"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." Orwell
"“The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
Plato
"The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant" Robespierre
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Failure To Love, Much Less Understand
Interesting, isn't it? Those lovers of the Constitution really don't like it all that much, do they? And the above doesn't even mention their dislike of voting by those with whom they disagree; or the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty; or, worst of all, separation of church and state.
Now here's something amusing: in their panic to out-Trump Trump, virtually all of the R candidates are shoving their way to the front of the line to state their opposition to "birthright citizenship," as defined in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's impressive how facile they are, absent meaningful policy to address actual problems, in coming up with an appeal to the substance-averse. Five minutes ago, no one was talking about it. Suddenly, out of thin air and surely very soon with the help of Fox "news" and the rest of the right-wing screamers and haters, they'll have everyone on their side, the side of denial, nodding in agreement. Okay, fine. If you don't like the Fourteenth Amendment, passed to prevent racial discrimination, get behind an amendment to reverse it. Because who cares about climate change or wages, right? Lost on gay marriage, need a new distraction and ginned-up outrage.
But the kicker is that Donald "Great" Trump believes birthright citizenship, if challenged, wouldn't hold up in court. Wouldn't hold up in court!
Oh, the towering, cosmic, reverberating stupidity of that statement, the bottomless misunderstanding of the Constitution and its clearly enumerated process for amending it. Because, you know, the Constitution, including all its amendments, is, sorta by definition, "constitutional." Laws that run counter to it? Unconstitutional. Things in it? Yep: constitutional.
I'd like to think a leading candidate for the nomination of a formerly credible political party would have at least a minimal understanding of how things work, legally. And I'd like to think those that think he'd be a great president would find this a revelatory bubble-burster.
I'd be wrong, of course.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Popular posts
-
Nothing can be said about last week’s presidential debate (debacle, more like) that hasn’t already been. So I will. Trump lied with every ...
-
The assassination attempt and reactions to it are deeply depressing, foretelling a grim future. The most disgusting responses from politic...
-
I’m trying to measure this feeling of hope and enthusiasm against the reality that it’s an uphill battle for a woman to become president; ...
-
Well, that was disappointing. Since I’ve been wrong about the essential goodness of the American people, I can only hope I’m also wrong ab...
-
I t’s over. No thinking person will vote for Trump now. The catastrophe is out of the bagman. How? At a gathering of oil executives at Mar-a...
I like 'substance-averse.' But I like more a new meaning for 'substance abuse.' They abuse, deride, defile, deny anything of substance.
ReplyDeleteMuch like the Bible, those who claim to love it most understand it the least.
ReplyDelete