Lean Left

We have heard from the right-wing that no one should be confirmed to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court unless that candidate is a “Constitutional Purist”.  Of course they really want a “conservative” with theocratic views to sit on the Supreme Court, but that won’t sell with all of the people.  So, they came up with the term Constitutional Purist.

We have heard this term from the likes of Mitch McConnell and Ted Cruz to name just a couple.  It was even brought up several times from all of the Republican Candidates during the debates during the primaries.  “Constitutional Purist” has a nice ring to it, but do they really mean what they are saying?

In defense of their argument for “Constitutional Purity” they argue that there should be no “activist judges making laws” that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution.  They only want the Supreme Court to rule on cases based solely on the literal meaning of the words in the Constitution.

If that is really what they want, let’s ask a few questions and examine a few of their “hot buttons” about what laws should be passed and which should not.  Let us look at the “Constitutional Purity” they seem to demand.

First – When Antonin Scalia died, the President obeyed the literal meaning of the Constitution.  He nominated a candidate to fill the vacancy.  According to the Constitution, the President shall nominate appointees to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court and the Senate shall advise and consent on that nomination.

According to the theory of “Constitutional Purity” the President did exactly what the Constitution demands from him.  The Senate, led by those “Constitutional Purists” Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell failed in their duties to follow their mandates as laid out in the Constitution.  They have failed to hold any hearings or a vote on the candidate.  They have failed in their requirement to “advise and consent” on the President’s nomination.

They have used a baseless argument that the Supreme Court vacancy should not be nominated by a “lame duck” President.  Any President in the last year of office should not be allowed to nominate someone to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  Okay, folks, where in the Constitution does it say that?  Where in the Constitution does it say the President shall nominate a candidate except in his last year in office?  It doesn’t say that.

So, using the right-wing’s own argument on “Constitutional Purity” the Republicans in the Senate are violating their oath of office by not doing their duty under the Constitution.  According to Senate rules, if a member of the Senate refuses to uphold his oath of office, that Senator should be investigated and punished by censorship right up to impeachment.  Since these Republican Senators are violating their oath of office, I would expect Mitch McConnell to open up such an investigation soon.  NOT!

The first test of Republican’s authentic view of “Constitutional Purity” just crashed and burned.  This action is evidence number one of their lying to the American people.

Second – The right-wing in accordance with the wishes of their mouthpiece the NRA is overwhelmed by the idea that Americans can own as many guns of any type they wish to own.  They always cite the Second Amendment to the Constitution of proof of that “right”.  Okay, here are the words of the Second Amendment taken right out of the document:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That, by the way, are all of the words included in the Second Amendment.  So, with an eye towards “Constitutional Purity” let us look at that statement.  The Congress recognized that America needed an army.  However, it could not afford a professional army like everyone else at the time, and it therefore needed “citizen soldiers” know as militia to help fill the numbers if needed.  This “militia” eventually became the National Guard.

The first four words are imperative to “Constitutional Purity”.  It says, “A well regulated Militia”.  A well regulated Militia cannot be interpreted any other way than a properly trained and regulated militia.  In other words, a citizen army that is regulated by army rules!  You must also remember, that at the time of the Second Amendment’s writing, the government did not provide weapons to militia members.  They had to bring their own.  Hence the words, “being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”  If that right would have been infringed, there would be no “well regulated Militia”.

Also, at the time of its writing, the weapon of choice for Militiamen was the musket.  Not the AR15 semi-automatic weapon.  This amendment does not state what types of arms the citizens have a right to bear.  Nor, does it state that you can own as many guns as you want.  It simply says you have a right to own a gun.

Staying with the theory of “Constitution Purity” that means the state has a right to decide which “arms” the citizens have a right to bear.  It also gives the state the right to limit how many “arms” citizens have a right to own.  Antonin Scalia said exactly that in the D.C. gun case at the Supreme Court.  In his favoring ruling, he said the ruling does not limit the power of the state to “regulate” ownership of guns.

This is the same Supreme Court Justice that Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, and the NRA all claim was a “Constitutional Purist”.  But, according to the Constitution, and Justice Scalia, the state does have a right to limit the number of weapons a private citizen can own and limit the types of weapons the citizen can own.  Strike two on the “Constitutional Purist” theory the Republicans are trying to shove down our throats.

