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
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Lynne Cheney, well-suited to the role of grand dame to the next generations of brownshirts.
Don't ever forget for one second who she's married to.
Marty, you have surpassed yourself.
This one's... fridge-worthy!
Totally fridge worthy... why I'm printing it our right now! LOL!!
Sure a revisionist version, but also sure to become obscure. Your satirical piece effectively summarized the ideology and practices of this administration.
When will our elected officials stop pandering to the religious right and truly represent the constitution and the principels upon which we were founded. I venture that most Americans are of the belief that we were founded as a Christian nation, what else could you think, some Politicians and Preachers would have you believe that Jesus called the roll at the Constitutional Convention. Politicians like the President and members of the House and Senate knowingly at the expense of reality invoke these untruths to get votes. The old adage definitely applies, that if you tell a lie long enough it becomes true.
Why does the government keep trying to spread democracy around the world, when we can't even discuss it out loud and admit the true principles we were founded on. If we can't, then we have grossly failed the test before us. One of the main things our enlightened Founding Fathers railed against was religion, this is a fact, not the practice of religion, they would carefully protect every ones right to choose his or her own. But of it's place in government, to them, it had none.
Today we run rough shod over the CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS like they were an advice column or a list of helpful hints. How do we expect to help other countries with democracy when we are not honest enough to truly defend and represent our own as it was originally conceived. This is the true shame of our nation.
God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.-- John Adams,
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!-- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.-- James Madison, 1819
Some pertinent remarks by Teddy Roosevelt:
”Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people.”
“To announce that there should be no criticism of the President,or that we should stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American public.“
“Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official...
A satire hitting a little too close to home.
BTW -- is it Fiction or Non-Fiction?
uh, Lynn Cheney is on the "advisory board" for "updating" SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS used thru-out the land...uh, Georgies' brother Neil "publishes and SUPPLIES those textboioks and other educational material to the nations schools/educational systems. Convenient...able to revise and update according to a particular perspectivity and ignor whatever factuals/actuals do not support the preferred perspective. (Rather figure that too, few "documents" will surface in the future..these folks are savvy enough to obliterate any paper trail theys aware of so will be difficult at best if nigh impossible to PROVE ELSEWISE so will be labled conjecture and just sour grapes by any who dispute their versions. It will be dependent of the definition of "is" taken to far greater heights than ever imagined and refined to their sublime pleasure no matter how detrimental to the homeland/nation or its people fopr THEY have the gold/power and they know how to use it all to their advantage with all others being the ACCEPTABLE collateral damagees !!!!
i love this, why do you think they keep saying "history will judge that we did the right thing."? Because they'll write the history books!
Lynne Cheney writing a children's book about the Constitution? It's kind of late for that, with Bush out of office in a little over a year...
Bush isn't leaving
Want to bet?
She probably tested the comprehension level on Bush.
I wouldn't bet the farm on that. Am I the only one with a feeling in the pit of my stomach that something will happen and the great decider will decide to suspend the election. Please tell me that I am just a "worry wart". Please?
TrishaLou, you are NOT alone in being a worry wart about the upcoming elections. The Bush administration understands the concept that Goebbles pushed --- the "Big Lie," because they have already done it back in 2001, and it worked. Push fear and hatred, then create an incident, and people will suspend reason, allowing the government to do anything to our rights and civil liberties. I can imagine that the next insurgency emergency will have something to do with Iran or Syria, but no matter -- it will be cause for martial law. These people have no regard for the Constitution, oath or not. Their ideology is fascist, their religion worships Mammon, and their purpose is to dominate the world.
TrishaLou, You surely are not alone in your thinking.
I have been saying the same thing for the past three years or so. There will be a Gulf of Tonkin type event somewhere in this country that will be the catalyst for the suspension of the 08 election and a declaration of martial law.
Mark my words.
The book should be a pop-up book, all the better to show the young ones secret detention camps, extraordinary renditions and Blackwater death squads.
A pop-up book with warm cocoa! What could be better?
Actually, it should be a scratch-and-sniff, since it's going to be complete BULLSHIT!
Mrs. Cheeney was on C-SPAN 3 times today.
She mentioned that she wanted to go to Barnard College in Manhattan, but couldn't figure out where the hell Morningside Heights is (same nieghborhood as Columbia University) so she want college in the Midwest.
She didn't say anything about the the fact that her husband failed his classes and so got kicked out of Yale.
Or that he did business with the slave using Burmese junta against the Haliburton shareholder... (indication of his democratic leanings).
But after the their relentless efforts to stop the vote recount (which they lost) Republican operatives were all over CNN insisting that: "This is not a Democracy It's a Republic"
Perhaps we can just replace the constitution with Animal Farm: "All animals are equal, it's just that some animals are more equal than others."
"Or that he did business with the slave using Burmese junta against the Haliburton shareholder... (indication of his democratic leanings)."
