (b) the old “Christian Right” and (c) a smaller group of conspiracy minded people (the Black helicopter crowd). There are huge differences between groups (a) and (b), between the “no government” and, the “no abortions” crowds.
@ Elena- the blog post actually links to that very article, right at the end of the section discussing the 10th Amendment. That’s where the hypertext link takes you.
As to nativism, look I’ve been to tea party rallies and seen the anti-immigration signs. I’ve been to “9/12 Project” group meetings and heard what is said. I’ve read their postings on “ResistNet” and other web boards. I’ve seen what they post on blogs in my area, and say to the media. I hear what they, and conservative entertainers, say on television and the radio. I’ve seen the advertisements run by the likes of Sharron Angle and other tea party candidates and read what they’ve said about it. So I’ll stand by what I wrote- the tea party is the political home of nativism right now in America.
Not to go too off topic, but there is no single phrase that better illustrates the lack of intillectual seriousness in today’s “pop culture” conservatism better then “close the border.” Yes, border enforcement is important, but it is not, repeat, not, physically possible to somehow hermetically seal us off, from Mexico, from Canada… I would think a movement that began on the premise that we are “taxed enough already” would consider “the law of diminishing returns” when looking at budgetary priorities. By this I mean, our spending on border security has grown exponentially since 9/11- and given this, how much more $ do we want to spend on border security in order to stop an additional segment of the individuals entering without inspection (something which does not address the problem of overstays- a significant portion of our out of status population). And remember, our reasoruces are not infinite, and their are urgent, competing, priorities.
@ marinm- I must disagree. A reversal of Roe that turned the issue back to the states would open a veritable Pandora’s box of problems. The fundamnetal question at issue in the abortion debate is personhood- specifically, when does someone become a person, a human being, in the eyes of the law.. Is it conception, viability, birth, or some other point in between (or even afterwards, there are those, including one noted professor at Princeton, who argue that infants are not sentiant persons and that parent’s should have the right to terminate their own children after birth)? There needs to be one uniform answer to that question that we, as a society, can build a consensus around.
Though I soppose you could make the argument that the 14th Amendment would not be implicated by divergent state laws on this subject.. it does, after all, limit itself to all persons “born” in the United States.
@Camillus
That rascally 14th amendment is back at it again. It must be frustrating for some folks to want to amend the 14th and at the same time insert @conception in there to knock out all abortion.
Seriously though, I agree. Overturning Roe would be a total disaster and would not just affect the legality of abortion. We do not want to go there.
as opposed to such weighty intellectual seriousness in profound obama phrases such as “hope and change” and “yes we can” or “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” or “white man’s greed in a world of need”
@ e
or…You betcha!
ooops…wrong person.
I never said the campaign slogans you quote had any intillectual significance, as policy statements or otherwise; and you’d be wrong in thinking that the modern Democratic party sets the standard for me in this area. I will say that, despite all the rhetoric, there is a dearth of actual policy ideas on our side of the aisle right now. And that’s not how it used to be. Remember when Tip O’Neill called the GOP “the party of ideas”?
But today, we yell about socialism in response to auto bailouts, then look down at the dirt and wring our hands and mutter indiscernibly when asked “well, what would YOU have done about it then?”
Which, frankly, is a better response then talking happily about the demise of the domestic auto industry and the loss of all those jobs, and then volunteering illuminating statements about unemployment benefits or the Civil Rights Act being unconstitutional.
overturning roe would hardly be a disaster. it would just turn the issue over to the states, thats all
It’s the whole Constitution that’s rascally to some of these guys! Those darned Founders….
And to be clear, I’m about as pro-life as you can get. Actually, that’s probably why I’m still in the GOP- now that the old anti-communism of the Reagan years and the late Cold War period has been rendered obsolete. And for my conservative pro life republican friends, I’d add that there is a terminal incongruency between opposing abortion on the one hand and, at the same time opposing any sort of public social saftey net for the poor or the needy. That too, is an affront to human dignity. It goes back to the Palin Paradox: we’ve come to the point where access to heathcare isn’t a right, but access to dessert is. That friends, isn’t a healthy (no pun intended) view of the world.
You know, a part of me thinks I ought to don a powdered whig and tri-cornered hat and take the stage at a Tea Party rally to speak about the need, the urgent need, to reopen the debate over titles that took place in the first Congress. The road to socialism began when they got that one wrong.
lol woops, meant “access to healthcare”
giving money to people is socialism, it doesnt matter if we’re talking welfare or an auto company. the truth is gm and chrysler’s goose was cooked a long time ago when management agreed to outlandish union demands that were unsustainable. the domestic companies today are the walking dead, kudos to ford they got lucky. drive around the south and notice all the shiny new factories like mercedes in alabama, bmw in south carolina, kia in georgia, volkswagon now in chattanooga, the list goes on.
just like the unions decimating the auto industry, 50 years of lawlessness at the border have created a situation today where an easy answer like close the border does sound simplistic, because really it’s too late unless really draconian measures are employed, which won’t happen.
so congratulations, the country is bankrupt, rule of law is moot, the currency will soon not be worth the paper it’s printed on, jihadis will soon pull a big one off, but look at the bright side! at least we’ll all have universal health care
@e
Some people call it charitable giving. In fact, much of Judaism and Christanity practice involves caring for those less fortunate.
