The Pet Constitution

"I'm writing a children's book about the Constitution."

-- Lynne Cheney to Jon Stewart, The Daily Show, October 10, 2007

As you may know, boys and girls, the beginning of the Constitution is called the Preamble. "Preamble" is a fancy word that means "apology." Our Founders were wise men who understood that government is bad, and since the Constitution establishes a government, they wanted to be sure to begin by saying how sorry they were for doing it.

The text of the Constitution itself is divided into seven Articles. "Article" means just what it does in modern English: it's a story, like you'd find in a newspaper or on television. And just as with any media story, except for Fox News, the key is not to take the Articles on face value, but instead to look for hidden biases and correct for them. It's also important to look in the text for things the Founders meant, but didn't actually come out and say, perhaps because they didn't want to be accused of being politically incorrect. This attitude toward reading the Constitution is called being a "strict constructionist."

Okay, let's take our first look at the Articles, paying special attention to the "tensions" between them.

For example, Article I says that Congress has the power to pass laws. But Article II says that the President can issue "signing statements," which explain what the laws really mean.

Article I says that Congress has the power to declare war. But Article II says that the President doesn't have to actually ask Congress for permission to declare war, because if he did, he wouldn't be called the President, would he?

Article I says that Congress can't suspend "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus." That means that people can't be kept in jail without being promptly charged and tried. But Article II explains that a privilege is just what it sounds like -- a special treat, like being allowed to stay up late on your birthday -- and that the President can take that treat away from someone if he doesn't deserve it.

Article I says that the Vice President is the President of the Senate, which is part of the legislative branch. But Article II says that the Vice President is part of the executive branch. Since no one can be in two places at the same time, this means that the Vice President doesn't have to obey any of the laws passed by Congress, and that he doesn't have to listen to the President, either.

To sum up what we've learned so far, the relationship between Article I and Article II -- the legislative branch has some powers, but the executive branch has more powers -- has come to be known as our system of "checks and balances."

Now let's move ahead with our overview of our country's wonderful charter.

Article III establishes the Supreme Court. The Court's most important power is overturning laws that the President doesn't agree with. The fancy term for this is "stare decisis," which is Latin for, "Sez who?"

Article III also says that if a President is impeached, you have to wait at least hundred years before doing it again, because it would be way too upsetting to put the country through that again so soon.

Article IV says that everyone in America, no matter what state they live in, has the same privileges. The only exception would be if, say, you lived in a state where there was a hurricane or something, and your governor was a real bitch.

Article V explains the process for amending the Constitution. An amendment is like a PS; it's something that the Founders forgot to say. Examples of things they forgot to say include: gay love is sin, abortion is murder, and flag-burning should be punishable by death.

Article VI says that no religious test should be required as a qualification for public office. Isn't that marvelous? In practice, this means that Christians never have to take a test to prove they believe in Jesus; that Jews get the benefit of the doubt because they're on the road to being perfected as Christians; and that Muslims have to swear on the Koran that they're not terrorists.

Article VII says that nine of the original thirteen colonies needed to ratify (that means "vote for") the Constitution in order for it to take effect. In today's terms, that would mean that if thirteen people voted in an election, nine of their votes would count.

Twenty-seven amendments to the Constitution have been adopted since 1791. The first ten of these are known as the Bill of Rights. The way I remember what they're about is a little lullaby that Dick and I used to sing to our daughters when they were small. It went like this:

Goodnight, freedom of religion,
Goodnight. freedom of speech;
Goodnight, freedom of the press,
Goodnight, fuzzy little peach.

Goodnight guns;
Goodnight torture;
Goodnight privacy,
Goodnight Rapture.

Goodnight, self-incrimination,
Goodnight, cuddly little Haitian.
Goodnight moon, goodnight air,
Goodnight jury trials everywhere.

The rest of the Amendments are -- well, that'll just have to be a story for another day.

