Category Archives: Random Blogging

Tea Party Originalism

David Schultz is a colleague (and co-author of my recent textbook, American Public Service: Constitutional and Ethical Foundations) who has written a timely article for Salon. It’s the sort of article that should be read by the very folks who won’t read it, because it actually takes one of the Tea Party’s avowed purposes—constitutional originalism—seriously.

“With reverence and awe, Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party pay homage to the original Constitution and framers who drafted the document in 1787. The House of Representatives, in a nod to them, began its session this year by reading it. Bachmann even brought Antonin Scalia to a seminar on the Constitution for members of Congress, where the Supreme Court justice instructed members to read the Federalist Papers and follow the framers’ original intent. Moreover, many of the Tea Party’s political positions, such as opposition to President Obama’s healthcare reform program, are rooted in their adherence to the original document.

But what if they actually got their way? If a Tea Party constitutional reading suddenly took sway and we returned to the original document as conceived, what would the American republic look like?”

David begins by pointing to the obvious: the right to vote wasn’t part of the original constitution. Voting rights were largely left to state law, and in 1787 most states limited the franchise to white, male, Protestant property owners, age 21 or older. There was no direct popular voting for president or the United States Senate, and there wasn’t even language that addressed voting for members of the House of Representatives. It took the 17th Amendment, adopted in 1913, to allow for people to vote for their senators (an amendment many Tea Party activists wish to repeal), and the 19th Amendment before women could vote.

As David points out, Michelle Bachmann—self-proclaimed devotee of the Constitution—could neither vote nor serve if we still followed the original document. The Senate wasn’t chosen by popular vote originally, and the President still isn’t.

“Even if we consider the Bill of Rights, which was adopted in 1791, to be part of the original Constitution, there are still many limits on its use. Most importantly, as written, the Bill of Rights limited only national power — not state power. Notice how the First Amendment begins by declaring, “Congress shall make no law. ” … a state could take an owner’s property through eminent domain without compensating him.

Subscribe to an original intent reading of the Constitution and states are free to disregard individual rights, including free speech, property, religion and others. States did just that in the early years of the Republic and into the 20th century before the Supreme Court used the 14th Amendment to apply Bill of Rights provisions to the states. Most recently, the Supreme Court (with Scalia supporting it) used this incorporation tactic to apply the Second Amendment right to bear arms to states. A Tea Party constitutionalist could not have done this. So much for states as protectors of individual freedom.”

Then of course, there are aspects of the original Constitution that even most Tea Party members find inconvenient. In their much-ballyhooed reading of the constitutional text on the floor of the House at the beginning of this session, these fearless defenders of originalism simply omitted that pesky provision about slavery.

It’s hard not to see similarities between the way so many of these “God and Country” zealots read the Constitution and the way they read the bible—very selectively.

Comments

Nuts and Bolts

As the Republican party has continued to move to the right, long-time GOP operatives responsible for the nuts and bolts of elections and messaging are become more concerned. A lot of the grumbling has been behind the scenes, but some party officials are “coming out” with their criticisms. Case in point:

“Colorado Republican Party Chairman Dick Wadhams dropped his reelection bid on Monday, and fired some parting shots at the Tea Party and the hard-line conservatives he thinks are hurting the party’s electoral success.

“I have tired of those who are obsessed with seeing conspiracies around every corner and who have terribly misguided notions of what the role of the state party is while saying ‘uniting conservatives’ is all that is needed to win competitive races across the state,” Wadhams wrote in a memo to the Colorado Republican State Central Committee obtained by The Denver Post.”

When the man who had been dubbed “Karl Rove’s successor” tells the Denver Post that he  has “loved being chairman” but is “tired of the nuts,” it’s telling.

It is hard not to sympathize with Wadhams. It sometimes does seem that the inmates are running the asylum.  A friend shared a recent “Petition” sent from one Leo Toby, of Orleans, Indiana to Speaker of the House John Boehner and the Republican leadership; it began with a variety of “whereas” clauses, followed by a demand that they vote not to raise the debt ceiling, and it concluded with the following paragraph:

“Republicans and Democrats,

Let there be no doubt that if the mandates of the election of 2010 are not realized by the Republican Congress, we will vote you out of office in 2012. We are not joking when we tell you that we have had enough. Got it????

We expect nothing from the Marxist Democrats that (Including John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and some other Republicans in name only) will save the republic because they have demonstrated over and over again their intention of destroying the United States . They intend to reduce us to a third world country. Making the entire world miserable is not the answer and we will fight to the bitter end no matter what it takes.”

In what alternate universe is Lindsay Graham a Marxist?

Nuts indeed.   No wonder Republicans are bolting.