@Camillus
It is critical that people understand that pro choice people very often are also pro life. They just don’t accept other people making that choice for them. It is also important to understand `sometimes people have to make very undesirable choices because they have no other options.
@Moon-howler
I think we’re always going to run into that issue. We might be ok with the checkerboard when it supports an issue that’s popular to group A but when it’s not we want the federales to come in. Thats why having implementation at the federal level tends to fail… too many “what if” situations and the idea that one size fits all. Really, what happens in Virginia may not be kosher with California and may be overlooked in Montana.
Roe v. Wade is settled law and allows for abortions. I think each state should determine for themselves how they want to regulate how abortions are conducted within the state. Not at all different from how the 2A is treated…………..
@marin
I find all the road blocks states enact to be unacceptable. All of the roadblocks are there to make access to abortion extremely difficult.
Make no mistake.
@e No, we won’t ALL have universal health care. Congress is exempt, many unions are exempt for many years to come. It’s good enough for the ignorant masses, but definitely not for our legislators or their friends. So please tell me again why I should trust the government with so much power over my life, Camillus.
Why is Congress excempt from NHC? No spin, just a real reason por favor.
@Moon-howler It was the way the bill was written–to exempt Congress and their leadership committees, while forcing other congressional staffers to buy into the insurance exchanges. So the real HCR decisionmakers exempted themselves.
Why are they exempt? Why would they possibly want to let go of healthcare that allowed a terminally ill Ted Kennedy to be flown to Duke Medical Center for a surgery that bought him 9 months of life?
e,
As far as states deciding abortion right, FYI, it USE to be that way pre roe v wade, maybe you were not aware of that historical fact.
There was very few states that allowed abortion, I believe NY and CA may have been the only two. Now, lets just go with a hypothetical example.
A woman gets pregnant by her boyfriend, they live in a state where abortion is illegal, let’s pick some random state in the middle of the country like Ohio or so. The only state that allows abortion now is CA. Can this woman afford to go to CA to get an abortion, will her boyfriend pay, how much will it cost to get there and how much is the abortion. You could be talking thousands of dollars. Now you have created an elitest right to abortion. Middle to lower income women will not be able to afford the abortion. What happens if the boyfriend leaves, deciding he can’t handle a new baby. Now she is stuck, hoping the courts, yes the GOVERNMENT, will step in a garnish wages.
Suggesting that we go back to the days of old where women ended up in back alley abortions, dying or being barren for life is NOT a 21st century option. Why not suggest we go to Sharia law? You can really control women then! If a woman cannot control her body, what CAN she control??????????????????????????????????????????????????
Marimn,
I replied to e regarding why going back in time by 40 years is NOT an acceptable solution. I ditto that response to you. States DID have the right to decide and it did not bode well for women.
@elena, if a woman is in control of her own body, why are we turning over our bodies to obamacare???????? why does mayor bloomberg in nyc get to ban transfat and salt from my diet?????
further, it is not so simple an issue; for people who believe that life begins at conception, the fetus is entitled to a right to live and the mother doesn’t necessarily have a right to terminate that life
that is why roe vs wade has always been under a penumbra of conflict, because it was decided by a bunch of bum lawyers in black robes. another example of overreach by big brother. tell the founding fathers that the constitution guarantees a woman the right to abort her unborn child and they will politely ask you what you are smoking
@mh, charity begins at home. if i not for me, who for me?
e,
In what way, specifically do you suggest we are turning over our bodies to “obamacare” ? Do you have health insurance? Have you had an illness where you needed to get approval for a procedure or medicine? Did you read the story of the young girl denied a liver transplant?
Also, I think it’s best we not discuss abortion anymore.
Emma – who actually paid for Ted’s flight – can you point me to something to where it shows who paid? I find it hard to believe that the insurance would cover the flight.
Congress often exempts itself from the laws that they enact – shame really.
e – in case you do not know or understand, the Health Care Reform left the insurance coverage soley in the hands of private insurers for most people, so you do not have to fear of the government control.
Funny, in that the individual mandate was a Republican idea, yet when the Dem’s decided to go with it, it suddenly became taboo – same as immigration reform – there were many R’s looking for amnesty.
private health insurance companies are going to face an ever more hostile environment to do business in. this is all by design. eventually they will all fold
@e
you did not answer Elena’s concerns. You are so going to be on bread and water. I wouldn’t count on getting bread even. If you do, it will be store bought and moldy.