Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Republican leaders decide to help third parties

Here we have Republican leaders concluding that the fourteenth amendment has outlived its usefulness now that their ancestors are settled in. This is a sad reminder of something that seems all too real today, that we are a nation no longer built on principles, but built on agendas. Republicans, who frequently slam Democrats as constitutional revisionists, assure us that this time it's good to revise the Constitution. Because, I suppose, it's the Republicans who are doing it, as opposed to the Democrats who would be wrong if they tried to change the Constitution. Much as I don't see a value in supporting third party candidates, as a Catholic I believe in a world founded on principles, not on convenient tactics. Unfortunately, this seems to be in stark contrast to our current national leadership from either party. Sigh.


  1. Ok so here we sit in the 21st century when we are supposed to be broadening our mindset to a larger world view and they are focusing on how we can make it harder for people to become a part of our country. I don't know the entire story behind this. My understanding is that the constitution was written with the thought that it could be changed should the need arise. Well I just don't see the need here. In fact if they change this they may as well change the restrictions of birth citizenship for the President. You just never know where this will lead.

  2. There has been debate over the Fourteenth Amendment itself being a revision of the Constitution -- some would claim it inverts the purpose of the Bill of Rights (formerly, list of Things the Government May Not Take For Any Good Cause, post-14th, list of Things In the Name of Which the Government May Steamroll Over Whatever It Deems Necessary). I think we have to distinguish between revising the Constitution validly, via amendment, which stands and would require the same level of valid process to change back even if it turns out to be a mistake, and revising the Constitution via Supreme Court rulings or flat out ignoring the thing, which defeats the purpose of having the Constitution as a set of ground rules in the first place.

    All that said, I doubt the Republicans are looking to temper/tamper the 14th out of historical concern to set things back on track. Everyone knows that only racist Confederate sympathizers believe in moving backward like that. Which is to say that, while I'm being sarcastic about the impossibility of a just man holding a position on Federal power that historically was held by racists, enough people out there would _not_ be sarcastic about it that I can't see any mainstream party even flirting with the notion. Then again, I could be proven wrong.

  3. P.S. Ok, my brain bugged me about this till I had to come back and ask -- do I recognise Spy Vs. Spy there?

  4. Yeah, that's from good ol'Mad Magazine. :)


Let me know your thoughts