Posted on 08/24/2010 8:19:42 PM PDT by marktwain
WASHINGTON — Republican Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia won his seat in Congress campaigning as a strict defender of the Constitution. He carries a copy in his pocket and is particularly fond of invoking the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
But it turns out there are parts of the document he doesn't care for — lots of them. He wants to get rid of the language about birthright citizenship, federal income taxes and direct election of senators, among others. He would add plenty of stuff, including explicitly authorizing castration as punishment for child rapists.
This hot-and-cold take on the Constitution is surprisingly common within the GOP, particularly among those like Broun who portray themselves as strict Constitutionalists and who frequently accuse Democrats of twisting the document to serve political aims.
Republicans have proposed at least 42 Constitutional amendments in the current Congress, including one that has gained favor recently to eliminate the automatic grant of citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments, and fully one-third of those are part of a package from a single member, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. Jackson's package encapsulates a liberal agenda in which everyone has new rights to quality housing and education, but most of the Democratic proposals deal with less ideological issues such as congressional succession in a national disaster or voting rights in U.S. territories.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Ben Evans tries to spin promoting amendments to restore the Constitution to what was as "blowing hot and cold" on the Constitution.
The Amendment to give 18 year olds the vote was not political? Get real.
“Democrats — who typically take a more liberal view of the Constitution as an evolving document — have proposed 27 amendments”
Totally misunderstands. The “evolving document” doctrine means treating it as changing without amendments.
So he is either a pseudo-intellectual or a devious punk.
Maybe both.
Byrd-brain carried a copy of the Constitution in his pocket, that doesn’t mean he defended it.
“So he is either a pseudo-intellectual or a devious punk.
Maybe both.”
My vote is for both.
Agreed, it’s constitutional and moral relativists like this who treat the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and its precepts plus 27 Amendments as suggestions; only to be steadfast when is suits their cause.
Three clear examples,
#1st: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;” Yet, we have Abortion, which is a one way street, and Kilo which deprives a citizen the right to their property for someone else’s benefit.
#2nd: the First Amendment is for those which agree with liberals
#3rd: the Second Amendment has always had comas in it, making it a national right for everyone! Yet, it has taken 70yrs for S.C.O.T.U.S. to finally let the public in on it and tell the truth.
1. The actual language is, "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." Since illegals born here are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", they have no more right to citizenship than the children of diplomats born here.
2. The actual language is, "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." This does not mean that income taxes are required by the Constitution, just that they are not a violation of the requirement, "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers," in Article I, Section 2. Repealing the income tax would not be a violation of the Constitution, just a choice within the limited powers enumerated within the Constitution as amended.
3. Getting rid of direct election of Senators would require repeal of the 17th Amendment, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years," but I assume that is the intent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.