Comments

Snow, Ice and Climate Change

As predictable as it has been, it is discouraging to hear climate change denialists point to the massive amounts of ice and snow as evidence that “global warming” is imaginary. These are not folks who are conversant with science, so perhaps we should explain–very slowly and carefully–why global climate change, aka “global warming”–really is responsible for the bad weather.

As one climate scientist recently explained, there’s approximately four percent more water vapor in the atmosphere now than there was in the ’70s; that’s because the oceans and the air are warmer, and the added moisture in warmer air returns to earth as heavy rain and heavy snow.

This may not make sense to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin, but most rational people can connect the dots, and understand why we need to limit carbon emissions. If we don’t, climate change will continue to cause extreme and unpredictable weather.

Comments

As the World Turns…

My very first “official” political position was as chair of something called “the 71 Committee for Lugar for Mayor.” It was a Jewish community group supporting Dick Lugar for Mayor back in 1971.  I continued to support Lugar over the years, even as he became more and more conservative, and even after I left the GOP, partly because he is so solid on foreign policy and partly because the Democrats have thus far failed to offer any strong candidates as alternatives.

The recent Tea Party opposition to Lugar’s re-election is a perfect example of what has happened to the Republican Party. As the party has become more radical, officeholders have found it necessary to pander to a base that is increasingly composed of rabid ideologues. Highly intelligent people like Dick Lugar have had to choose between playing to the sensibilities of that base and losing elective office. Thus far, Lugar has managed that balancing act pretty adroitly; he’s been sufficiently right-wing on domestic issues to placate the crazies, and that strategy has allowed him to pursue the sensible, nuanced international policies for which he is known.

However, the right wing of the party has gotten steadily more intolerant of any deviation from their “agenda” of bumper sticker platitudes, and increasingly suspicious of anything that looks like intellect. The continued “Palin-ization” of the GOP can be seen in its increased hostility to complexity, its dismissal of science and rejection of empirical evidence, and its absolute opposition to anything that smacks of “elitism”—which apparently is defined by actually knowing what you are talking about, or (God forbid) having a degree from a decent university.

So now we have Richard Mourdock, our intellectually-limited State Treasurer, announcing a primary challenge to Lugar. Mourdock’s last foray into public policy was his lawsuit to withdraw Indiana from the Chrysler bankruptcy settlement negotiated by the creditors—despite the fact that he had previously signed a binding agreement to abide by whatever settlement the creditors’ committee negotiated and despite the further fact that Indiana did better financially under that settlement than it would have if he won the lawsuit.

In a sane world, Lugar would make short work of someone like Mourdock, and the odds still favor that result. But given the current mindlessness and anger of the Tea Party folks, and the fact that they are far more likely to come out to vote in a primary than the party’s dispirited moderates, I would be reluctant to place a very big wager.

Comments

Leaving the Star

If you are reading this message—via Facebook, my blog, or email list—it is because I want to ask a favor.

For the past fourteen years, I have written a regular column for the Indianapolis Star. Most recently it has run every other Monday.

I have enjoyed the opportunity to make my opinions known in newsprint, but it has become increasingly clear that the traditional media environment is undergoing profound change. One result is that fewer people access my columns by reading the Monday Star than do so through my distribution list, Facebook, or my blog.

I had been mulling over the implications of these changes when I received an email from Tim Swarens, the Star’s editorial page editor. Tim informed me that he was reducing the frequency of my column to once a month, in order to bring in new community voices.

After thinking about it, I’ve decided that the time has come to sever the relationship. While a once-a-month column makes sense for certain subject matter, my columns have always reflected on the broader implications of current events, and it is very difficult to be “current” or timely in a once-a-month column. (It has been hard enough in a twice-a-month gig!)  The beauty of the internet is that it makes timeliness not only possible, but the norm. (The downside, of course, is that speed doesn’t always favor accuracy…but that’s a concern for another day.)

Anyway—back to the favor.

If you have enjoyed my columns, please follow me via www.sheilakennedy.net. Bookmark the blog or subscribe to the feed (http://sheilakennedy.net/feed/). If you like a column, post the link to Facebook. If you have a blog of your own, link to mine and I’ll link back. If you twitter—I don’t—tweet me. Or whatever you call it. And please, use the comment function to talk back, argue or agree, and keep our conversation going!

I’m stepping out of the “horse and buggy” world I know, and dipping my toe—okay, my computer—into the 21st Century, and while I’m excited, I’m also nervous.  I may be too old and outdated to make it in our brave new cyberspace world, but I’m hoping that you all will help me make a successful transition.

Thanks in advance, and let’s see what happens!

Comments