House GOP Humors the Tea Party with an Empty Constitutional Gesture

X Facebook Email Flipboard Pinterest Print Reddit

The incoming 112^th Congress looked like it was going to be an exercise in futility with Republican’s in charge of the House, but the new rules Republicans intend on implementing will make legislating a comedy of errors that guarantees absolutely nothing will be accomplished. On January 6, a day after John Boehner is sworn in as Speaker of the House, the entire 4,543-word Constitution of the United States, with all 27 amendments, will be read aloud on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Reading the Constitution aloud is a prelude to a rule that requires every single piece of proposed legislation to have a statement at the bottom of the bill citing where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation. The new rule is sure to make Tea Party members happy, but will open up disputes regarding the interpretation and relevance of the 200-year-old document as it pertains to new legislation.

It seems more than a little strange that members of Congress swear an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but need to read the document out loud after they have been sworn in. Republicans are under pressure from the Tea Party to return to the Founders’ original intent laid out in the Constitution, and teabag queen Michelle Bachmann has taken it upon herself to be the progenitor of all things Constitutional by holding instructional classes to teach the document to incoming representatives.

Bachmann thinks the November 2^nd election was a mandate for Congress to return to the Founders’ idea of America and says, “Voters called for a renewed commitment to the Constitution,” and that, “These new rules show that Republicans are serious about respecting the Constitution.” Bachmann’s comprehension of the Constitution is tenuous at best, and her remarks this past summer that she wanted Minnesotan’s to be “armed and dangerous” in case the Federal government enforced federal laws were nothing short of treason and incitement to armed insurrection.

The new rules are meant to satisfy the tea party faithful and are symbolic because as soon as the novelty wears off, it will be business as usual for the new and old Republicans who have hired industry lobbyists to advise them on legislative matters big and small. Experts agree that the Republican tactics are for the purpose of humoring the grass-roots tea party movement who turned out to vote them into office. Kevin Gutzman is a history professor at a Connecticut University and a tea party sympathizer who said that, “They humor people who are not expert or fully cognizant…and as soon as those people go away, it’s right back to business as usual.” The Republicans’ corporate sponsors and lobbyist advisers will not sit idly by and allow their puppets to waste time pouring over the articles and sections of the Constitution to justify legislation they need to continue raping America.

Experienced Republican legislators know that the Founders crafted the Constitution to be flexible for any eventuality, and that they will not pass anything if it is put under scrutiny of Constitutional novices. The Supreme Court cannot reach consensus on Constitutional matters, and one would expect the Justices to have a better than rudimentary knowledge of the document. There is also the matter of issues that may arise that did not exist in the Founders’ days.

It is unimaginable how the Congress will handle laws governing communications, energy policy, transportation, education, defense, or the budget if they stick closely to the original intent of the Founding Fathers. Fortunately, the Founders crafted the Constitution in such a way that allowed subsequent generations to follow the basic principles of the document instead of specific issues that will not be found regardless the amount of searching by inexperienced Republicans or their corporate sponsors and lobbyist advisers.

The interpretation of the Constitution varies from expert to expert, and there will be little agreement between partisan members of the House depending on their personal stake in a piece of legislation. The Constitution is deliberately ambiguous so legislators can apply the principles to a particular measure, and gives guidance on how problems should be approached and solved in a democratic way. Under the new Republican rules, the Congress will be mired in debate and controversy over the Constitutionality of new legislation; if any bills ever make it to the floor for debate.

Indeed, even the 2^nd Amendment is ambiguous because it does not address possession of a firearm if you are not a well-regulated militia member. There is also the question of exactly when the Constitution leaves the purview of the Founders when considering the multitude of amendments passed after the Founders were long dead. Will Michelle Bachmann forfeit her seat in the House because the Founders made no provision for women to serve as legislators much less have the right to vote?

The reality is that the new rule requiring constitutional endorsement for legislation is a symbolic means to appease the tea party movement who voted for Republicans in the midterm election. Maybe for intellectually challenged legislators like Michelle Bachmann, the rule will satisfy her wish to take the country back to the 18^th century. But she is stupid if she misses the point that the Constitution is not a clear document, but a guide for governance across the ages, and she certainly short changes the Founders by expecting the Constitution to address specific issues in the 21^st century.

The 112^th Congress will be tumultuous without strict adherence to the Constitution, and Republicans’ plans for constitutionally-cited legislation will result in gridlock the obstructionists cannot begin to imagine. Republicans claim the American people expect them to pass laws according to the strictest interpretation of the Constitution, but as soon as the document is read, their lobbyist advisers and corporate masters will demand they pass laws giving them power over the government. Power that is not in the Constitution, and power the Founders would not approve of in 1790 or in 2011. But then, Republicans have no intention of following the Founders’ wishes; or the Constitution.

Author
Recent Posts

Rmuse

Audio engineer and instructor for SAE. Writes op/ed commentary supporting Secular Humanist causes, and exposing suppression of women, the poor, and minorities. An advocate for freedom of religion and particularly, freedom of NO religion.

Born in the South, raised in the Mid-West and California for a well-rounded view of America; it doesn't look good.

Former minister, lifelong musician, Mahayana Zen-Buddhist.