Yes! I heard about this a couple of years ago. Apparently, Halliburton, while under Cheney's control, had business dealings with the Burmese military government which was in violation of several international laws. Therefore, he was also breaking the law by dancing with their devilish government. Halliburton - at the expense of the share-holders - was fined several millions dollars for this violation. That would make them a criminal organization, would it not?
As a man who ACTUALLY worked in the mines, underground, for eight years, when I was young, it is plain to see, at least for me to see that your moniker is as phoney as a three-dollar bill.
MINER?? The deepest you ever got underground was the lower level of your local mall.
Or perhaps - in which case I apologize - you were laying land MINES, SAM, at some unfortunate part of the world.
Marty
That was cute... I liked it.
Goodnight moon..
See Lynne Write
See Dick lie
See Mary and her life partner
DICK Cheney and his wife have also re-wrote the Gettysburg Address -
.
Government of the NEOCONS, by the NEOCONS, and for the NEOCONS.
Excellent satire Marty!
2nd Try. Post this and I will be shocked:
Based on your bio, I would call you a small biologist, liberal pseudo-journalist, speech-writing, Hollywood type, with an interest in law and the constitution. You have managed to cherry pick every part of that document that suits your left-wing agenda.
Well, since you are some kind of professor, a part-time journalist, a speech writer for a big winner like Mondale, and assorted other meaningless liberal posts including a losing radio network, we should all sit up and take notice to your left-wing, biased interpretation of a document you surely hate. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx is probably more to your taste.
Mr. Cheney is the one that cherry picked, he invented it, lets see we have Halliburton getting all the no-bid contracts in Iraq, the intelligence to go to War with Iraq, then of course re-writing the Constitution.
The problem with Cheney is that his greed gets in the way and can't be stopped with a little bit, he goes all the way. Not only does he pick the cherries, he takes all of them off the tree, then there is none left for anyone else.
Nice analogy but shouldn't it be
"Not only does he pick the cherries, he chops down the tree so nobody else will ever have any".
Wait a sec, he uses humor to point out that several of the VP's statements and actions completly disregard the stated rules and goals of the constitution, and you call him a liberal? If you were posting this somewhere else I might understand, but you seem to be saying that conservitives don't agree with the constitution?
Either I am confused or you are.
I read Mack20's comment as you did. When an American - any American - complains about the violations the Bush administration has made against OUR Constitution, the Bushies cry "unfair chracterizations of our beloved George and Dickie!"
You've got to wonder why they are not DEFENDING this precious document against the thieving cabal that threatens our freedoms at every turn? It's obvious to me - they are the ones who hate it.
Mack20,
--but, can you match Marty Kaplan's wit with a satire about him (or whomever), making your points about what your own viewpoint? Or, just simply attack him personally, with no substance of issues or points being made?
I get tired of people's unabashed anger -- at least be artfully expressive about what you're feeling.
It's the republican way mousel. It's the repukingcan way.
I went back and read Mr. Kaplin's bio, then looked for yours - nothing. What are your credentials Mack20?
Credential - proof of ability or trustworthiness: a certificate, letter, or experience that qualifies somebody to do something.
Exactly! The first to complain is the first volunteer! Mack20, let's roll your credits!
Mack20, Are you "shocked" that your comic ignorance was posted here? In this country, even the ignorant have the right to speak. Your easy grasp of cliches' and your facility with blunt edged hatred is worthy of great pity.
I understand hyperbole, but I doubt the majority of the readers here do. And I know that truth in the form of understanding will only confuse and irritate the chanting crowd, which needs to be fed.
But truth deserves better. The majority here have never had an honest look at simple topics such as election results or the Katrina response, let alone the seemingly complex issues (to some) such as abortion and homosexual marriage. But they would be better served with a stab toward the throbbing heart (bleech!) of unbiased truth.
With that analogy I humbly withdraw.
Same goes for you, how easy is it to tell people they haven't heard "the truth" while not actually trying to relay any of what you think it is?
The truth that Nawlin's city folk were forbidden at gunpoint to cross an interstate bridge to get to shelter and supplies, and were forced to rot at the convention center right below it instead? Even as Freepers kept lying about how they were simply too lazy to walk out of the city?
The truth that Jeb Bush ordered illegal voter suppression on a massive scale in 2001? The truth about DieBold, irrefutably a company of crooks?
Or are you really most concerned about your "complex" reaction to the truth of what gay love really means to you? I love knowing how easy it is to get under your skin, I just have to talk about gay love. Come here, I want to give you a big, leather chapped, hairy bear-hug.
Rumsfeld's response to congress, basically in a nutshell.
Americans can't understand anything beyond a bumper-sticker slogan. That's why we needed him, right?
When we quit treating others like they're below us intellectually/spiritually/morally, we'll start to see how much potential our society really has and what we are capable of attaining (such as, world peace, end to violence, end to racism/hatred/prejudice, a society where there is no one left behind -- and not even having to give up a thing called capitalism in the process).
Of course, you might be afraid of such drastic changes. Better to sneer at others and doubt they are smart enough to grasp what you are able to.
johnnyjust, why don't you just humbly offer a coherent statement instead?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
