Party of the Constitution ought to read it
Republicans are the party of the Constitution. Or so they say in their recently approved platform, thick with the implication that the Democrats most certainly are not the party of the Constitution.
But reading through the GOP's platform planks is enough to make a person wonder if they'd ever read the Constitution.
For example, this: "In the spirit of the Constitution, we consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability or national origin unacceptable and immoral."
Ah, yes, the spirit of the Constitution, which counseled the government to apportion representatives and direct taxes by adding to the whole number of free persons "... three-fifths of all other persons." Meaning, of course, slaves. Former slaves wouldn't gain the right to vote until 1870, and women wouldn't be granted suffrage until 1920.
Perhaps they meant, "In the spirit of the Constitution, as amended"?
Although the Constitution - as amended! - does today stand for non-discrimination, Republicans openly call for discrimination against gay people who seek to marry, which they call "an assault on the foundations of our society." And while Republicans elsewhere defend states' rights, here they demand a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Speaking of the Tenth Amendment, Republicans support it when it comes to passing voter identification laws, immigration laws, health-care programs and land-use decisions. But what about medical marijuana programs? Nothing seems so obvious and acute a case for backing the Tenth Amendment than the right of states to decide for themselves to allow sick people some relief from pain, notwithstanding the restrictions of federal law. (Republicans could even have slammed the Obama administration, which promised not to prosecute medical marijuana cases in states where it's legal, but have continued to do so anyway!)
The platform calls for preserving the Electoral College and rejecting popular vote movements. Clearly, an election that relies on the popular vote, nationwide, would be good for Democrats and bad for the GOP.
"The Founders of the American Republic universally agree that democracy presupposes a moral people and that, in the words of George Washington's Farewell Address, 'Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.'"
But this presupposes that religion is necessary for morality, which (as the lawyers say) assumes facts not in evidence.
There's really something about a platform that quotes Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom and then, just three paragraphs later, says "We support the public display of the Ten Commandments as a reflection of our history and of our country's Judeo-Christian heritage." Indeed. Why not statutes of the angel Moroni, Jonathan Edwards and L. Ron Hubbard, too, since they are also part of America's religious history and heritage?
Free speech, to Republicans, protects the right of billionaires to pour unlimited sums into political races free from disclosure but does not protect the right of an otherwise voiceless protester to burn the American flag.
Of course, they support outlawing abortions without mention of any exceptions, which shows they not only don't respect the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in reviewing American law, but that the party is much closer to Rep. Todd Akin than they'd like you to think.
All of that to say this: When defending the Constitution, it's a good idea to defend the actual document, and not one's idea of what the document should be.
Steve Sebelius is author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.
