Palin: What Should Worry Us Most

During the run-up to the election that made Sarah Palin the governor of Alaska, the right-wing pro-life group Eagle Forum sent a detailed questionnaire to each of the candidates.

Among its many questions was this one:

"In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected
governor?"

This was Sarah Palin's response:

"1) Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children; 2) Preserving the definition of "marriage" as defined in our constitution, and 3) Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights."

Palin's answers to questions 1 and 3 were fairly predictable. They might even be embraced by some Democrats.

Story continues below

advertisement

It's the answer to Question 3 that should worry us.

"Preserving the definition of 'marriage' as defined in our constitution."

It should worry us because the word 'marriage' never appears anywhere in our Constitution.

For the past seven-and-a-half years, the Bushies have chosen to trash the Constitution with their own extreme interpretations. As a consequence, they have made a mockery of our most basic foundational document. But they surely know what's in the Constitution and what isn't. Governor Palin obviously doesn't.

If marriage were defined by the Constitution, why would so many homophobic activists be pushing so hard for a Constitutional amendment to define it?

But this is an issue that goes way beyond marriage. It raises the question of what else Sarah Palin doesn't know about our Constitution.

And that should make us all very worried about just how serious a McCain-Palin administration would be about restoring the rule of law. Would it, like Dubya and his loyalists, simply decide to uphold only those parts of the Constitution that happen to fit their ideological agenda?

It was this approach that gave us warrantless wiretapping. That gave us detainee torture. That castrated Congress through the doctrine of the "unitary executive." That eviscerated the Founding Fathers' mandate of separation of powers that established three distinct branches of government and gave them the authority to legislate, execute and adjudicate -- and prevent any of the branches from curtailing the powers of the others.

Mrs. Palin is entitled to her own interpretations of the Constitution. But she's not entitled to her own facts. What's in our Constitution isn't stuff you make up; it's stuff she should have learned in high school.

That she apparently didn't should make us very afraid. Because she's the person who would be one heartbeat away from a 72-year-old heart.

Comments

[doremusjessuponline]

"It's the answer to Question 3 that should worry us."

Good post but should be corrected by placing "3" with "2" in the line above.

[zedthewizard]

you illustrate an excellent point. if selected and without much knowledge, wouldn't you go out and memorize the constitution and bill of rights. you can always go back and recite them and not screw up. palin is a legend in her own mind.

[OrangeSam]

While I don't agree with what she said, or the constitutional passage she was referencing, she wasn't simply making this stuff up. The constitution being referenced is not the US constitution, but the Alaska state constitution, which had the following inserted into Article I in 1998:

25. Marriage
To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

[wfisher206]

Orange Sam is quite correct. I was misinformed and regret the error.

Bill Fisher

[OrangeSam]

I agree that this Bush administration has left the Constitution in tatters. We have let the paranoia of the powerful run roughshod over our freedoms and this must be reversed.

It's just that in this particular instance...

[belikejeanvaljean]

Her response, "Preserving the definition of 'marriage' as defined in our constitution.", would be a great thing for someone to ask her about in a forum or a debate. Some other questions about the Constitution would be no doubt be enlightening as well. Will the MSM have the courage to do this?

[disgustedcitizen]

Her lack of knowledge of the US Constitution is to be expected. She also thinks that the Founding Fathers put the words, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance which was, in fact, written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, and "under God" was not added until 1954.

[JimR]

There was also this answer from the questionnaire:

"11. Are you offended by the phrase 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?.
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I"ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance."

Um, actually, the Pledge wasn't written until 1892, and the words "Under God" weren't added until 1954.

[ewoman]

Good catch, Mr. Fisher! Thank you.

[leftcoastindy]

I would love to hear her explaination of how " infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights." could possibly harm anyone's 'family life'.

[Yohomegirl]

Ya know, she does only have a BA, in journalism, what do you expect!

[silverball]

pardon me for paraphrasing, but she was also asked in a questinnaire if she was offended by the phrase "one nation under god..." in the pledge of allegiance...her response was that she supported what the founding fathers had intended in the pledge....DUH...the pledge was not only NOT written or known to the founding fathers (try the end of the 1800's or early 1900's), but the god things wasn't included until the red scare bs in the 1950's....

can you imagine if sen obama or biden made these kinds of "mistakes"....

[PascoBill]

From the Alaska State Constitution:

Section 1.25 - Marriage.

To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

She probably was referring to that constitution - Alaskans are a fiercely independent bunch, and often don't worry themselves about what the "feds" think...

- PascoBill