View Full Version : Tea Party Attacks The Constitution

06-14-2012, 01:19 PM
14 June 2012
Samuel Warde (http://networkedblogs.com/yLSif)

For a group that prides itself on its reverence for the Constitution, the Tea Party sure has a lot of proposed changes to the Constitution. In particular, Tea Party members seem to want to repeal amendments 14, 16 and 17 to the Constitution and to add a few more, for good measure.

What kind of “Constitutionalist” party is this? It seems like Tea Party types would rather scrap the whole thing than put the Constitution up on a pedestal. How can a movement say that it wants it government to be “based on the Constitution” when it also wants the Constitution to be changed so fundamentally?

Here is a listing of key Amendments Tea Party members, Teapublicans and conservative Republicans want revised or repealed along with some of the key persons leading the war on these particular Amendments.

14th Amendment

Jeff Landry: reviseMike Lee: RepealRand Paul: Repeal
Passed in 1866, the portion of the 14th Amendment that has drawn conservative ire is the Citizenship Clause, which defines citizenship as extending to all those who are born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of the parents. Additionally, Rand Paul wishes to repeal the 14th amendment because it interferes with a private business’s right to ban black people from its premises, and also because it allows anyone born here in America to be American.

16th Amendment

Sharron AnglePaul BrounJeff Landry
All three wants to repeal the 16th amendment. Ratified by Congress in 1913, the 16th Amendment allows the federal government to tax the income of American citizens directly.

17th Amendment

Paul BrounKen BuckJeff LandryMike LeeJoe MillerRick PerryLee Southerland, all want to eliminate the 17th Amendment, although after Democrats made their positions an issue Buck and Southerland reversed themselves (at least publicly…..).The 17th amendment, of course, permits the direct election by the voters of U.S. Senators. Before the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913, state legislatures, not the voters, appointed the senators from a given state.

There have been additional pushes to restrict or remove the 19th Amendment which gives women the right to vote and the 21st Amendment which would in effect reinstate prohibition. (The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment, which instituted prohibition.)

Several leading Tea Party members and other conservatives have also been pushing for deeper measures to include:

A Repeal Amendment which would grant Congress the right to overturn Supreme Court opinions with a two-thirds vote. A States’ Rights Amendment which would amend the Constitution so that a 2/3 vote of the states could overturn any federal law passed by the Congress and signed by the President. To abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.A federal Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. A Balanced Budget Amendment. A National Debt Relief Amendment, which once ratified would prohibit Congress from increasing the federal debt unless a majority of the states approve. An Anti-Abortion Amendment.

And if all this is not enough, there is also a push to repeal Congress’ power to spend money. Remember, the Constitution gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” which grants Congress the authority to create federal spending programs such as Social Security.

They also want to Change Article V of the Constitution which outlines how to add amendments to the Constitution.

And last but not least, there is talk of Anti-Sharia Constitutional Amendments being discussed in the near future.

For the Tea Party along with the ultra-conservative lunatic fringe elements in the GOP to boast that they are Pro-Constitutional certainly seems a joke in this context.


06-14-2012, 06:32 PM
So they are attacking the COTUS because they want to follow it?

Back to the corner ... and don't forget your pointy hat.

06-15-2012, 02:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So they are attacking the COTUS because they want to follow it?

Back to the corner ... and don't forget your pointy hat.

LMAO! I'll leave it to the reader to decide what's being said in the article but thank you anyway Mr. Ass-Judge. BTW, what's the matter? You didn't like a pic depicting how most of us see you here, so you went all wussy on us? Well hello Sunshine! Here it is again!

I am the albatross around your neck. You will never, ever, be free of me. I will never cut you even a half a c hair's worth of slack. <span style="color: #000099">Remember this: Thoughts are boomerangs, returning with precision to their source. Choose wisely which ones you throw.~ Author Unknown ~</span>


06-15-2012, 03:26 AM
Nice self portrait.

Now, back to attempting to educate you ... something public education failed miserably at ... your first assignment is actually read the COTUS.

In particular, ARTICLE FIVE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article5)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. </div></div>

So, for your historically illiterate edification, the TPM is following the proscribed route to change what is often referred to as a "LIVING DOCUMENT" ... as opposed to the lefts's method of judicial activism.

I can lead you to knowledge, I can't make you think.