More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Erica Payne

Erica Payne

Posted: January 11, 2011 11:22 AM

As politicians of both parties fall all over themselves denying blame for the shooting of Congresswomen Giffords and decrying the toxic political environment, one denial rings louder than any other. From Tea Party leader Sarah Palin's insistent "I hate violence" to Tea Party cheerleader Glenn Beck's "peace is always the answer." America's newest political party is rolling out a protest of responsibility not seen since President Clinton did not have sex with that woman Miss Lewinsky. Does the Tea Party doth protest too much? Or is it rightfully defending itself against politically motivated slander?

Surprisingly, I find myself arguing the latter. The blame for this heinous act lies squarely with the voices in Jared Lee Loughner's head, not the ones pontificating over talk radio. And repugnant as I find Sarah and her cosmic boyfriend, they are not responsible for the violent actions of a single crazy person.

They are, however, responsible for the destructive actions of thousands of other people -- (some crazy some not). No matter how vigorously they promote the woe-is-us narrative (as expressed by Tucson Tea Party Co-founder Trent Humphries -- "Every time anything happens, we're going to get blamed"), the Tea Party is responsible for ripping this country apart. And if the Tea Party has its way, violence and destruction far beyond the horrific acts of this weekend are on the horizon.

The Tea Party's goal is a full-scale dismantling of the republic. When the last friend of a friend who went to school with the sister of the roommate of the Arizona shooter's high school girlfriend has been interviewed, the Tea Party will return to the task at hand -- fundamentally changing the architecture of America.

Last week's reading of the (pretty parts of the) Constitution was meant to convince Americans everywhere of the deep and abiding love these Tea Party Americans and their Republican friends have for the 200-year-old document. But in an act worthy of Broadway, the sentiment was more: I love you. You're perfect. Now change.

Tea Party Republicans have called for a direct challenge to not one (14th), not two (16th), but three (17th) Constitutional amendments. They have also proposed a 28th 'Repeal Amendment' that would shift the balance of power to the states by granting them the right to repeal any federal law if they muster the support of 2/3rds of states' legislators. For all their rhetoric of "strict constructionism" and "originalism," conservatives interpret the Constitution in ways that radically break from established jurisprudence. Just look at last year's Supreme Court Citizens United decision, which essentially granted the right of free speech to corporations.

And in their most recent attack on the Constitution, Tea Party Republicans are gearing up for a sweeping challenge to the 14th Amendment -- the part of our Constitution that has for the past 140 years defined what it is to be an American. The 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868, a response to the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which held that the descendants of slaves born on American soil were not citizens. The Amendment remedied this by holding that those born on American soil, black or white, were citizens of the United States. Of course, if you skirt the inconvenient history that necessitated the 14th Amendment, as the Tea Party Republicans did last week by not reading the 3/5th part, the 14th amendment seems much less important.

Since the earliest days of nationhood the constitutional definition of citizenship has been on a trajectory of expansion. Amendments have, without exception, extended citizenship and the rights and privileges it entails to larger circles of Americans -- to blacks (13th and 15th), to women (19th), the poor (24th), and the young (26th). Those seeking to repeal the 14th Amendment are extremists advocating not a return to our country's roots but a radical break from our established tradition.

The desire to ratify the Constitution for partisan and exclusionary purposes is not new. Historical gems include the proposed Anti-Miscegenation Amendment of 1912 -- to prohibit the marriage of blacks and whites. More recently we saw the Federal Marriage Amendment -- proposed a total of four times to prevent gay men and women from marrying. Thankfully, such exclusionary attempts inevitably fail and become resigned to the dust bin of history. Altering the Constitution involves an arduous course requiring the consent of 2/3 of Congress and 3/4th of the States. It has been happened only twice in the past 40 years.

The Tea Party gains traction for their radical views by chipping away at American history bit by bit, relying on half truths and carefully selected omissions to rewrite the past to serve their extremist agenda today. This selective reading of the Constitution is dangerous because it deftly erases the past, replacing our collective history with a narrative that is reactionary, exclusionary, and fabricated. The subtle changes to our history are then adroitly exploited to justify a radical assault on our country's foundation and ideals.

The Tea Party's rhetoric is all America and apple pie, but their designs are disturbingly radical. It's time we start paying less attention to words and more attention to the specific proposals they promote.

What happened to Congresswoman Giffords was a terrible tragedy, but one psychopath's ramblings do not offer much insight to the state of the nation. The actions the Tea Party, as they rewrite history and dismantle our Constitution, are the sticks and stones that will actually break this country's bones.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47336.html#ixzz1AgCley5x

Follow Erica's newest Twitter to get the inside scoop: http://twitter.com/EricaPayneAP

 

Follow Erica Payne on Twitter: www.twitter.com/agendaproject

 
 
  • Comments
  • 18
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
go2goal
Business Consultant
08:17 AM on 01/17/2011
BUT, what is the lesson we need to learn from JLL's actions? Most violence is committed by people with mental illness and JLL is another example of a long list of tragedies.