Follow Marty Kaplan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/martykaplan

Comments

[mjjcpa]

Hey it's for the kids.

If the author interprets the Constitution to encourage smaller government, why do democrats want to make and it's role in everyone's life bigger.

I think Hamiltonian Federalism is the way to go. Strong state govts that can determine things like education, transportation, and family issues, combined with an equally strong federal govt for military and financial matters.

[dictatortot]

mjjcpa,

Don't forget that the left has made state's rights synonymous with racism, and small government synonymous with a complete lack of compassion.

"That government governs best, which governs least." --Thomas Jefferson

http://www.newsprism.com

[Meanwhile]

Stem cell research, flag burning, gay marriage, Terri Schiavo ... yeah, the right has a great track record of wanting to be inobtrusive.

[Wilburrr]

What place does any government have in any family issues?

I like the federal highway system, where roads actually match up at state borders.

I also like our system of national parks. A federal government is needed to enforce environmental law.

Hamilton almost had it right, as did Jefferson. We have a combination of the two philosophies because they combine to provide a better answer.

I hope your not accusing Democrats of being the most guilty of increasing the size of government. That claim does not fit the data.

[KarenZipdrive]

Soft porn writer Lynne Cheney now has a book out about the U.S. Constitution?
Laura "Crazy Eyes" Bush is making policy speeches on Myanmar?
Jenna Bush has written a book about AIDS?

This reminds me of an NBA game, when a team is losing so badly in the 4th quarter they trot out the deep bench and spare their starters from further humiliation.

I'm just waiting for Barney's book on economic trends.

[dictatortot]

The first President Bush's dog wrote a book. So did Paris Hilton's chihuahua, Tinkerbell.

Why not Barney?

Celebrity is reason enough to publish an author. Ain't that First Amendment great?

http://www.newsprism.com

[lemurfemur]

Lynne Cheney writing about constitutional law is like Mitt Romney writing about sex, or Rudi Giuliani writing about fidelity.

[oldprostate]

I thought she said constipation.

[thegulliblecitizen]

Herr Cheney and his wife are absolutely right, Dobbsy and his countrymen, crawling after the offal gold have no rights! Let's hope that there are still some banditos around, not needing badges either!

[mi]

what a creepy lady.
their delusions have no bounds.

[Jules36]

I'm nearly speechless.

Lon - I mean, Lynne - Cheney writing a BOOK on THE CONSTITUTI­ON?!?!?!?!­? Isn't that comparable to Hitler writing a book about the Jews' rights to their own homeland?

Thank God we have journalists and citizens who can speak out about this kind of... I don't even know what it is. I'm still nearly speechless.

Except to say: Lynne honey, your husband and his boss and the other Shrub posse members have been shooting holes in the Constitution for more than five years....n­o, wait a minute, that wasn't the Constituti­on.... that was a fellow your hubby was hunting with, wasn't it?!

The Constitution is the thing they've been SHREDDING.­.. no, wait a minute, that's not right either -- it's the SUBPOENAS he's been shredding.

Lemme think here... the Constituti­on.... oh, NOW I remember. That's that document that Georgie and Dicky and all the rest of those naughty little boys in the White House have been PISSING on for the last several years -- like when Corbin Bernson's character in the movie "Major League" waves his contract at the coach, saying it clearly states he doesn't have to do calisthenics and the coach takes the contract from him, throws it on the ground, and utinates on it.

Yeah, yeah, THAT'S what George and Dick have been doing to the Constitution.

[Peabodies]

Jules -- You have a way with words. I agree with your sentiment. IZ all i'm gonna say.

[Sundialsvc4]

We should be perfectly clear on a few key points here:

(1) General of the Army "Ike" Eisenhower, before leaving the Presidency, specifically foresaw all of this and specifically warned us of it.

(2) The Impeachment power, which can be directed against "any civil officer," is in my opinion a very specific law-enforcement power. The House is the Grand Jury and the Senate is the subsequent Tribunal.

