Does the Tea Party understand the Constitution?

[DonViejo]

The Right constantly claims devotion to our founding documents. The problem: Its policies completely violate them

BY JOHN D'AMICO

Last month, 20 House Republicans, along with staffers from nearly 40 congressional offices attended the first meeting of the Congressional Tea Party Caucus. The three premises behind the Caucus, according to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who emceed the event, are “we’re taxed enough, we spend less than we take in, and we follow the Constitution.” This purported devotion to the founding documents echoes the themes reverberated at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in March, where Sarah Palin and former Rick Santorum declared that the Declaration of Independence has given America “a set of principles and values” — and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) urged his party to respect the individual “by going forward to the classical and timeless ideas enshrined in our Constitution.”

Naturally, these pronouncements raise a fundamental question — namely, which governmental policies and programs are consistent with the core values and ideals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? Are they the ones proposed by the Tea Party and conservatives? The Declaration of Independence proclaims that: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men …” Slavery having been abolished and women enfranchised, Thomas Jefferson’s powerful words should be read to mean that all human beings are by nature equal as persons.

A student of classic Greek philosophy, Jefferson may have derived this insight from Plato: “All men are by nature equal, made all of the same earth by the same Workman, and however we deceive ourselves, as dear to God is the poor peasant as the mighty prince.” All people have rights inherent in their human nature including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We all have bodies and brains. Although some people are smarter, better looking or more physically fit than others, we all need food, water, clothing and shelter to survive. But the mere satisfaction of our physical needs is not our ultimate goal. Our founding fathers learned from Aristotle that “happiness is the meaning and purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.” It is a whole life well-lived and enriched by the cumulative possession of all the goods — health, sufficient wealth, knowledge, friendship and virtue — that a moral and ethical human being ought to desire.

Accordingly, John Adams believed “the happiness of society is the end of government.” Jefferson agreed, declaring that “the care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” The pursuit of happiness is dependent on, and calls for, governmental protection of our life and health. Viewed through the prism of the Declaration, then, universal background checks for gun purchases, health care reform legislation to cover the uninsured, child care, workplace safety, laws and regulations protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink, and measures to slow or reverse global warming that science tells us is threatening the health of our planet and its human inhabitants, are essential to protect our right to life and abet our pursuit of happiness.

full article
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/11/does_the_tea_party_understand_the_constitution/

[PDJane]

1. I don't think they've even bothered to read the damn thing, let alone understand it.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. Of course they do.

Moses went up the mountain and God gave him the constitution inscribed on stone tablets which included the first 10 amendments which we now call the bill of rights.

[LonePirate]

5. Wait. Does the Tea Party accept the parts of the Constitution besides the 2nd and 10th Amendments?

It seems like they only care about those two parts and the rest of the Constitution is essentially ignored by them.

[LiberalFighter]

9. Except God forgot to include the first 10 amendments when he created the Constitution.

[Liberal Veteran]

11. He was probably distracted by all those heathens praying to Ba'al at the mountain base.

Godding is tough work, you know.

[okaawhatever]

15. Godding lol. In the south it's goddin' 'cause you know how we feel about the letter g. nt

[hollysmom]

3. learnin' is for snobs.

[redstatebluegirl]

4. Is that ever true, I am tired of being called and intellectual snob by uneducated dumb bells!

They sling it like it is a racial slur. I guess they would like an uneducated Doctor or Teacher....

[meow2u3]

16. I say the ignoramuses who hate the educated do so because they envy us

And I've had said it right to the faces, telling them in no uncertain terms that they hate educated people because they flunked out of school, and that if they can't get an education, no one else should be able to.

[bemildred]

6. No. Clearly not. nt

[DFW]

7. It's a question that can't be answered

They like to wave copies of it, like so many TV preachers, but I doubt they have ever read it intensively (if at all).

They watch Fox Noise and think they know what's going on.

But to find out if they understand it, they would have to read it first and then say what they think.

So far, they only say what Fox thinks, and they don't have to read anything to do that.

[zbdent]

8. You might have some luck for those

who can read ...

[elleng]

10. No.

[kcass1954]

12. Like the bible, they pick and choose the parts that

are relevant at.any particular moment.

[Sunlei]

13. understand history? they don't even understand they are just JBS 2nd edition.

[Igel]

14. And here's one problem.

"The pursuit of happiness is dependent on, and calls for, governmental protection of our life and health."

The pursuit of happiness is dependent on, and calls for, government protection of a person's diet and home life as much as on protection againt gun violence and health care. Of his education and psychological well being--free of bullying and, presumably being sexually fulfilled. It depends on being able to have free time to pursue happiness, and a sufficient number of available choices to be able to pursue one's own vision of happiness in a society where one is not afraid of violence or abuse, of accidental death or pestilence. On a stable homelife and rewarding hobbies and work.

However, at some point we confuse the pursuit of happiness with the attainment of happiness or read into words written 200 years ago meanings that they acquired long after that time.

And we also require that govern stomp some rights in order to provide others. When the tenor of the Constitution isn't the providing of natural rights but non-interference with those rights.

If food is a right, somebody must provide that food. If they don't, then they, as a branch of the Federal government, are violating the Constitution. However they're not a branch of the Federal government; there's no "Farming Secretary" responsible for growing food for people.