Here's how the 112th Congress will begin (can we say "historic"?):
The Republicans are up to no good. The 112th Congress is coming to Washington DC with the Republicans in the majority, and the Right plans to stir things up. In fact, Republicans are arming for war with the ultimate ammunition, the US Constitution!
That's right - the Radical Republicans plan to open Congress by reading the Constitution on the floor of the House. Newly elected legislators are planning to drag out the source document to remind Congress what guidelines should be adhered to when imposing legislation on the American people.
Those backing the plan said the goal is to "underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress - and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating." Does that mean revisionist Democrats are going to have to actually listen, or will the Republicans allow conscientious objection?
The rabble rouser extremist who came up with the idea, Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va), said the proposal "stems from the debate that we've had for the last two years about things like the exercise of authority in a whole host of different areas" from the EPA to health care to cap and trade.
Godlatte said: "This Congress has been very aggressive in expanding the power of the federal government, and there's been a big backlash to that."
No offense to Congressman Goodlatte, but adherence to the letter of the law isn't exactly the Left's strong suit. Even if Democrats know what the Constitution says, the copy they prefer is the "not deeply flawed" edition. Liberals cling to a newfangled "living-breathing" Constitution, marked up and made up as they go along...
Need proof of that statement? Here's a New York Times editorial on the "repeal amendment", where they heap disdain upon the document itself by denying it's very reason for being:
...the repeal amendment...proposal is sweeping, expressing with bold simplicity the view of the Tea Party and others that the federal government’s influence is far too broad. It would give state legislatures the power to veto any federal law or regulation if two-thirds of the legislatures approved.
The chances of the proposal becoming the Constitution’s 28th Amendment are exceedingly low. But it helps explain further the anger-fueled, myth-based politics of the populist new right....
These flaws make the proposed amendment self-defeating, but they are far less significant than the mistaken vision of federalism on which it rests. Its foundation is that the United States defined in the Constitution are a set of decentralized sovereignties where personal responsibility, private property and a laissez-faire economy should reign. In this vision, the federal government is an intrusive parent.
But as any student who's done even the most elementary study into the basis of the constitutions knows, the document was laid out in a way to promote the three ethos the Times lists and derides above. That is not a mistaken vision, it is historical fact, as the founders were understandably concerned about the powers of an overeager executive branch.
The Times has created an alternate history that they desperately want to believe:
In past economic crises, populist fervor has been for expanding the power of the national government to address America’s pressing needs. Pleas for making good the nation’s commitment to equality and welfare have been as loud as those for liberty.
Really? Besides a brief spurt in the 1930's, when did the people ever demand that their liberties be exchanged for material comfort, or even claim that liberties should be sacrificed in the name of "equality"?
Methinks the Times board is simply not smart enough to actually create an alternative history of the United States. I just think they are confused, and are mixing up the American revolution with the Russian revolution, or the Sandinistas, or Che Guevara's crusade against capitalism.
Maybe, watching the 112th Congress open up with a reading of the Constitution, the editorial board of the Times will awaken and remember what nation they live in. or maybe it will drive them deeper into psychosis.
Either way, I'm looking forward to the editorial denouncing the Constitution (as read by Republicans) the day after...