In my opinion, just as a Grand Jury cannot be "selective" about what it does and doesn't pursue ... for the very obvious reason that it could otherwise thereby effectively "aid and abet" the perpetuation of any such crime by making prosecution impossible ... NEITHER CAN THE CONGRESS. Impeachment CANNOT be "off the table" at any time because it is NOT 'DISCRETIONARY!'

I believe that if any Congressmen at any time submits Articles of Impeachment, he or she is acting in the singular capacity of a person who is duly authorized to submit such proceedings -- e.g. as a district-attorney can do in a court setting. The House, I believe, MUST CONSIDER them promptly and on-the-record.

[daddysboy]

Thank you for bringing this very important and interesting point up. I believe that within the frame of your argument, the original comment that impeachment is "off the table" does overstep legal boundaries. However, if the players don't want to participate and many participants are required, it is impossible to play the game so argument over intent is moot anyway. It is just not possible to remove the political shroud from the government at the federal level. Most of these officials are beholden to an array of interests that conflict directly with the will of the people; particularly when it comes to removing politicians from office.

[BrighterStar]

And article one says there is freedom of speech. Unless you are Rush Limbaugh then we need to adopt a “fairness doctrine” to force him off the air.

[Bruupo]

A. Nice to see that you have NO IDEA what the first amendment MEANS. Cute and disturbing that you think it means we're all entitled to our own show on armed forces radio.

B. The fairness doctrine was abandoned years ago, for no good reason, but was always intended to protect the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, which the PUBLIC OWN. Just like rules of ownership in broadcast media that were specifically meant to prevent, say, a bunch of australian jerks from owning an american television network. But FOX and right wing talk radio seem to have had little trouble in convincing people with skulls as soft as yours that corporations, and foreign corporations at that, should do as they please with OUR AIRWAVES.

[Overd0g]

It was abandoned because it was antithetical to freedom of speech. Liberal talk radio can join in at any time, provided it can find someone who wants to listen (which it can't). No worry now though. In a few years, all radio will come through the internet or pay satellite providers, which will create an infinity of channels.

[Peabodies]

It is scandalous that an Australian, Rupert Murdoch, sways so much power over our publicly-owned airwaves ("privatization" at its worst). The only remedy is to go after the right-wing controlled FCC by electing, for now, the opposition, the Democrats. Then we'll see if they really do something about Rupert Murdoch.
In the meantime, I listen only to Air America. Do you?

[cynic]

Rush can say as he pleases. But the repugnance of his speech makes me want to put a boot up his ass.

Which reminds me... if Rush can spout off like a dunderhead, why can't the Dixie Chicks?

[visionar7]

Frightening to think of Dick Cheney singing to his children..­how would you like to be the baby who looks up to see part of the axis of evil grinning down on you...cooo­chy coochy coo

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

I gotta say... there are some seriously clever people here. I've been laughing the entire time I read these comments!

Bravo to you all!

[Blutenhalbmond]

Tomorrow PBS is airing a whole programme on Mr. Cheney and the Constitution. You may find it informative.

No doubt the rightwing crowd wants PBS to be shut down! Sorry about that, "whatajoke914. I guess you guys had your day (a whole decade, in fact) and it is over! And what a mess you are leaving behind too.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/cheney/

[godlessclif]

PBS sold out years ago to those corporate sponsors. You think Lehrer can do an honest piece on Nuclear Power when GE is putting him on PBS?

[bowserbois]

Oh.....thi­s wasn't real?

[OldKnute]

Hahah!!! Heheh!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Mr. Kaplan That is sooo spot on! Lynne Cheney to the max. I laughed so hard, it was a joy. Thank you.

Still laughing. Hehehe!!!

I was thinking about the whole group, the other day.

Umm?