Third – Same-Sex marriage has been a battle ground for the right-wing for years.  Again, we must look at “Constitutional Purity” to see where this takes us.  First of all, there is nothing the U.S. Constitution addressing marriage.  Nothing at all.  There is nothing in the Constitution that defines inheritance of riches by children of married couples nor whether or not the government even recognizes such children as “legitimate” or not.

Therefore, since the federal government has no definition about marriage in the Constitution, then “Constitutional Purity” would indicate that marriage in the U.S. is not a government function.  It indicates that no one is entitled to inherit an estate with the “tax shelters” that goes along with that inheritance.  If a child inherits an estate from a parent, that child must pay all inheritance taxes just as if he was simply an acquaintance of the people who left the estate.

There is no other way for a “Constitutional Purist” to interpret inheritance rights.  Nor is there any other way to interpret marriage.  It must be interpreted that no marriage regardless of whom is getting married is recognized by the Constitution.  Which simply means that according to the Constitution, marriage does not exist!  As a result, the only “rules” you must follow in a marriage are the rules set forth by your “religious” institution that sanctioned it.  The Government does not recognize your marriage regardless of where you got married.

Fourth – Abortion has been a real sore in the ribs of right-wing conservatives.  Yet, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits abortion.  There is nothing in the Constitution that even hints that abortion is illegal.  Nor is there anywhere in the Constitution that defines when a life begins.

The Christian Conservative terrorists claim that life begins at inception.  There is no proof of any kind that is true, and there is nothing in the Constitution about that being the “recognized” truth.  So, where are these Christian Conservative terrorists getting their information?  Don’t know and don’t care.

If you are a “Constitutional Purist” you must recognize the simple fact that the Constitution does not say anything about abortion either way.  Therefore, it is the right of each individual in a pregnancy situation to decide if they prefer abortion or a birth.  As a matter of fact, if you are a true “Constitutional Purist” you must agree that the fight to close down abortion clinics is unconstitutional because it infringes on the First Amendment’s rights.

The First Amendment says, and again this is straight out of the document:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The fight over abortion is a religious fight.  Some religions claim that life begins at inception and therefore abortion is wrong.  Others believe that life begins much later and that gives them a right to an abortion before that time period.  By denying a woman the right to choose an abortion is a violation of their First Amendment rights of free exercise of their religious beliefs.

There is no other way for a “Constitutional Purist” to argue differently.  By denying another person the right to abortion is a blatant violation of their rights granted under the First Amendment to freely exercise their religious beliefs.  When Roe v. Wade was handed down, even the Southern Baptist Council said it was a positive for “religious liberty” in this country.  Of course now they will claim they never said such a thing, but it is already on the record.

Finally – Where does it say in the Constitution that businesses have a right to deny services to people based on religious beliefs, color of skin, or any other factor?  It doesn’t.  Therefore, a true “Constitutional Purist” would tell you that denying selling flowers to a same-sex couple is violating the Constitution.  If for no other reason than it violates that couple’s right to exercise their religious beliefs.

It also violates their right to “free speech” in that they are openly saying they love each other whether or not you agree with their relationship.  As a result, denying them service would be unconstitutional, especially for any real “Constitutional Purist”.

This argument about “Constitutional Purity” can go on and on.  But, I think you can see that if we really wanted judges who were “Constitutional Purists” sitting on the courts, the right-wing would be in serious trouble defending their policies.  We have seen several of their policies become terrible laws in several states.  If you use their argument of “Constitutional Purity” against these laws, they must be struck down by the same “Constitutional Purists” they want you to believe they love.

No, when Republicans talk about “Constitutional Purists” what they really mean is they want judges who share their backward thinking conservatism along with their theocratic philosophies.  This argument they have brought up is not about “Constitutional Purity” it is about theocratic philosophies they wish to unleash upon the American People.

You either share their theocracy or you are the enemy.  The real goal of people like Ted Cruz and Mitch McConnell is not “Constitutional Purity” it is the establishment of a theocracy in America.  They really hate democracy because it allows them to lose elections.  It allows them to not gain total control over other people’s lives based on fantasies.

This is just another reason why the “down ballot” vote is so important this year.  These theocrats must be voted out of office in order to preserve our democracy and our way of life.  Otherwise, they will eventually gain enough power and we will all lose.  Even if you consider yourself a “Christian” that won’t keep you safe from their viciousness.  Only their brand of “Christianity” will be the winners.  Except, they really don’t have any real “Christian beliefs”.

And the “shirts” keep marching along.