The Tea Party slogans and the Republican slogans of SMALL government at all cost...except for big military...is ludicrous. What do we expect....the free market to treat the mentally ill in the poor class or unemployed? Yah sure.....the only mentally ill Americans receiving proper treatment today are those who can afford it....the others are either incarcerated in our prisons and left to waste away, homeless on the streets and committing harmful acts to themselves or others, and etc...

The lessonfrom JLL...we need to rethink our funding levels and how we treat the mentally ill in this country. How do you think the Tea Party will propose we do that?....my point.
03:34 PM on 01/31/2011
The problem with getting mentally ill people treated is because of "privacy" rights. There were numerous examples of people considering JLL a threat, or crazy, but due to privacy issues, people couldn't get him committed.
08:08 AM on 01/17/2011
Let's not be two-faced about it.

If you, and the likes of you were able, you would repeal the 2nd Ammendment.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:44 PM on 01/25/2011
I want to know where this idea that all dems are against the 2nd amendment comes from, please provide some info. I get sick of the tea party and gop speaking for me and millions like me who never once said to ban guns, just to divide Americans like you and me to get votes.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rixar13
U.S. Coast Guard Veteran and University
10:08 AM on 01/14/2011
" For all their rhetoric of "strict constructionism" and "originalism," conservatives interpret the Constitution in ways that radically break from established jurisprudence."
Seems like more distraction and division planted with repeated bumper sticker phrases.. sigh
Yet the first ones to violate the constitution without consequence...
03:32 PM on 01/31/2011
How have they violated they constitution? What do you mean by "strict constructionsim" and "originalism"? I don't recognize those terms.
photo
TurnToTheLeft
It's only called CLASS WARFARE when we fight back
03:52 PM on 01/11/2011
Great essay. From the very start of the Tea Party/Republican led 112 Congress they left out important passages when they read The Constitution aloud. Other frightening acts are the people they selected to run different Committees with intent to obstruct and de-fund hard fought progress. It is more important than ever that Democrats work hard now to take back the House and not lose any Senate seats in 2012. California is particularly vulnerable because Senator Feinstein is 77 and has yet to lay the groundwork for a democrat successor - while the very conservative Rep. Darrel Issa (R) is making himself highly visible as Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Progressives must keep their eyes open to move by the Tea Party and prepare for the 2012 election because everything is at stake.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ioan Lightoller
Proud Married Gay Pagan Man
03:14 PM on 01/11/2011
The Tea Partiers speak treason and yet nothing is done about this. I'm glad to see that someone has decided to call them out on their nonsense. It is a basically white man's movement, with their wives, daughters, etc. serving as their auxiliary. And I hate to have to be the one to break the bad news (not really) but they had a part in the shooting in Arizona with their violence-filled rhetoric.
03:30 PM on 01/31/2011
I am pretty new to this following politics stuff. What tea partiers speak treason, and what is the treason that they speak?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:06 PM on 01/11/2011
Listen, it's highly likely that he internalized the voices on the radio and TV; that's what the radio and TV people do intentionally, by repeating phrases over and over. It's a technique that they started using during the Reagan administration that borrowed from direct marketing strategies. As much as they may try to wiggle out of it, the fact of the matter is that they employed and repeated primal symbols and language that represent violence against humans and directed those symbols at specific political policies and those that represent them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:56 PM on 01/11/2011
What I find interestin­g is that they have spent the last three years trying to link Obama and the Democrats to terrorists (remember William Ayers?), Nazi's, Stalinists­, the Weimar Republic, and Muslim extremists­. And now they have the gall to say they're being treated unfairly? Jesus said, "You reap what you sow" and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but I doubt they REALLY know what's in that Bible that they carry around; they're too busy using it to beat people over the head.
12:17 PM on 01/11/2011
"Does the Tea Party doth protest too much?" Ms. Payne, "doth" is an archaic form of "does," so what you're asking is "Does the Tea Party does protest too much?" You tried to be cute and you only ended up looking foolish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
punkingale
My wants are simple. My needs are few.
11:06 PM on 01/11/2011
You have too many "does" in your question. Not cute.
12:15 PM on 01/11/2011
The parts that were left out of the constitution were parts that have been removed by later amendments.

The "problem" with the 14th amendment is not with the amendment itself, but with how it has been interpreted.

From the first sentence of the 14th amendment (quotes added by me):
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This means that people born to legal residents are to become citizens, not anyone that is born here.
12:15 PM on 01/13/2011
You are 100% incorrect. It has been interpreted, time and time again (since shortly after it's writing) that the 14th ammendment epressly indicates that anyone born in the United States (except to foreign diplomats) is an American Citizen. This is backed up by writings and records of the founding father's intentions and is based upon English Law at the time.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:45 PM on 01/25/2011
So why repeal it then? Is it another smoke screen from the tea party or ignorance?
11:57 AM on 01/11/2011
Yes, enough this side that side political flip flopping. That person is crazy and responsible for his actions. More states rights, less federal intervention will help the most with all of this current hoohaa.
10:42 AM on 01/13/2011
You want more states rights? Let's just abolish the United States all together then every man for his self let's see how much you like it then. I think North Korea or Iran is calling for you to become a citizen.