Friday, August 19, 2011

Okay Texas Republicans...Defend this one...I Dare Ya...

I've spent a lot of time around Republicans and especially those around El Paso. They claim to LOVE the Constitution.

I don't mean love the document like I love menudo. They say the love the Constitution in a way that echoes of religious worship. Which is a fair comparison because they both seem to base their devotion to the Bible and the Consitution on the infallibility of the documents.

Hell I've watched Republicans listen to Dr. Roth in an almost orgasmic religious fervor when he would speak about the Constitution.

The Republican Party in town even bought in a Constitutional "expert" to talk about the document over the last couple of months. (I especially get a kick out of Republicans when they talk to us like we don't know what  the Constitution is and they act like they are more devoted to its principles.)

So I find it almost impossible for the self-appointed guardians of the Constitution to reconcile Govenor Perry's recent Constitutional positions.  Perry wants to guy some very important parts of the Constitution.

Where is the Right Reverend Roth and the rest of the GOP when they hear crazy talk like that from Governor Perry?

The answer...AWOL.

So here ya go Republicans...give it your best stab. Reconcile the almost religious devotion to (parts of) the Consitution and support for a Governor who wants to gut key parts of the revered document.

The comment section is open for business...


Anonymous said...

Hey didn't Rick Perry serve as Al Gore's Texas Campaign Chairman? He started as a democrat. He's a fake a phony. He's trying be like Ron Paul.

I'd rather he not be a Republican.

14 Reasons why Rick Perry is bad.

Ron Paul 2012

Sergio C.

Anonymous said...

aye viene el diablo ; Rick Perry : Bush part two. A Arciniega

The Lion Star said...

Ah come on takers?

Where's Chris Dorn when ya need him?

Anonymous said...

Not a Repub Jamie but I'll tell ya the flaws of the article, and the truth.

"Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution." Surely a "living" document that is the Constitution could handle this. If you are down for original intent, did the authors of the Constitution really expect people to serve forty - fifty years? At the time people dropped dead in their late forties.

"Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote."
Bork floated the idea back in the nineties. Not Perry's idea. I don't think the authors of the Constitution believed that a judge/judges could have the power to overturn elections, order where parents send their children to school, or determine if a redistricting plan is fair. 2/3rd's is hard to get and as said before S.G. Bork wrote about it back in 92 or 93.

"Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment." Repubs in Congress won't like this since they like money too. However it wouldn't end income tax. It would eliminate the end run around "equal protection" and eliminate the graduated income tax. So if Soros pays 40% so the the roofer across the street. Repub fantasy.

"End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment." Wouldn't this be the ultimate in campaign finance reform? Instead of lobbyists and PAC's Senators would be free to work on policy. Ha ha. This would help Repubs. Lots of rouge blue Senators in Red states. Almost a immediated eight seat pickup. Frakken is doomed.

"Require the federal government to balance its budget every year." The Repub Cut,Crap and Balance Law had the same amendment. Not Perry's idea.

"The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states." Once SCOTUS rules this won't be an issue. NY and MA did it right the people's representatives made the choice. CA and El Paso City Council did it wrong. Legislative trumping of referendums is wrong. Radical Judicial action is only worse.

"Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country." Perry isn't calling for an Ammendment just a reinterp. It's a Repub lithmus test. Of course this isn't changing the Constitution since it wasn't discovered as a "right" until what 72, 73? See item two for a more effective resolution.

Not very radical for a Repub. More of a wish list since a President can't get an amendment started without a 2/3 vote. However a snapshot
of what the Repubs stand for.

The problems when it comes to Judicial and Fiscal restraint many Democratics feel the same way.

Hope this helps you and all six readers.