We are being run by a Football Jock. (Dick Chaney)
His sweet little Prom Queen. (Lynne Cheney)
The Cheerleader. (George Bush)
A Librarian, and the only one who can read. (Laura Bush)
The Offensive Line, running interference. (Congressional Republicans)
The wide receiver. (Condoleezza Rice) Bout the only,, Condo,,, we will ever see.
The Referees, that keep changing the rulebook. (Supreme Court)
The Coach and strategist. (Karl Rove)
The Grid Iron, every lined crossed a CHEER GOES UP. (The Constitution.

Oh and the Goal Post. (Victory)

Umm? Well,,,, Uhh? Somebody just keep moving that!

But there at the end, down by the Goal Line is little Lynne Chaney in her red dress.

With the HOMELAND Crowed cheering, lead from the sidelines by George`s chanting,,

*Go DICK GO! * *Go DICK GO! * *Go DICK GO! *

Win one for the,,, The,,,,, THE GIPPER!

And Lynne Cheney jumping up and down far down field and shouting.

Come on, DICK.
See DICK RUN?
RUN fast RUN.
Run DICK Run.

See Lynn Shout?
Shout Lynne Shout.
See Lynne jump in her red dress?
Jump Lynne Jump.
See Lynne Jump and Shout?

See DICK RUN?
Run DICK RUN!
Dick runs fast.
Go DICK GO!

Yeeeeeeeee­eeee!!!!!!­!

And we all get to watch!

The price for admission? Ummm?

Bout 9 Trillion Dollars, everything we stood for,,,

Uhhh?

And our dignity.

All the best

Knute (Neo-LIB)

[bolderdash]

Marty Kaplan's article is really good satire, biting and relevent to the hypocrisy of the Executive branch of our elected top government leaders, President and the Vice President of the United states.

Point made about the CEO Corporate mentality of our so-called public servants, their mind set, like VP Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, promoting her new book...."I­'m writing a book about the Constitution". Sounds as familiar as the Queen Mary Antionette of Monarchy days of France's tyranny during the French Revolution, "if the people don't have bread, feed them cake instead!".­..so no wonder the royal family got the 'heave-ho' from governmental power and removed from their Throne.

Did i forget about the fact Lynne Cheney is writing a book about the Constituition for children? Whoops, i didn't know about her intellectual curiosity was so interested in telling kids about a subject so far from their sensory interests of growing up, that her total unqualified position to write a book about this subject even entered her psyche..no­w if Mrs. Cheney was writing a book to children about how to follow the first ten articles of the US Constituition, like freedom of speech, in similar fashion like Mose's Ten Commandments, thou shall not tell a lie, like my husband VP Dick, then maybe that could have some real moral lessons for kids to follow.

[whatajoke914]

It's nice to see that liberals will attack just about anyone who has a differing point of view. Lynne Cheney, who is not an elected official, wrote a book to try to teach young people about the Constitution. OK, let's all rally together and start slamming her! I seem to remember Bill Clinton writing a book, and no one objected. I also admire your ability to insult framers of the Constitution, all the while complaining about how our government is "shredding the Constitution" and ignoring our personal freedoms. Which is it, hypocrites? Do you want the Constitution or not?
If you don't like Lynne Cheney's book or beliefs, then dont buy it. That is what freedom is about, not sitting here criticizing someone who has more ambition than you do.

[MrsManarlican]

The same could be said for conservatives finding any way to use a liberal's words against them. This liberal/co­nservative nonsense is an excuse for not trying to think outside the box to do what is best for EVERYONE, not just the people who agree with you. That being said, Mr Kaplan's point, I am sure, was to point out the absolute mockery of the constitution that this presidential administration has made. The issue is that Mr. Cheney sees no problem in removing rights from average citizens to pursue a personal agenda while blatantly lying to the public about the implications, and his lovely little bride will do anything, up to and including releasing her own children's book (and how many children do you suppose will just beg to read the book about the Constitution over the plethora of wired gadgets we have at hand to prevent them from looking at a book in their unfortunate lifetimes) to further his agenda and promote the facade. I'm fairly confident that most of the people who will purchase Mrs. Cheney's book will be the very same people as you, whatajoke914, whose only ambition is to further the ignorant idea that someone in power must be more ambitious than the working class, blue collar folks I run into all the time. Telling lies and promoting the theft of civil liberties are no more ambitious than peddling drugs or suicide bombing.

