It seems that Tea Partiers' recent political victories may have gone to their heads faster than bubbles in a glass of champagne. Flush from this electoral success, the Tea Party movement is turning its attention to the Constitution with renewed fervor. The result has been some proposals that are at turns wacky, unwise, and even dangerous to our constitutional values.
The Tea Party's sights appear to be set on constitutional amendments ratified after the Civil War. Rand Paul, recent winner of Kentucky's Republican senatorial primary, and Rep. Duncan Hunter of San Diego have called for repeal of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of citizenship at birth for all children born in the United States--not to mention Paul's much-publicized criticism of the Civil Rights Act, legislation passed pursuant to the power given to Congress by the 14th Amendment to enforce its guarantees of equal protection, due process of law, and the rights of citizenship. Sharron Angle, the Tea Party-endorsed candidate who appears poised to win today's Republican senatorial race in Nevada, has called for repeal of the 16th Amendment, which allows for a federal progressive income tax. And many Tea Party activists are pushing for repeal of the 17th Amendment, which shifted the selection of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to the state's voters.
To repeal these hard-won parts of our Constitution would be pure folly. The constitutional changes made in the aftermath of the Civil War and the abolition of slavery wrote into the Constitution the promises of equality made in the Declaration of Independence, and gave the federal government the power to ensure that these promises were kept. The pursuit of equality and greater democracy in the 14th and 15th Amendments--the 15th Amendment secured the right to vote free from racial discrimination--continued in the 16th Amendment, which corrected a Supreme Court ruling that allowed wage income of poorer day laborers to be subject to federal tax but exempted dividend and rental income of the wealthy, and the 17th Amendment, which provided for direct election of U.S. Senators to give more power to the people and lessen the influence of corporate interests.
To be sure, all of these amendments shifted some power from the states to Washington. But is that a bad thing? Tea Partiers appear to assume that when it comes to government, the more local the better. History tells us that this is not always so--certainly the federal government was honoring rather than denigrating our constitutional values when it finally stepped in to stop systematic racial discrimination in the South. The Constitution, as amended, maintains our vibrant federalism, with state and local governments continuing to make decisions that reflect the particular preferences of their communities. But our amended Constitution sets a national minimum guarantee of fundamental rights like liberty and equality. States may decide to give even greater protection to these rights, but if they give less, the federal government may step in.
Perhaps even more than the Tea Party's challenges to the federalism changes ushered in by the post-Civil War constitutional amendments, Tea Party opposition to the 14th Amendment's promise of equal citizenship deserves close scrutiny. The objections to the Constitution's guarantee of equal citizenship raised by Tea Party darlings like Rand Paul and Congressman Hunter have included justifications both odd and outrageous. There is Paul's suggestion that the 14th Amendment's guarantee that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" is simply a ploy by the Democratic Party to grant citizenship to the children of Mexican immigrants to get votes. Then there is Congressman Hunter's claim that the "souls" of children of undocumented immigrants are not "American" enough to qualify them for citizenship at birth. But the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 to ensure that regardless of the origins of one's parents--whether they were slave or free, poor or rich, welcomed ancestors or shunned immigrants--American citizenship would be based on the objective measure of place of birth, not blood line or the state of one's soul.
It is encouraging that so many Americans are now discussing and debating the Constitution. It is, after all, the People's document. But before Tea Party repeal efforts gather steam, "We the People" should take a sober look at the text, history, and principles behind the amendments the Tea Party would like to do away with. Amending the Constitution is not an easy task, and generations of Americans poured blood, sweat, and treasure into adopting the amendments that Tea Party activists would now like to repeal.
If we don't take the time to remember and understand the reasons for these changes to our Founding document, Americans could be left with a gutted Constitution--and one nasty Tea Party hangover.
Cross-posted at Text & History.
Nathan Daschle: Why Today's GOP Winners Are Already Losers
Cliff Schecter: I Know John McCain; He Is Definitely Not a Friend Of Mine...
BJ Gallagher: Obama and 'The Paradoxical Commandments'
Andy Ostroy: Helen Thomas's Sad New Legacy
The income tax is unconstitutional, and was promised to only last during wartime. Like most taxes it was never removed once put on the peoples shoulders. People now work 6 months of the year to pay off thier federal income taxes. Stop making us slaves to your social programs please.
Is shifting power to washington a bad thing? YES. The more power concentrated there, the more effective and powerful corporate power lobbying is. Dont you understand all the things you dislike about the modern government come from this concentration of power?
Teabaggers, ever ready to play the obedient and willing serfs of their corporate overlords.
As far as my own reference to an ever expanding extreme right, I guess that comes down to some degree to how you define extreme right - such as being a KKK member or traipsing around without the sheet, but in a suit and a tie. Where do you think even Nixon would be placed on todays political map. Would he be even too left wing in the Republican party to be nominated for anything? I would not shy from suggesting that Obama's domestic and foreign policies in 2010 are roughly equivalent Richard Nixon's in 1972.
In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html
Right. Got it.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/2/23/172905.shtml
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2010/04/11/gop_southern_strategy_lives_on
As for the economic interests of poor Southern whites being best represented by the last 30 years of "Trickle Down/Tinkle On" or "No Billionaire Left Behind" tax policy it has NOT improved the wages of anyone but the wealthiest and is a complete sham, leads to "bubbles" that the GOP coddles their rich donors against , but stiff arms everyone hurt by their philosophy of greed and more greed ahead of people or the planet.
Conservatives are morally bankrupt --- being lectured by a Conservative on "moral hazard" is like being given a lecture on loitering...by a crack 'ho
Conservatives are so ignorant that they think everyone but their stupid followers will not see revisionist "reframing" when it happens ...no Fascists ARE Right Wing, Nazi's are no different than your friends claiming that "title" today
Rand_ believe all business should have the right to discriminate any way they choose
Hunter - some babies born here are just not "good enough" for our country
Angle - Want's to go back to when women were property, stayed home and baked brownies. AND.. wants to force you to stop having your drink during your meal
Why isn't anyone doing this in the supposed 'liberal media'.
Where is the 'liberal media' anyway?
What is Sarah Palin's take on this since she is the muse of the Tea Partiers who have so many silly ideas on their heads? I'm waiting..........
This isn't about their concern over protecting the constitution. This is about wanting to eliminate as many votes for democratic candidates as possible. They always try to pass off their beliefs as a deep conviction in the constitution and freedom, but if you look closely enough its really about taking power away from democrats in any way possible.
The amendment was passed so former slaves would not be barred from voting, they never envisioned a scenario where our government would allow 20M people to illegally cross the border. They never envisioned the amendment would be used as protection of non-us citizens.
Published: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 3:56 AM Updated: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 4:26AM
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2010/06/winner_of_south_carolinas_demo.html
When I hear some teapartier say "we want our country back", what I hear is code for "we want our white people only have rights country back."
That way, the rightward types get to have their war and eat it to!!!
We need to keep our rights, keep our equality. THEY may not like having to compete, THEY may be racists, but WE aren't.
Millions came out to vote for Obama and we can rally them again. We just need a better message. Why are the progressives and dems fumbling on this so badly?
The tea partiers are getting their message out, even if it's crazy and dangerous to the US, why can't we get our message out?