[al]

I hope she doesn't quote Dumbya's reference to the constitution, you know "that godamn piece of paper." Perhaps the W might put her book on his reading list of the sixty or so books he reads a year, he may come away with a better understanding of said piece of paper.

[Economike]

No I'm going to attack people I agree with.

[wilty]

What on earth, has ambition to do with writing a book for CHILDREN?

Joke914, you appear to be somewhat lost, on this mostly progressive site. Rappin' in here about
right-wing values, trying your little jab at Clinton, and puffooning about ambition and therefore most likely, the DRIVE to succeed, are real turn-offs.

You can freely speak here, of course, but you are probably wasting your tie, seeking converts in this primarily BLUE ZONE.

See ya...

[klmebane]

PART 1


no one objected to bill clinton's book because he didn't say one thing and watch his significant other do the complete opposite, standing there with her fingers in her ears saying "la, la, la! i can't hear you!" for her to write a book to try to tell kids about the constitution after the hatchet-job her husband has done to it is insulting to my intelligence.

she has the ambition to sleep with the devil to get what she wants. i definitely do NOT envy her! and freedom is more about NOT torturing people in the name of America, suspending habeas corpus, taking people's property on a whim to plop a shopping mall in it's place AND undercompensate the families so they may not even be able to by a comparable house. to give tax breaks to the wealthy and then smirk at the poor and tell them they should just make more money. be willing to do anything, like murder our armed service members by sending them off to make them more money as if millions upon millions weren't enough to live on. to break every rule, take no responsibility for your actions, and then tell other countries that they have to follow the letter of the law.

[Aanya]

They're a couple of really sick puppies! It explains everything! What did Mary Cheney get for her first birthday? A set of encyclopedias?

[Jurgen]

Dick Cheney is without a doubt the most evil, vicious, cold-blooded, amoral person to ever walk the corridors of the White House.

[tdterry1999]

does that count Hillary,if it don't, then we have a tie.

[ManyColored]

How many hundreds of thousands of people has Hillary killed?

[maddy03]

OMG!!! what a very great article(not the artiles to the constitution) but review of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I became very nostalgic remembering what I have lost as an American.
I seem to recall that the Pilgrims settled in North America in order to have religious freedom. Doesn't religious freedom include freedom FROM relgion, too?

[doodlefarbe]

maddy03 asks, "I seem to recall that the Pilgrims settled in North America in order to have religious freedom. Doesn't religious freedom include freedom FROM relgion, too?"


Not sure. Does this sentence (below) appear to state a guarantee of a "freedom FROM religion", to you?

"The Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[EnragedLiberal]

The Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..­. YOU'RE damn right it does! It says that in no circmstances shall Congress make any law establishing or specifying religion, and that would include the existence. As far as the pilgrims go, they were running away from having the Church of England shoved down their throat. Much as these so-called "Christians" who by some chance forgot or never read any of the things attributed to Jesus are trying to do with their religion. Hey, if you want to believe in magical beings, good or bad, have at it, it's your life...and the distillations of the wise elders that end up being attributed to prophets are just common sense rules for living in harmony, not magical presents from above or whatever. If Moses had a credit card we could have investigated his purchases and found out he bought chisels and hammers prior to his long disappearance!

[SlimChance]

Well, doodle, that's how it reads to me. How do you interpret it?

[johannesrolf]

"the Pilgrims settled in North America in order to have religious freedom"

no, they didn't.the­y left a country they had fled to, which was religiously tolerant, Holland. they came to america to practice religious intoleranc­e.only their religion was permitted in their new home. they are still at it.